confuzzled on face up

[Cehrabehra]

Ii thought rounds faced up larger and deeper stones or fancy stones faced up smaller... I always thought it had to do with the proportions of a round, but is it just an illusion? the stone I have (rectangular) has a spread of 71.25mm and a round of the same carat weight has a spread of 65mm (both square area) or am I doing something wrong... 9.5x7.5 vs 4.55x4.55x3.14

 

[Stone Hunter]

Hey Cehra!

For simplicity let''s assume all the stones are well cut.

Ovals and pears are fancies that when well cut face up larger than a RB that is well cut and the same carat weight.

MQ face up larger than a RB.
Princesses are deep and face up smaller than a RB

I THINK that Radiants are shallower than Princess and therefore face up larger than a RB of the same carat weight.

I THINK that for Cushions it just depends.

Some can be very deep, and will look smaller. Others are 60 - 69 % in depth and face up better.

Of course I have had to try on hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of diamonds to come to these conclusions.

Now I can tell my husband that I am not insane. I am doing research for you.

HTH

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/5/2006 10:36:15 PM
Author: Stone Hunter

Hey Cehra!

For simplicity let''s assume all the stones are well cut.

Ovals and pears are fancies that when well cut face up larger than a RB that is well cut and the same carat weight.

MQ face up larger than a RB.

Princesses are deep and face up smaller than a RB

I THINK that Radiants are shallower than Princess and therefore face up larger than a RB of the same carat weight.

I THINK that for Cushions it just depends.

Some can be very deep, and will look smaller. Others are 60 - 69 % in depth and face up better.

Of course I have had to try on hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of diamonds to come to these conclusions.

Now I can tell my husband that I am not insane. I am doing research for you.

HTH

I totally get what you''re saying, but supposedly my stone is deep at 66% but of course since it is a long stone... it is only 66% when viewed on the width - when viewed on the long side it is only 52.6%. HUGE difference. Could be why it has cumberbund issues too - yathink?

let me just go on record as saying that the system that ONLY looks at width for depth is *flawed*. There are signs everywhere that show us how we could better longer stones or other cushions and ovals and fancies, and they''re mostly just ignored and slapped with the mysterious "there are no standards" LOL

I wish some really kind hearted vendors would start collecting sarin data on "cushions" so that those of us who care to crunch the numbers could start playing with them. I''d love to make a hobby out of buying stones just to have them analyzed then return them, but I don''t have the capital to do so. Well, unless I put my ring on hold indefinitely lol