Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Question: Carat wt. VS. perceived size

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
H

hawk

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
32
Hi PSers,
Need your knowledge on the carat weight vs. perceived size. With the same carat weight, one diamond could appear to be bigger than the other. How would I be able to determine if a diamond would look bigger or smaller than its peer diamonds with the same wt? Does this affect the price of the diamond at all?

Linda
 
The dimensions listed on the certificate show you how big it "faces up". The first two numbers are the LxW and the last the Depth. It''s called a diamond''s "spread" but beware that stones that face up very big for their carat weight are often cut very shallow and will appear lifeless so you need to go with a happy medium.
 
As Neatfreak points out, there are variables which can affect the perceived visual size of the diamond. The first thing you want to look for is the millimeter size. From this you can compare with the millimeter size of a well cut diamond.

Secondly you want to see if the diamond has a full "edge to edge" brilliance. An Idealscope or ASET image is excellent for this. If the edge is lifeless, it will appear smaller than a well cut diamond even though the mm size might be the same between the two.
 
Don''t fall for the idea of picking a stone that faces up much larger than it''s carat weight. It will be cut very shallow and you won''t have top light performance. Aim for an ideal cut stone, which balances all the important things, ie. depth, table size, crown and pavillion angles to give you a really well cut stone that will face up like it should and have top light performance.

Also, some shapes face up smaller than others. You can''t beat a round for their sparkliness, but they also face up good for their carat weight. Deeper cuts will face up smaller. Do a search for the Diamond Size Comparison thread. I believe asschers are one of the worst cuts for facing up small.
 
Thanks all for answering my question. I am looking at a stone that is round 1.61carat, ideal cut. Depth 62% Table 57% Crown 35degrees and Pavillion angel 41 degrees. The dimension is 7.48*7.53*4.65. When I did a search on pricescope, I noticed that its table size is smaller than a lot of the stones with the same carat weight. Is this a good stone? I order the idealscop for it but haven''t got it yet.
 
It might be a little bit smaller, but if you can post the idealscope (when you receive it) I''m sure the experts here can give you a thumbs up or thumbs down!

The 62% table (someone please correct me if I am wrong!) is on the deeper end but is certainly within the range of ideal.
 
Date: 8/21/2008 1:56:30 PM
Author: hawk
Thanks all for answering my question. I am looking at a stone that is round 1.61carat, ideal cut. Depth 62% Table 57% Crown 35degrees and Pavillion angel 41 degrees. The dimension is 7.48*7.53*4.65. When I did a search on pricescope, I noticed that its table size is smaller than a lot of the stones with the same carat weight. Is this a good stone? I order the idealscop for it but haven''t got it yet.
Click to expand...
The diamond could be promising, but the Idealscope will be very useful in this case, so post that when you get it!
 
Do you know how to attach the idealscope pic in here? The file is too big and I can''t get to print screen either. Any other ways? Thanks!
 
Finally, I uploaded the file. Please take a look at the attached idealscope
I am no expert, but I thought it looked ok to me. Your advice is very much appreciated! Thanks!!!!

1114947ideal.JPG
 
Is this a good diamond? Please comment.
 
hi, hawk. A table of 57% is nothing to worry about. 7.48*7.53 is the diameter, not the table. the stone is a little bit leaky. I'm not sure if you would be able to perceive any decreased performance IRL, though. If you're looking for super-ideal, pass. It's probably still a pretty stone.
 
Date: 8/21/2008 2:19:53 PM
Author: jsm
It might be a little bit smaller, but if you can post the idealscope (when you receive it) I''m sure the experts here can give you a thumbs up or thumbs down!

The 62% table (someone please correct me if I am wrong!) is on the deeper end but is certainly within the range of ideal.
Click to expand...
Just a friendly correction
2.gif
62% is the depth, not the table. Depth is fine, and the table 57% is good also.

An ok stone, but as Julie points out, if you want a top stone, I would keep looking.
 
Hawk it looks ok but there is a bit of leakage as I suspected there might be, that is the reason why I advised the Idealscope image. It may still be a good looking stone, but it depends on what you want - as Honey says if you want a top make diamond, then look for another.
 
Good advice, all around.

My two cents... From my experience, this degree of leakage looks (much) worse in the Idealscope image than it does to the eye. I think most people wouldn't even pick it up with the eye.

This should be a very nice looking stone. I wouldn't really consider a 62% depth as "deep" either. It doesn't fall outside of the range which could be considered "ideal".

Sometimes the number crunching can fail to give a stone its proper due. A lot of this "variation" can not be detected with the eye. Not too say that it's not nice to have a stone "perfect" in every respect, but the truth is there are a lot of gorgeous diamonds out there which might not line up in every detail with "super ideal" cut diamonds.
 
Hi All,
Thank you very much for all of your valuable advice.
I did pick out two other stone. I would like to compare all of the three stones.
Spec. they are all SI2 J
Stone 1 is the stone with the above idealscope.
Depth 62% Table 57% Crown 35 degrees, Pav 41degrees. HCA 2.4 dim: 7.48*7.53*4.65 $6690 1.61 ct
Stone 2
Depth 61.7% Table 57% Crown 35.5 pav 40.6 dim: 7.67*7.72*4.75 HCA 1.4 $7820 1.73 ct
Stone 3
Depth 60.3% Tale 56% Crown 33.5 pav 40.8 dim: 7.78*7.81*4.70 HCA 0.8 $8140 1.72ct
My main criteiria is to look at the cost and also the size. Do you think there is a noticeable among all of the stone with the different diameters? Do you think it is worth the extra money to get a larger stone? I would like to get a stone that looks larger. :-)
Thank you very much in advance for your input.
I am getting the idealscope for stone 2 and 3. I''ll post them when i get them.
 
Date: 8/25/2008 10:17:36 AM
Author: hawk
Hi All,
Thank you very much for all of your valuable advice.
I did pick out two other stone. I would like to compare all of the three stones.
Spec. they are all SI2 J
Stone 1 is the stone with the above idealscope.
Depth 62% Table 57% Crown 35 degrees, Pav 41degrees. HCA 2.4 dim: 7.48*7.53*4.65 $6690 1.61 ct
Stone 2
Depth 61.7% Table 57% Crown 35.5 pav 40.6 dim: 7.67*7.72*4.75 HCA 1.4 $7820 1.73 ct
Stone 3
Depth 60.3% Tale 56% Crown 33.5 pav 40.8 dim: 7.78*7.81*4.70 HCA 0.8 $8140 1.72ct
My main criteiria is to look at the cost and also the size. Do you think there is a noticeable among all of the stone with the different diameters? Do you think it is worth the extra money to get a larger stone? I would like to get a stone that looks larger. :-)
Thank you very much in advance for your input.
I am getting the idealscope for stone 2 and 3. I''ll post them when i get them.
Click to expand...
Hawk, can you get Idealscope images for the other two above? They could be contenders certainly, but an IS image would help, the larger diamond especially might fit the bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top