my new 1.75 RB seems the same size (if not very close) to my .73 RB

[i_love_diamonds]

Why does my new center stone seem practically the same size as my .73 old one?? I cross-referenced with bluenile and the diameter of my new diamond is in accordance with their ideal cut diamonds.

Do round diamonds just generally look smaller then a rectangle shape or other type??

i just wanted it to look significantly bigger and it doesn''t. i''m a little bummed out, but...at least this one is WAY more sparkly.

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome to PS.

Sometimes the difference isn't as much as we think, although that is a nice jump in size and it should look considerably larger...A 1.75 ct round should measure about 7.8 mm and a .73 is around 5.8 - could you post the diameter measurements of each diamond and the proportions such as the depth, table etc? Are they both rounds? If not then that is a different kettle of fish. Rounds generally will look larger for weight that Princess and Asschers, pears, ovals and marquise usually look bigger for their weight, emerald cuts and radiants it can vary according to length to width ratio also.

Cut proportion can make a huge difference too as to how large a diamond faces up with many shapes - cut too deep with a thick girdle, the diamond may look small for it's weight, shallow the reverse applies.

Also although not exact, this size chart will give you a visual idea of the face up size differences.

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

 

[neatfreak]

Unfortunately diamond sizes are not linear. For example, a 1ct. stone won''t be twice as big face up as a .5 carat stone because a lot of the added weight is down where it isn''t visible.

What are the differences in dimensions between the two?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/2/2007 1:15:40 PM
Author: neatfreak
Unfortunately diamond sizes are not linear. For example, a 1ct. stone won't be twice as big face up as a .5 carat stone because a lot of the added weight is down where it isn't visible.

What are the differences in dimensions between the two?

Good point NF.

You can also get further info from the shape tips link here.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/ShapeTutorials/ShapeTips1/

 

[i_love_diamonds]

hmm, i guess you''re right. (about the jump in size)...although, i wish it would do that. lol

i no longer have the older diamond, i traded it in and put it towards the new one.

you would wonder why ppl would then pay $$$ for a....2 ct or 1.5 ct when they could get an amazing quality 1ct and it would probably look the same.

interesting stuff to learn as i go along.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 8/2/2007 1:48:14 PM
Author: i_love_diamonds
hmm, i guess you''re right. (about the jump in size)...although, i wish it would do that. lol


i no longer have the older diamond, i traded it in and put it towards the new one.


you would wonder why ppl would then pay $$$ for a....2 ct or 1.5 ct when they could get an amazing quality 1ct and it would probably look the same.


interesting stuff to learn as i go along.

It''s true to an extent. There isn''t much size difference between a 1ct and a 1.5 in the scheme of things. Most people just don''t realize how much extra carat weight it takes for a stone to get even 1mm added on to the "face up" look.

BUT that being said, I think a lot of people take pride in saying their ring is 1.5 or 2ct or whatever. Otherwise, everyone would be looking for ideally cut stones to maximize the face up size and many people are content getting a poorly cut stone that technically is a 1.5 even if it only looks like a 1ct...

 

[Stone Hunter]

As Lorelei said please post the mm dimensions of the two stones. Maybe they really aren''t much different and you need to have a chat with your jeweler. Or maybe they are but you expected a more visible difference?!

I''m glad that it sparkles more. That is a very good sign.

 

[mrssalvo]

the dementions of your two stones would definitely help. here is a chart from amazon that shows the differnt shapes and sizes too..

ok, go to this link and look for carat, click on it and it will allow you to downlowd a printable chart that will help with actual diamond sizes..
http://www.amazon.com/gp/gsl/search/finder/?productGroupID=loose%5fdiamonds


and here's a pic with rounds to give you an idea of how the size increases...

Model's middle finger is a 6 US ring size (used to try and fit more rings on the upper knuckle).

Sizes: From left to right: 1.02ct [E/VS1], 1.21ct [G/VVS1], 1.51ct [F/SI1] and 2.01ct. [E/VS1] SuperbCert H&A diamonds

 

[Stone Hunter]

Cool picture.

I have a chart that I find really helpful when thinking about stone sizes. Nothing like having it printed in black and white!

 

[kcoursolle]

Everyone has already added really good points.

Did you also change settings? Sometimes how a diamond is set makes it look larger/smaller. For example halos and bezels make the stone look huge.

 

[fleur-de-lis]

Date: 8/2/2007 1:09:22 PM
Author:i_love_diamonds
Why does my new center stone seem practically the same size as my .73 old one?? I cross-referenced with bluenile and the diameter of my new diamond is in accordance with their ideal cut diamonds.

Do round diamonds just generally look smaller then a rectangle shape or other type??

i just wanted it to look significantly bigger and it doesn''t. i''m a little bummed out, but...at least this one is WAY more sparkly.

The highlighted portion begs the question-- was your prior diamond a different, elongated cut like an emerald, oval, or marquis?

(If so, it''d be like comparing apples to oranges... or, more accurately, apples to bananas!)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/2/2007 4:15:17 PM
Author: fleur-de-lis

Date: 8/2/2007 1:09:22 PM
Author:i_love_diamonds
Why does my new center stone seem practically the same size as my .73 old one?? I cross-referenced with bluenile and the diameter of my new diamond is in accordance with their ideal cut diamonds.

Do round diamonds just generally look smaller then a rectangle shape or other type??

i just wanted it to look significantly bigger and it doesn''t. i''m a little bummed out, but...at least this one is WAY more sparkly.

The highlighted portion begs the question-- was your prior diamond a different, elongated cut like an emerald, oval, or marquis?

(If so, it''d be like comparing apples to oranges... or, more accurately, apples to bananas!)

Yes I am waiting for info on that too as that would be enlightening!

 

[Ellen]

Guys, it says RB at the end of the title. I took that to mean Round Brilliant...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/2/2007 5:01:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Guys, it says RB at the end of the title. I took that to mean Round Brilliant...

i fink i missed that bit.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/2/2007 5:03:39 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/2/2007 5:01:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Guys, it says RB at the end of the title. I took that to mean Round Brilliant...

i fink i missed that bit.

 

[decodelighted]

It''s possible that your original (less sparkly) diamond was very shallow & spready. It might have had the face up appearance of a 1ct+ stone. So an upgrade to 1.75 wouldn''t have been the jump in size you EXPECTED to see.

Sounds like your new stone is beautiful though! Would you be willing to trade it in for a shape that faces up larger than RBs ... like a pear or an oval or a marquise? You might have to sacrifice SOME of the sparkliness for a cut with fewer facets or less ideal proportions (since shapes other than RBs & Princesses don''t have "super ideal" specs to follow).

Is the new stone set LOWER than the other one was? That can vastly affect "looks" too.

 

[i_love_diamonds]

yes, both diamonds (old and new) are round brilliant (RB). The first one, the .73 i felt absorbed a lot of light. it was a poor cut diamond, imo. so, to that effect, maybe the table was larger than it should have been. i love that chart though, with the model wearing all those rings. it really helps.

I played around with changing the shape of the stone, but i really don't like pears or marquese (unless they were jessica simpson or victoria beckhams rings! lol)

thanks again for all your help!

edit to add: my setting stayed the same. round channel set wedding set in white gold. DH won't let me change the setting...he's very sentimental. lol

 

[:)]

Date: 8/2/2007 1:48:14 PM
Author: i_love_diamonds
hmm, i guess you''re right. (about the jump in size)...although, i wish it would do that. lol

i no longer have the older diamond, i traded it in and put it towards the new one.

you would wonder why ppl would then pay $$$ for a....2 ct or 1.5 ct when they could get an amazing quality 1ct and it would probably look the same.

interesting stuff to learn as i go along.

THere is quite a clear, undeniable, visible difference in those carat weights **when comparing well cut stones to well cut stones**. If your first stone was poorly cut, it may have been quite shallow with a wide spread for its weight, hence the lack of sparkle that you wanted, yet thus the reason you feel it appeared close in size to the stone you have now. There would definitely be a clear visible difference between round stones of a 0.73 and 1.75 weights (again if both had been properly cut).