Does size matter? : )

[svobodax]

in choosing a 1.3 - 1.5 carat ( G- H color, SI1, Ideal GIA cut) round stone I''m seeing anywhere between 7.00 x 7.00 mm to 7.30 x 7.40 mm on the table. Will that make a real visual size difference?

Budget 8500 - 9k



P.S. - I thought I knew what I was doing in my diamond shopping until I read all the stuff on these forums!

 

[FB.]

7.35 v 7.0 will be moderately noticeable; the actual surface area is 10% greater.

You might find that H colour is slightly noticeable in stones of that size. You certainly would notice the yellow if you compared directly with a D, but perhaps not if the stone is on it's own.
Personally, at that size, I'd not dare go below F colour. But everyone has their individual tolerance to colour and this forum is dominated by members who'll choose size over colour.

Be aware that there are different types of stone within GIA's Ideal/Excellent cut and that some GIA Excellent stones are more or less desirable than others. Personal preference can play a big part.
56% table, <62% depth, 34.5 crown angle and 40.8 pavilion angle are widely considered to be among the best of the GIA EX.

 

[rockabee]

Date: 11/22/2009 3:24:34 PM
Author: FB.
7.35 v 7.0 will be moderately noticeable; the actual surface area is 10% greater.

You might find that H colour is slightly noticeable in stones of that size. You certainly would notice the yellow if you compared directly with a D, but perhaps not if the stone is on it''s own.
Personally, at that size, I''d not dare go below F colour. But everyone has their individual tolerance to colour and this forum is dominated by members who''ll choose size over colour.

Be aware that there are different types of stone within GIA''s Ideal/Excellent cut and that some GIA Excellent stones are more or less desirable than others. Personal preference can play a big part.
56% table, <62% depth, 34.5 crown angle and 40.8 pavilion angle are widely considered to be among the best of the GIA EX.

completely disagree with that. you can go into near colorless with that size and it will face up absolutely white so long as the cut is ideal. to me, F is overkill. i''d rather max out carat/cut and then go either G or H.

 

[Liane]

Agree with rockabee -- H is a fine, very safe choice at that size.

There will be a visual difference between 7mm and 7.3mm. It''s not a very big one and I''m not sure that it would be apparent to other people viewing the ring while it''s worn, but the person wearing the ring and looking at it every day up close would be able to see a difference.

 

[AprilBaby]

Agreed, I would go with G or H.

 

[Kelli]

There''d be a small difference. The person wearing it might appreciate a little more diameter. And also, I would DEFINITELY go for the bigger diameter by dropping the color a little. After seeing how bright and white my H looks, I''ll never pay for a higher color.

 

[FB.]

rockabee


As I said in my post; "....this forum is dominated by members who'll choose size over colour...." and the replies clearly prove that.
I tried to put a balanced viewpoint across, rather than merely my own, which is for no lower than F in platinum.
Therefore, I completely disagree with your opinion, just as you disagree with mine. Perhaps we also disagree over our favourite colour for clothes. But it doesn't mean that either of us are wrong - just different.

People vary in their ability to see tint - even when mounted and viewed face up. If you have a stone H or lower, I could easily tell that it's a "near colourless" stone, without needing to compare to a D.

Most people who will see tha stone probably won't notice the tint of colour. But a diamond conoisseur would easily see the difference.

If you were ever to compare your H to one of my "blue whites" (D-F with strong-very strong fluor) during a friendly chat about each other's diamonds (which some people do), you would be horrified at how yellow the H would look.

It's your money and your choice.

 

[FB.]

I consider this to be among the best indications of relative colour that I''ve yet seen:

http://www.jamesallen.com/education/color.asp

Bear in mind this is face-up. In less-than-brilliant-light, or from the side, the stone will be more tinted.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

FB,

I beg to disagree with you too.

First, you are right in mentioning that 7.30-diameter is about 10% more surface-area than 7.00-diameter. However, our experience shows that the brilliance of a superior cut might well make that difference invisible. In pepsi-tests in various stores of our dealers, we have noticed that a superior cut can easily beat an average cut-diamond that weighs 10 to even 20% more (depending on how average the comparison-stone is). Therefore, cut-quality is a very important parameter in this comparison.

Also, I think that your blunt statement that H-colour is slightly noticeable in stones of that size is incorrect. Again, it will be highly dependent upon the cut-quality.

Live long,

 

[FB.]

Paul,

I agree that cut quality is most important.
I also pointed out that light conditions make a difference and that in some real-world lighting (not dazzling jewllery store), a stone can betray it's true colour.
I also stated earlier that the averge person would not notice a tint of colour, but that a conoisseur would easily see the difference in certain lighting conditions.

A big, super-ideal J would impress tha majority of the population - they know very little about diamonds. If bling is what you're after, go with a well-cut, big stone of a low colour.

But when that stone comes up in the topic of conversation at a dinner party and "the girls" start admiring each other's jewellery, if that J gets put side-by-side with a super-ideal D, in the right lighting, the colour tint of the J will be easy to see.

Perhaps it's a regional thing, but lower colour stones don't get much admiration in my part of the world.

Why do the "colourless" stones manage to sustain high prices, if a slightly tinted stone could match them? Someone is clearly prepared to pay for them.

I'm sorry, but I won't step into line and do the forum chant of; "buy well-cut stones of lower colour because they look just as white as high colour stones".

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/23/2009 7:32:35 AM
Author: FB.

Why do the 'colourless' stones manage to sustain high prices, if a slightly tinted stone could match them? Someone is clearly prepared to pay for them.

Because of people trumpting the superior quality of D color for optical performance, when it has almost nothing to do with that, in the general jewel industries? It is like kind of brain washing. Say one thing often enough and loud enough and people start taking it as fact.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/23/2009 7:41:17 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 11/23/2009 7:32:35 AM
Author: FB.

Why do the 'colourless' stones manage to sustain high prices, if a slightly tinted stone could match them? Someone is clearly prepared to pay for them.

Because of people trumpting the superior quality of D color for optical performance, when it has almost nothing to do with that, in the general jewel industries? It is like kind of brain washing. Say one thing often enough and loud enough and people start taking it as fact.

So why don't your average high-street jewellery stores push the D-F stones?
They stock mostly J/I1.

In the strictest sense, the less tinted the stone, the more light exits out the top, rather than being absorbed, since the colour tints are due to light being absorbed by the stone. The larger the tinted stone (i.e. the longer the light-ray paths through the stone) the more light will be absorbed and not reflected.
You could also say the same of inclusions; each one will have a small but cumulative effect on light transmission.

Add strong or very strong fluorescence and in some situations you actually get a boost to the light emission of the stone, due to invisible light being converted into visible light - which is presumably why "blue-whites" often appear brighter than non-fluor D-F's of equivalent cut quality.

 

[stone-cold11]

Why? For someone who works in the financial markets I would have thought you would know better. Customer base, which stones moves faster will determine what kind of stones the store will stock.

With regards to color and optical performance, that has been discussed before in a recent thread on the effect of tint/fluor on light return. Theoretical improvement that is impossible to detect above the noise of measuring instruments, much less human eyes.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:07:23 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Why? For someone who works in the financial markets I would have thought you would know better. Customer base, which stones moves faster will determine what kind of stones the store will stock.

With regards to color and optical performance, that has been discussed before in a recent thread on the effect of tint/fluor on light return. Theoretical improvement that is impossible to detect above the noise of measuring instruments, much less human eyes.

Stone,

Slightly off-topic, but I should add a clarification in case someone wonders why I speak of two different occupations; yes, I trade the markets, but my "official" job is as a scientist, which I do on a part-time basis, with the remaining time as a trader.
The scientist part of me is keen to try to get some good pictures of cut, colour and clarity comparisons next year. The trader part of me is more than happy to "turn on a dime" and change my interpretation of the available facts at a moment's notice.

If nothing else, at least my periodic unusual/unconventional comments keep you lot on your toes.

Regards,

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:29:15 AM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/23/2009 8:07:23 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Why? For someone who works in the financial markets I would have thought you would know better. Customer base, which stones moves faster will determine what kind of stones the store will stock.

With regards to color and optical performance, that has been discussed before in a recent thread on the effect of tint/fluor on light return. Theoretical improvement that is impossible to detect above the noise of measuring instruments, much less human eyes.

Stone,

Slightly off-topic, but I should add a clarification in case someone wonders why I speak of two different occupations; yes, I trade the markets, but my ''official'' job is as a scientist, which I do on a part-time basis, with the remaining time as a trader.
The scientist part of me is keen to try to get some good pictures of cut, colour and clarity comparisons next year. The trader part of me is more than happy to ''turn on a dime'' and change my interpretation of the available facts at a moment''s notice.

If nothing else, at least my periodic unusual/unconventional comments keep you lot on your toes.

Regards,

 

[lucyandroger]

svobadax,

This thread is pretty useful if you can't get out and compare sizes yourself https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-size-comparison.83517/.


ETA - And I'm sorry that this thread was used to argue about COLOR when you asked a simple question about SIZE.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I am sorry, FB, but I still disagree.

In your original statement, you state that you would not go below F in this size, and that H is noticeable.

Then, you defend it by the example of a J-colour being compared at a dinner-party to a D of the same cut-quality. This is a defense of point A, by stating point B.

Such is not a good basis to blame others on the forum for their ''chant'', in which you do not believe. From my side, I would find it extraordinary if you can correctly assess a well-cut H-colour in a set stone, definitely outside of office lighting. I have met a high number of professionals, though, who thought that they could do that, and I also remember them often buying a ''strop'' based upon their supposed skills.

Live long,

 

[elle_chris]

In regards to an H being horribly tinted compared to an F. Not true. In fact, they may look very similiar. Your F may be closer to a G, the H may be closer to a G as well. You just don''t know. Grading is not an exact science and if you give the stones to 5 different apprasiers, I''m betting at least a few disagree on the grade.

You can''t make a blanket statement like that when there''s too many nuances involved.

 

[Laila619]

Date: 11/23/2009 5:40:57 AM
Author: FB.
I consider this to be among the best indications of relative colour that I've yet seen:

http://www.jamesallen.com/education/color.asp

Bear in mind this is face-up. In less-than-brilliant-light, or from the side, the stone will be more tinted.

I guess I'm one of the non color sensitive people, because I could barely see a thing when viewing the H from the D! At first I kept clicking the different colors, thinking nothing was happening. Then I finally (after squinting and tilting my laptop screen) saw the tiniest bit of a tint.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Then again, Laila, I would not base my decision on this computer-application.

It probably highly depends upon the individual screen and computer used to view this application. As such, the app seems useless to me.

Live long,

 

[outatouch0]

back to the original question...

can the average person SEE the difference in 0.3 mm ?!?!?

seriously??? Maybe if they were side by side and unset.

Don''t get me wrong, I am not saying it is a silly question. I asked the same thing during my first diamond search

Fortunately PS members helped put fractions of millimeters into perspective. You wont find too many nanometer rulers out there

If both stones are equal in cut quality, color, clarity, and price then take the (face up) bigger one of course. When it comes to deciding between an additional 0.3 mm and some other quality or price factor... 0.3mm becomes JUST 0.3 mm.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:05:46 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I am sorry, FB, but I still disagree.

In your original statement, you state that you would not go below F in this size, and that H is noticeable.

Then, you defend it by the example of a J-colour being compared at a dinner-party to a D of the same cut-quality. This is a defense of point A, by stating point B.

Such is not a good basis to blame others on the forum for their ''chant'', in which you do not believe. From my side, I would find it extraordinary if you can correctly assess a well-cut H-colour in a set stone, definitely outside of office lighting. I have met a high number of professionals, though, who thought that they could do that, and I also remember them often buying a ''strop'' based upon their supposed skills.

Live long,

Paul

The majority of opinion here agrees that slightly lowering colour for bigger size is a worthwhile trade-off.
Therefore, the casual reader can see that they will most likely prefer the same trade-off.

I put across my viewpoint to show that not everyone has the same preference and that a minority prefer to go for colour over size.

Therefore, while 80% of diamond-hunters reading this forum would do well to follow the advice given by the majority, there will be a few people who might not find the forum''s advice to be to their liking and might feel "let down".
By having a few "devil''s advocate''s" like myself, we have a bit of the other perspective.

The PS members don''t need to agree on everything. Life would be boring if we did.

 

[rockabee]

Date: 11/23/2009 5:36:35 AM
Author: FB.
rockabee


As I said in my post; ''....this forum is dominated by members who''ll choose size over colour....'' and the replies clearly prove that.
I tried to put a balanced viewpoint across, rather than merely my own, which is for no lower than F in platinum.
Therefore, I completely disagree with your opinion, just as you disagree with mine. Perhaps we also disagree over our favourite colour for clothes. But it doesn''t mean that either of us are wrong - just different.

You are entitled to your opinion but I have talked to/visited dozens of jewelers/appraisers/vendors (many very reputable with literally hundreds of years of collective experience in some shops) and not a single one has ever told me to only set F or higher in a white metal. If anything, there is a view that for an H or G, that a white metal setting could actually improve the perceived color somewhat.

People vary in their ability to see tint - even when mounted and viewed face up. If you have a stone H or lower, I could easily tell that it''s a ''near colourless'' stone, without needing to compare to a D.

I would love to test you on that, to see if you can tell an AGS000 H&A H apart from an F, face up, mounted, without a comparison stone, and viewed casually as 95% of people would view it. But since I can''t, I''ll take your word for it.

Most people who will see tha stone probably won''t notice the tint of colour. But a diamond conoisseur would easily see the difference.

Personally, I don''t decide on what stone to buy by thinking of how a "diamond conoisseur" would view it. And I acknowledge everyone can buy stones for different reasons. But I can tell you that virtually every woman I''ve talked to in NYC (from the very affluent to the more modest in means) has said they care about 1) carat and 2) cut (or perceived bling of brightness and "sparkliness"). Color and clarity are considered secondary - i.e., as long as it isn''t obvious its yellow or has huge visible occlusions. In fact, just this weekend a friend of mine told me that her gf just got engaged. She was swooning over her ring which she said was "2 cts and so sparkly and beautiful!". She asked me how much I thought that would cost and so I asked her the color/clarity and of course she had no idea.

If you were ever to compare your H to one of my ''blue whites'' (D-F with strong-very strong fluor) during a friendly chat about each other''s diamonds (which some people do), you would be horrified at how yellow the H would look.

Would it surprise me that an E/F with strong flouro (which may appear like a D) would look "whiter" than an H? No. But if an H had very strong flouro it could look as white as a G/F as well.
It''s your money and your choice.

FB, i am in no way trying to say there isn''t a difference between a D-F vs a H/G. Obviously many people buy colorless stones, are very happy with it, and prefer it to near colorless. But using the JamesAllen color tool is just not realistic. First off, we have no idea if the color grades on the screen are even accurate or just "illustrative". Even if they were accurate, everyone''s monitor shows color differently. Second, the size of that example stone is only about 200 carats or so (and yes, I agree with you 100%, an H would be obvious vs. a D at that size). Third, that picture is flat and more equivalent to seeing a stone face down on white paper than an ideal cut face up.

 

[rockabee]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:32:28 AM
Author: outatouch0
back to the original question...

can the average person SEE the difference in 0.3 mm ?!?!?

seriously??? Maybe if they were side by side and unset.

Don''t get me wrong, I am not saying it is a silly question. I asked the same thing during my first diamond search

Fortunately PS members helped put fractions of millimeters into perspective. You wont find too many nanometer rulers out there

If both stones are equal in cut quality, color, clarity, and price then take the (face up) bigger one of course. When it comes to deciding between an additional 0.3 mm and some other quality or price factor... 0.3mm becomes JUST 0.3 mm.

outatouch, i apologize for taking this thread a bit out of touch with your OP! but online debate will happen where it will I suppose. anyways, to answer your question, i personally can see a 0.35mm difference. fb correctly calculated that it is 10% bigger in area. blue nile SA once told me a rule of thumb of 10%. i.e., human perception can typically percieve a 10% difference in area. i don''t know if that''s true or not, but i can definitely tell that a 7.35mm spread is bigger than 7.0mm.

if you print this out properly, i found this size chart was very helpful to me:
http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

 

[HVVS]

Addressing the original post, I think the difference between 7.0 and 7.3 is noticeable. And there's a rule of thumb here on PS that says an upgrade that gets you 10% more area or above is worth doing. So I'd try for the larger stone if it wasn't too much compromise in either color or cut.

I disagree w/ FB about no lower than F in platinum. There are plenty of G, H, I and lower set in platinum here on PS. If you match the side stones to the center, those colors should look dandy. Just don't put a G/H/I center against, say, E/F side stones, b/c your center will look off white compared to the sides. (Don't get stuck with J/K sides for a G/H center, either, lol. Pave' might not matter, but J/K baguettes and small rounds will look off white next to G/H.)

Between G and H, in an ideal or super ideal cut, it's a close call. I think G would definitely be white enough for me. But going for size, I might try the H first, then back off to the smaller G stone if it was a high G, and if I found the H had too much tint at that ct. weight. But in your budget, what you might be looking at is premium cut stones, especially if you are striving for more the 1.5ct range. That might make you opt for the G color. I really don't know.

Somehow, over the years, I've become more color sensitive. I recently purchased an upgrade and I bought an F color after considering everything from D down to K. Even face up, I see body tint now. And my eyes see a whiter stone as the larger diameter, all other things being equivalent.

And there are color differences from one diamond to another, even in the same grade. Fluor was mentioned. Some diamonds have a yellow, brown, or gray subtle tint that may or may not make them look a little brighter or darker. That might be something to ask about with the H stones. (I have one H that looks alarmingly brown unmounted and face down, lol. Looks great mounted and from the side, though.) I think the largest the ct. weight, and the farther down the near-colorless and light yellow range, the more the diamond just has to be seen in person.

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 11/23/2009 10:13:17 AM
Author: rockabee

Date: 11/23/2009 9:32:28 AM

Author: outatouch0

back to the original question...


can the average person SEE the difference in 0.3 mm ?!?!?


seriously??? Maybe if they were side by side and unset.


Don''t get me wrong, I am not saying it is a silly question. I asked the same thing during my first diamond search

Fortunately PS members helped put fractions of millimeters into perspective. You wont find too many nanometer rulers out there

If both stones are equal in cut quality, color, clarity, and price then take the (face up) bigger one of course. When it comes to deciding between an additional 0.3 mm and some other quality or price factor... 0.3mm becomes JUST 0.3 mm.

outatouch, i apologize for taking this thread a bit out of touch with your OP! but online debate will happen where it will I suppose. anyways, to answer your question, i personally can see a 0.35mm difference. fb correctly calculated that it is 10% bigger in area. blue nile SA once told me a rule of thumb of 10%. i.e., human perception can typically percieve a 10% difference in area. i don''t know if that''s true or not, but i can definitely tell that a 7.35mm spread is bigger than 7.0mm.


if you print this out properly, i found this size chart was very helpful to me:

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

I don''t mind the debate at all - like it in fact - even when someone disagrees with me

I just thought my post needed a segue back to the topic since it was a break from the preceding post(s)