Is .8 noticeable different from .74: worth extra money?

[kat08]

I hope I'm not being a board hog, but I have another question for you guys! I'm trying to maximize my e-ring, especially since it's a bezel and I wouldn't be able to save the setting if I ever upgrade (plus I know diamonds are going to continue to inch--or zoom as the case may be--their way up in price over the years). Do you think a .8 diamond is worth an extra $550 over a .74 diamond? In other words, is there going to be a real visual difference between the two?

I'm setting in yellow gold, so the diamond color isn't an issue for me. Both diamonds are completely eye clean, even though they're SI2. I already know the .74's main inclusion is a small white crystal in the center (I've been told it's definitely 100% eye clean and no black inclusions), and if I go with the .8, I'll have them tell me first exactly what and where its inclusions are. My main priorities are cut and size.

Here are the specs ($550 difference between the two diamonds):

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 0.74
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI2
Report: GIA
Measurements: 5.79 x 5.74 x 3.59 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 58.0%
Girdle: Thin - Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Faint

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 0.80
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI2
Report: GIA Certificate
Measurements: 6.04 x 6.01 x 3.63 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 60.2%
Table: 59.0%
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

 

[bunnycat]

I think you'll definitely see a difference in the size. Small increases in diameter at the under 1 ct size have a bigger affect on visual surface area increase up til you get to around a carat, I think, assuming other things about them like cut and light performance would be similar.

 

[kat08]

Thanks for the response! Do you think that's true even set in a halo? I'll be able to notice the size difference? If that's true, I may go with the .8 diamond... It'll be hard for me to justify upgrading my diamond in later years, because we have so many other plans. Our next project is upgrading the kitchen (definitely needs it), then putting in wood floors in the bedrooms, then covering our patio... Ahh, the list goes on for ways to spend money.

 

[Phdecorate]

It is not much of a difference, just about .20 mm. If you really want to know if you can "see" the difference, take out a ruler and measure the dimensions of each. You could cut them into circles and see if you can tell a difference on your finger...

 

[Phdecorate]

Thanks for the response! Do you think that's true even set in a halo? I'll be able to notice the size difference? If that's true, I may go with the .8 diamond... It'll be hard for me to justify upgrading my diamond in later years, because we have so many other plans. Our next project is upgrading the kitchen (definitely needs it), then putting in wood floors in the bedrooms, then covering our patio... Ahh, the list goes on for ways to spend money.

I thought you wanted a bezel, not a halo?

 

[kat08]

Thanks for the response! Do you think that's true even set in a halo? I'll be able to notice the size difference? If that's true, I may go with the .8 diamond... It'll be hard for me to justify upgrading my diamond in later years, because we have so many other plans. Our next project is upgrading the kitchen (definitely needs it), then putting in wood floors in the bedrooms, then covering our patio... Ahh, the list goes on for ways to spend money.

I thought you wanted a bezel, not a halo?

The center diamond is in a bezel, and there's a halo around the bezel.

 

[Christina...]

A sheet of copy paper is about .1mm so if there is a .2mm difference between the two stones, it will be about the difference of two sheets of copy paper. I think that the smaller increments in size are more noticeable in stones under a ct. However if you are going to halo the stone, you might consider having the center stone bezeled and then adding the halo around it. That will help increase the spread. FWIW I really like halos on diamonds between .75 and 1ct.


EDIT: I just read that it does have a bezel. I think this is a great idea!

 

[Phdecorate]

Thanks for the response! Do you think that's true even set in a halo? I'll be able to notice the size difference? If that's true, I may go with the .8 diamond... It'll be hard for me to justify upgrading my diamond in later years, because we have so many other plans. Our next project is upgrading the kitchen (definitely needs it), then putting in wood floors in the bedrooms, then covering our patio... Ahh, the list goes on for ways to spend money.

I thought you wanted a bezel, not a halo?

The center diamond is in a bezel, and there's a halo around the bezel.

Ok, can you find out the measurements of the halo? Like is it 1.5mm or what? so assume it is 1.5, that would be 1.5 mm added to each side of the diamond so you would need to measure 1.5 + 1.5 + stone measurement. Then you could draw it out, cut it out and see what the difference is. It might be more or less noticeable to you than to others. Your ring size will figure in as well. A smaller finger will get more coverage from a smaller stone than a bigger finger.

 

[bunnycat]

Here's a link to a bunch of different diamond sizes on a hand to give you a little perspective:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/here-are-some-diamond-size-reference-pics.56381/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/here-are-some-diamond-size-reference-pics.56381/[/URL]

I don't know how the bezel will affect the visual appearance but someone else might, but I personally think in under one carat terms, that .2mm is a pretty big difference and I know it's very easy to see if you had the 2 side by side. On their own, who knows...but my suggestion is since this a a big, one time purchase, and you don't see yourself doing it again, a few extra hundred dollars is not that big a deal if you are still in or near your budget and the stones are similar in every other way except this one thing. (I certainly do understand all those other projects, we had many of the same constraints when we were looking for my stone for my ring.)

 

[kat08]

Thanks for the response! Do you think that's true even set in a halo? I'll be able to notice the size difference? If that's true, I may go with the .8 diamond... It'll be hard for me to justify upgrading my diamond in later years, because we have so many other plans. Our next project is upgrading the kitchen (definitely needs it), then putting in wood floors in the bedrooms, then covering our patio... Ahh, the list goes on for ways to spend money.

I thought you wanted a bezel, not a halo?

The center diamond is in a bezel, and there's a halo around the bezel.

Ok, can you find out the measurements of the halo? Like is it 1.5mm or what? so assume it is 1.5, that would be 1.5 mm added to each side of the diamond so you would need to measure 1.5 + 1.5 + stone measurement. Then you could draw it out, cut it out and see what the difference is. It might be more or less noticeable to you than to others. Your ring size will figure in as well. A smaller finger will get more coverage from a smaller stone than a bigger finger.

It doesn't say exactly what the size of the halo is, but I've attached a picture. The setting gemstone info is:
Shape: Round
Number of gemstones: 33
Minimum total carats: .30
Setting type: Pavé
Color: F/G
Clarity: VS2/SI1
Origin: Canada

 

[bunnycat]

It is not much of a difference, just about .20 mm. If you really want to know if you can "see" the difference, take out a ruler and measure the dimensions of each. You could cut them into circles and see if you can tell a difference on your finger...

The ruler thing doesn't really help IMO, (I tried it when I was looking) because you are applying a linear increase to an object that is actually 3 dimensional. So no, a linear increase of .2m is not a whole heck of a lot on a flat sheet of paper, but how .2mm affects the overall mass of an under 1ct stone is actually fairly large percentage wise. My fi (who teaches math) ran some numbers (which I promptly have forgotten) when we were looking to see what the overall percentage increase was in under 1ct versus over 1ct and there was (as Christina mentioned) a lot larger % increase in under 1ct than for over. IE, it's a case of diminishing returns for the diameter versus visual appearance increase once you go over 1ct or so.

 

[kat08]

Here's a link to a bunch of different diamond sizes on a hand to give you a little perspective:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/here-are-some-diamond-size-reference-pics.56381/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/here-are-some-diamond-size-reference-pics.56381/[/URL]

I don't know how the bezel will affect the visual appearance but someone else might, but I personally think in under one carat terms, that .2mm is a pretty big difference and I know it's very easy to see if you had the 2 side by side. On their own, who knows...but my suggestion is since this a a big, one time purchase, and you don't see yourself doing it again, a few extra hundred dollars is not that big a deal if you are still in or near your budget and the stones are similar in every other way except this one thing. (I certainly do understand all those other projects, we had many of the same constraints when we were looking for my stone for my ring.)

Thanks; I'll check out the link! Yes, I do want to maximize what I get this time around, especially since we have so many other priorities at this point in our life (not to mention the expense of children!). But I only want to spend the extra money if I can tell the difference. It sounds like I would be able to tell the difference from what you're saying...

And as I was typing the above, I see there's another reply. What you're saying about the 3D effect makes sense.

 

[Phdecorate]

It is not much of a difference, just about .20 mm. If you really want to know if you can "see" the difference, take out a ruler and measure the dimensions of each. You could cut them into circles and see if you can tell a difference on your finger...

The ruler thing doesn't really help IMO, (I tried it when I was looking) because you are applying a linear increase to an object that is actually 3 dimensional. So no, a linear increase of .2m is not a whole heck of a lot on a flat sheet of paper, but how .2mm affects the overall mass of an under 1ct stone is actually fairly large percentage wise. My fi (who teaches math) ran some numbers (which I promptly have forgotten) when we were looking to see what the overall percentage increase was in under 1ct versus over 1ct and there was (as Christina mentioned) a lot larger % increase in under 1ct than for over. IE, it's a case of diminishing returns for the diameter versus visual appearance increase once you go over 1ct or so.

Yes, I understand, and I agree. However, I do think drawing it out helped me.

Kat08 - the ring you picked looks like it has a bit of metal which will probably add more visual size. Is this a pre made setting that either one of your diamonds is going to be put into? If so, then I would assume the prongs and possibly the height stone sitting in the setting would be adjusted for either one to fit. An expert here can correct me if I am am wrong. But in that case, the halo itself would not vary in size so the overall finger coverage would not be changing.
I would say to squeeze the little extra if you can afford it. I am not sure how much the setting costs, perhaps you could put the majority of the budget for that into buying a stone bigger than the .80 and get a solitaire setting until you have more funds for a setting upgrade if a bigger stone is important to you.

 

[kat08]

OMG, so I called my dh to see what he thought about going to .8, and now he's talking about us making the jump to 1 carat... but it's an extra $2740!!! I want it, but I feel absolutely crazy to consider going into more debt. The amount we were spending before is money in hand, but we don't have that in hand to cover the 1 carat jump... Such a hard decision! My heart is saying "yes, yes!" and my mind is saying "be practical!"

 

[ecf8503]

Have you seen these in person? And what is the light performance like on them? A poorly cut stone will not be as bright and will look smaller. Also - the melee in the halo is F/G? And you will be putting a J in the center? You may see a difference in color between the 2.

ETA: I see they are called "super ideal". By whom? Do you have angles on them? The 2nd one is a 60/60 stone, not that that in itself is bad (I have one), but those percentages aren't considered "ideal" to most.

 

[kat08]

Have you seen these in person? And what is the light performance like on them? A poorly cut stone will not be as bright and will look smaller. Also - the melee in the halo is F/G? And you will be putting a J in the center? You may see a difference in color between the 2.

I asked the store about that (the color difference between the center diamond and halo), and she said it wouldn't be noticeable because the setting is yellow gold. And no, I haven't seen these diamonds in person. I'm only considering stones, though, that have the "super ideal" cut. I want sparkle (and I know cut is even more important with a bezel). But I'm not concerned so much about inclusions as long as they're discreet and don't detract from the stone (i.e. not black and don't jump out at you; I do want eye clean). If there as a visible inclusions, but I had to get my eye really close and stare hard to see it, I'm fine with that. I just would think of it as the diamond's personality, unique to itself.

 

[ChrisES]

I think that the .74 faces up small-typical for that carat weight, whereas the .8 faces up large for that carat weight. Provided that the .8 has a satisfactory IS and is eyeclean, I would spend the extra money. That's a lot of spread for $500.

Up to a carat is a bigger jump, of course. You have to figure out your own feelings about debt.

 

[kat08]

Have you seen these in person? And what is the light performance like on them? A poorly cut stone will not be as bright and will look smaller. Also - the melee in the halo is F/G? And you will be putting a J in the center? You may see a difference in color between the 2.

ETA: I see they are called "super ideal". By whom? Do you have angles on them? The 2nd one is a 60/60 stone, not that that in itself is bad (I have one), but those percentages aren't considered "ideal" to most.

The diamonds are from a store called Brilliant Earth (they specialize in recycled gold, diamonds from Canada etc.).

ETA: What do you mean by angles? Would that be on the GIA report? I'm assuming that's something different than the table and depth percentages. I thought these diamonds did have the ideal table and depth percentages, though? I definitely want a well cut diamond.

 

[Phdecorate]

If you have to go "into debt" to get a bigger stone, be honest with yourself about whether that is at zero percent or with interest. If there is interest, be honest again about how much you will be paying in addition. Then figure out if that is really what you want to spend. What about a .95 or so, just under the 1 ct mark could be visually similar spending on spread without the extra mark up. Or, you could consider the bigger stone in a temp solitaire setting and upgrade later...

 

[Christina...]

Can you get the crown and pavillion angles on the .8? Or can you list the report-the report number.....only if you have the stone on hold, other wise just post the measurements? I tend to agree with Chris, the .8 looks like it may face up quite large based on the table and depth. But it also may be more bright and have less fire, which also may not be a big deal for you since you are adding a halo and the tiny melee will add lots of bling.

Have you ran the numbers through the HCA? If the numbers are good for the .8 it may be worth the additional investment if it's still within your budget. BTW I think I told you this before but I love that setting!!

 

[ame]

Just seeing the table sizes on these I think neither is really a good deal.

 

[kat08]

Uh oh... I'm confused now about what ideal cut is!

I have the GIA report for the .74 diamond, but not the .8. It doesn't list the angles, but there's a picture of the diamond, which I'm attaching. Does it mean anything to you guys?

And on aside, I definitely want to go with this store, even if it's not the best deal. It's important to me use recycled gold, and I don't see myself having time to do custom work later. But I do want to get a well cut diamond that will give good sparkle.

 

[slg47]

with the setting you are getting...it might be the exact same size setting used for a 0.74 and a 0.8 ct stone. if so then there will be no difference (even if not...the difference with the halo setting will be negligible)

 

[kat08]

Here are the specs for another diamond I'm considering (I just have to decide if it's worth the extra expense; that's a harder pill to swallow). My husband thinks we should go for 1 carat, but I know that doesn't truly make sense for us. This one's a little under a carat:

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 0.91
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Report: GIA (preview upon request)
Measurements: 6.19 x 6.17 x 3.87 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 62.6%
Table: 56.0%
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

 

[ChrisES]

Ah, when I was engagement ring shopping I spent a lot of time on Brilliant Earth's website and in the end decided not to purchase from them because:

1. They don't provide as much information and images as I would want, in order to buy online.
2. I think that their settings (if you were planning on buying a complete ring) are overpriced especially given that they're using recycled gold.
3. They definitely charge a premium for "conflict-free" diamonds of supposedly known origins.
4. The only stones they sell that are not overpriced are those allegedly from Botswana, and if you're REALLY into conflict-free as an ideal, the fact is that in Botswana many Bushmen have been evicted from their land to make way for diamond mines, so I don't think that stones from Botswana are as "conflict-free" as those from, for example, Canada.

(I say supposedly known origins and allegedly because the only way we know where stones are from is by trusting Kimberly, which like any international permitting program (CITES, etc.) is only as good as the governments that issue the permits. Obviously a stone that is laser-inscribed at the mine has another layer of credibility.)

In the end, I decided that even though Kimberly isn't foolproof, it's effectively removed the much publicized "blood diamonds" from the market and I wasn't interested in paying a premium for other assurances.

I would suggest that you shop online for a stone from a PS vendor. But, if the recycled *gold* is the number one issue for you, then maybe stick with them. I dunno, you generally spend a lot more on the stone than the setting.

 

[slg47]

Here are the specs for another diamond I'm considering (I just have to decide if it's worth the extra expense; that's a harder pill to swallow). My husband thinks we should go for 1 carat, but I know that doesn't truly make sense for us. This one's a little under a carat:

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 0.91
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Report: GIA (preview upon request)
Measurements: 6.19 x 6.17 x 3.87 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 62.6%
Table: 56.0%
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

who is calling it a super ideal cut? that is not a grade given by GIA or AGS.

the angles are on the diagram that you posted. If you use the HCA that one only scores 5.6, good
https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca

 

[kat08]

Here are the specs for another diamond I'm considering (I just have to decide if it's worth the extra expense; that's a harder pill to swallow). My husband thinks we should go for 1 carat, but I know that doesn't truly make sense for us. This one's a little under a carat:

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 0.91
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Report: GIA (preview upon request)
Measurements: 6.19 x 6.17 x 3.87 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 62.6%
Table: 56.0%
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

who is calling it a super ideal cut? that is not a grade given by GIA or AGS.

the angles are on the diagram that you posted. If you use the HCA that one only scores 5.6, good
https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca

Thanks for everyone's help! I appreciate it. The "super ideal" is just a term used by Brilliant Earth. Does the .91 diamond look like it might have better specs?

ETA: I see where it shows how to read the diagram on the HCA tool. Thanks for attaching the link!

 

[Christina...]

you need four angles to use the HCA table depth crown and pavillion, if you have all four angles you can enter the data into the HCA. You are looking for stones that score under 2. Keep in mind this is an elimination tool, not a selection tool, but since you are shopping online and can't physically see the diamond, it will be your new best friend, in that it will help you eliminate known poor performers. The .74 isn't going to perform well. You need to get the additional angles either from the report or from the vendor for the .91 But based on the depth of the stone it looks like it's on the verge of being too deep, but having all the angles will be more helpful. Do you want to work with Brilliant earth specifically or would you like us to help you find a better performing stone within your budget?

 

[kat08]

you need four angles to use the HCA table depth crown and pavillion, if you have all four angles you can enter the data into the HCA. You are looking for stones that score under 2. Keep in mind this is an elimination tool, not a selection tool, but since you are shopping online and can't physically see the diamond, it will be your new best friend, in that it will help you eliminate known poor performers. The .74 isn't going to perform well. You need to get the additional angles either from the report or from the vendor for the .91

Thanks, Christina. I'm going to get the reports for the other diamonds. What's so frustrating is that the GIA report says the .74 has an "Excellent" cut grade, and yet it doesn't perform well according to the HCA tool... is the GIA cut category/scale not very meaningful?

 

[kenny]

There are price per carat jumps at major milestones like 0.50 0.75 1.00.

This is why 0.49 ct 0.74 ct and 0.99 ct are smart weights to look for.