Do these diamonds match in size for studs?

[sds]

Decided to go just a little below 1.0 tcw to avoid the step up in cost. One stone is from WF, the other was brought in to match. Are these close enough size wise?

 

[stone-cold11]

More data?

 

[Ellen]

Sizewise yes, they are close enough.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/28/2009 11:07:15 AM
Author: Ellen
Sizewise yes, they are close enough.

Ditto, they look good - should make a lovely pair of earrings. I can see the one on the right is slightly larger but in real life this will not be noticeable.

 

[sds]

I was a bit surprised that less than 0.1 mm would even be noticable. The one on the left is 4.93-4.96 and the one on the right is 5.0-5.02 mm.

 

[sds]

>>more data?

what else would you like know?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 5/28/2009 11:38:51 AM
Author: sds
I was a bit surprised that less than 0.1 mm would even be noticable. The one on the left is 4.93-4.96 and the one on the right is 5.0-5.02 mm.

I think it is only noticeable because the diamonds are blown up 10x (or whatever it is). That means that the size difference is also blown up 10x. In real life there is no way you will be able to tell the difference, esp. with your head in between.

 

[sds]

>>I think it is only noticeable because the diamonds are blown up 10x (or whatever it is). That means that the size difference is also blown up 10x. In real life there is no way you will be able to tell the difference, esp. with your head in between.

Ahhhh.... excellent point. I reduced the zoom to 10% on my computer and I can't see any difference. That makes me feel much better.

 

[sds]

the only other thing I saw in the SARIN report was a table mismatch of 54.1% and 55%. That seemed a little high. No?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/28/2009 11:56:47 AM
Author: sds
the only other thing I saw in the SARIN report was a table mismatch of 54.1% and 55%. That seemed a little high. No?

Should be fine, and like I said earlier the size difference will not be noticeable in real life so no need to worry.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Maybe I''m just really picky, but that difference would bother me. Since you''re buying a set of significant stones, I''d wait until the perfect pair are found.

Just for reference, mine are .41 and .411 and for the first stone, 4.77 X 4.79 X 2.93, and the second, 4 X 46 X 4.79 X 2.93. Both are WF ACAs. (like I said, I''m more picky and since I knew I wouldn''t be buying studs again for many years, wanted perfection.)

 

[Siamese Kitty]

Sds-

I''m not sure how helpful this is, but these are my ~1ct earrings and the size difference is perceptible if I am looking for it, but really not noticeable. I am an extremely OCD person and would really be bothered if any notable difference was there. (However, I think you might have me beat, MC!

hehe) Granted, I think mine are a little closer in size, but I guess my point is that you can have a slight deviation and still have a well matched pair of earrings.

5.35 - 5.37 x 3.23 mm G VS2
Total Depth: 60.3%
Table: 56.3%

5.32 - 5.34 x 3.26 mm F SI1
Total Depth: 61.1%
Table: 55.8%

*Also, to speak to the difference between F and G (in case that has crossed your mind). Again, I''m very color sensitive and I can rarely figure out which one is which.

Of course all of this is just my opinion!

 

[sds]

Here are the IS photos:

 

[sds]

second one...

 

[sds]

I see a small amount of leakage in the first one, but overall, would you say that they both perform well?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

...

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 5/28/2009 12:20:23 PM
Author: Siamese Kitty
Sds-

I''m not sure how helpful this is, but these are my ~1ct earrings and the size difference is perceptible if I am looking for it, but really not noticeable. I am an extremely OCD person and would really be bothered if any notable difference was there. (However, I think you might have me beat, MC!

hehe) Granted, I think mine are a little closer in size, but I guess my point is that you can have a slight deviation and still have a well matched pair of earrings.

5.35 - 5.37 x 3.23 mm G VS2
Total Depth: 60.3%
Table: 56.3%

5.32 - 5.34 x 3.26 mm F SI1
Total Depth: 61.1%
Table: 55.8%

*Also, to speak to the difference between F and G (in case that has crossed your mind). Again, I''m very color sensitive and I can rarely figure out which one is which.

Of course all of this is just my opinion!

oops, the second is suppose to be 4.76 not 4 X 46

, so mine are a bit closer than I had stated in my post! lol I''m totally OCD as well! Both mine are F SI1. If I purchased over again, I may have gone down in a color by a few grades. I purchased the ones I did because they were the first pair that matched so good.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/28/2009 1:54:06 PM
Author: sds
I see a small amount of leakage in the first one, but overall, would you say that they both perform well?

Yes, they will perform very well. They''re gorgeous.

The leakage you see on the first is normal, it''s ok that it''s there. The other is cut slightly different, but it''s ok too. If you have a very discerning eye, you "might" notice a slight difference in their sparkle. If you think that''s a possiblity, ask WF how much, if any, difference there is in the look of the two.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, as Ellen said, the first stone is cut that way on purpose..you wouldn''t speak of it as "leakage" in a negative sense. I am pretty OCD about earring matching myself. It is so much easier when you can see the stones in person! I always try for the diameter measurements to overlap. And I''d want the cut to match (as in both like your first stone). However, if I saw those in real life, I doubt I would be able to tell them apart. I will tell you that I have a .95 diamond that is my mothers and one of my own that is 1.02 and I could easily see the difference.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:44:11 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Yes, as Ellen said, the first stone is cut that way on purpose..you wouldn''t speak of it as ''leakage'' in a negative sense. I am pretty OCD about earring matching myself. It is so much easier when you can see the stones in person! I always try for the diameter measurements to overlap. And I''d want the cut to match (as in both like your first stone). However, if I saw those in real life, I doubt I would be able to tell them apart. I will tell you that I have a .95 diamond that is my mothers and one of my own that is 1.02 and I could easily see the difference.

Same here, but I''m trying reeeaaalllly hard not to interject that here.

Because, looking at them realistically, it''s like this. With a head inbetween. Only if you are again, discerning/size sensitive, do I think it will bother you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ellen is usually right!

The OCD thing is a curse some of us have to live with.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:58:56 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Ellen is usually right!

The OCD thing is a curse some of us have to live with.

Yes.

 

[Lorelei]

Precious little teeny image El!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And great perspective!

 

[Ellen]

 

[sds]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I decided to purchase them. Whenever I buy something like this (or say audio components), I like to listen to the fanatics talk about it and then decide if I am as crazy as them.

I think the size, quality, and price point for this pair more than made up for the 0.016 ct and the 50 micron diameter differences between the two. I mean, 50 microns is about half the width of a human hair! I also trust that WF looked at these and signed off that they were matched well enough to sell.

Our 15th anniversary is next month and I figured it would be bad to wait for something more exact to come along (and it might not in that time frame) and then have one of these stones disappear. Then I would be SOL or out another $1000 chasing marginally larger stones at greatly increased prices.

FWIW, they will be mounted in 4-prong martini platinum mounts with friction backs.

I assume someday, each of our children will get one for their own engagements. Then mom can get another pair of whatever she wishes!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Congrats. Be sure to post pictures in SMTR!