A wider shape comparison - just for fun...

[tberube]

Once again I read someone else''s with an interesting topic and decide to start a new thread with a subtopic of it. I''m a total theif.

So dalan71 posted a topic questioning the larger "look" of round brilliants over princess cuts. Then Skippy, the helpful little ball of sunshine she always is, posted this diamond size chart for the purpose of comparison.

http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

It is a helpful little chart, and I thought it would be fun to examine it more closely and, with all things being equal, try to figure out the size order all the diamond cuts "look" like they fall in. I used the 1ct. column for reference, and here''s what I came up with, largest to smallest.

1. marquise
2. round brilliant
3. radiant
4. emerald
5. princess
6. cushion
7. oval
8. pear
9. asscher

(I left out the heart and trillion due to their lesser popularity)

I''m curious to learn how other people "see" this comparison.

 

[Skippy123]

heheee you are too cute, thanks!!!! I have a friend who has a marquise and it looks huge! I would have thought an oval looked bigger than a rb.

 

[vespergirl]

That''s really interesting - but I think that all of the elongated shapes tend to look larger than rounds, because of the way the long shape pulls the eye up & down. My mom has a marquise that''s 1.5 carats but looks totally huge, like 12 mm. My friend has a 1 carat oval with pear sides that also looked much bigger than my 2 carat asscher did - it was narrower, but much longer. I think the order goes like this, to my eye at least:

Marquise
Pear
Oval
Radiant
Emerald
Round
Cushion
Princess
Asscher

 

[chrono]

I thought pears and ovals are father up the list: pears because many are shallow (nature of the cut) and ovals because they fool the eye like the marquise. Also, ECs will look bigger than princesses because they have smaller depths. A well cut PS is in the 70''s and a well cut EC is in the 65''s.

 

[BriBee]

I also think that, depending on the shape of the cushion, they can sometimes look bigger (although in general I think they face up smaller in the more sqaure shapes). My cushion is more elongated and looks bigger because of that.

 

[FireGoddess]

Date: 12/19/2007 10:47:30 AM
Author:tberube

Once again I read someone else''s with an interesting topic and decide to start a new thread with a subtopic of it. I''m a total theif.

So dalan71 posted a topic questioning the larger ''look'' of round brilliants over princess cuts. Then Skippy, the helpful little ball of sunshine she always is, posted this diamond size chart for the purpose of comparison.

http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

It is a helpful little chart, and I thought it would be fun to examine it more closely and, with all things being equal, try to figure out the size order all the diamond cuts ''look'' like they fall in. I used the 1ct. column for reference, and here''s what I came up with, largest to smallest.

1. marquise
2. round brilliant
3. radiant
4. emerald
5. princess
6. cushion
7. oval
8. pear
9. asscher

(I left out the heart and trillion due to their lesser popularity)

I''m curious to learn how other people ''see'' this comparison.

Uh, there is NO WAY a pear ranks just above an asscher of equal weight as among the smallest face up, unless it''s cut with an absurdly ridiculous depth percentage!! It easily looks bigger than a rb of equal weight.

 

[Lynn B]

A friend of mine got what I thought was a HUGE marquise... but when I looked reeeeeally close, it is TWO triangle-ish-shaped diamonds, butted up against each other. Her husband got it for her at the mall. I wonder if this a new *thang*?

 

[tberube]

thanks for your feedback, everyone! It's interesting to see what evryone else knows about the size comparisons. Because I haven't seen in person all the different types, I only had that chart to go by. (and my near-sighted vision!)

 

[tberube]

Date: 12/19/2007 3:24:19 PM
Author: FireGoddess

Date: 12/19/2007 10:47:30 AM

Author:tberube


Once again I read someone else''s with an interesting topic and decide to start a new thread with a subtopic of it. I''m a total theif.

So dalan71 posted a topic questioning the larger ''look'' of round brilliants over princess cuts. Then Skippy, the helpful little ball of sunshine she always is, posted this diamond size chart for the purpose of comparison.

http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

It is a helpful little chart, and I thought it would be fun to examine it more closely and, with all things being equal, try to figure out the size order all the diamond cuts ''look'' like they fall in. I used the 1ct. column for reference, and here''s what I came up with, largest to smallest.

1. marquise

2. round brilliant

3. radiant

4. emerald

5. princess

6. cushion

7. oval

8. pear

9. asscher

(I left out the heart and trillion due to their lesser popularity)

I''m curious to learn how other people ''see'' this comparison.

Uh, there is NO WAY a pear ranks just above an asscher of equal weight as among the smallest face up, unless it''s cut with an absurdly ridiculous depth percentage!! It easily looks bigger than a rb of equal weight.

Okay firegoddess, I''ll believe that!! Esp. since your pear is so big and beautiful!