I have read that in order to see a visual difference in diamonds it has to be 20% bigger. For example if it''s a 1.5ctw, in order to see a size difference it has to 1.8ctw. Assuming they are ideal cuts, is this true?
I think that is a reasonable guideline to use. I went from a 1.0 carat diamond to a 1.24 carat diamond. You can definately see a difference between them when they are compared up close, but from a distance it is much harder to tell.
Appearance of size can be affected by a few things. The weight of a stone alone may not necessarily be what causes a stone to look bigger. A well cut, very sparkly stone will face up looking bigger than a poorly cut stone of the same weight. A stone on the "spready" side may look bigger than a decent cut of the same weight (but probably won''t sparkle as much). The shape of the stone can affect the apparent size too (an asscher and a cushion will have a lot of their weight in their pavillions, not in their crowns/tables, making them smaller in diameter mm''s). Also, what you set it in can have a huge impact. A round brilliant, ideally cut stone, set in a well made halo (Leon M., Daniel K., Ritani, etc.) will look gigantic next to the same stone in a solitaire setting.
Also the depth of the diamond can make a difference, if it is too deep this can make it face up smaller and a thick girdle can waste weight too. There are many variables to take into account as well as diameter measurements.
I think small differences in size make a bigger difference in smaller diamonds.
Once you get over a ct or so and they arent side by side I think it takes a bigger difference to make it look any great amount bigger than say going up from a .15ct.
ct is the weight of the diamond not the size to compare you really have to look at the mm sizes.
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.