Results have been calculated: and the average PS e-ring size is...

[gwendolyn]

Here are the results of all the data you guys provided in my other thread. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! And if you didn't take part, you can still add your info to my other thread because I will update this if the numbers keep rolling in!

Solitaires! These numbers do not include upgrades or 3-stone rings.

Total number of carats of diamond solitaire stones [original (not counting upgrades) e-rings, without sidestones, melee, etc.]: 229.616cts

Average number of carats of diamond solitare stones [original (not counting upgrades) e-rings, without sidestones, melee, etc.]: 2.59453107 cts, extremes were 0.15 and 5.01

Median (the middle of the distribution): 1.09 cts
Mode (the most common value): 1.01 cts



Sidestones! These are the measurements for all original e-rings. Upgrades were calculated as ctw (coming up next).

Total carat weight of diamond sidestones: 45.02cts
Average carat weight of diamond sidestones: 0.57717949cts, extremes were 0.05 and 2.13


Median of diamond sidestones: 0.5
Mode of diamond sidestones: 0.5

Total carat weight of non-diamond sidestones: 1.2 (only 2 posters submitted info)



Upgrades! Anyone who gave me information on their upgrades was tallied in this column. If you had multiple upgrades, I only used information from the most recent one, so this should reflect everyone's current e-rings.

Total number of carats of diamond upgrades: 106.1cts
Average upgrade: 2.35777778cts, extremes were 0.73 and 10.1
Median of upgrades: 1.81cts
Mode of upgrades: 2.0cts



Wedding bands! Anyone who supplied carat weight (presumably all diamond, no one mentioned any other stones) for their wedding bands has been calculated.

Total number of carats in diamond wedding bands: 22.48cts
Average number of carats in diamond wedding bands: 0.80285714cts, extremes were 0.09cts and 2.7cts
Median: 0.75cts
Mode: 1.0cts



E-rings with stones other than diamonds in the center! There aren't many of you, so you won't have a mode, I'm afraid.

Total carat weight of non-diamond center stones: 4.45cts
Average carat weight of non-diamond center stones: 1.48333333cts, extremes being 0.97cts and 2.06cts
Median: 1.42cts
No mode

3-stone rings!

Total carat weight of 3-stone diamond rings: 24.81cts
Average carat weight of 3-stone diamond rings: 2.25545455cts
Median: 2.0cts
Mode: 0.7cts

 

[gwendolyn]

And if anyone wants to still participate, the data thread can be found here (sorry I can't direct link): https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/so-what-is-the-average-ps-e-ring-size-add-your-info-here-so-we-can-figure-it-out.82987/

Add your info and I'll update these numbers when we get enough data!

 

[neatfreak]

All that calculation to get 1 carat! Lol.

And Gwen, your new picture is ADORABLE!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

You are such a sweetheart to do this on top of all of your other work!! And with your sweetie in town!! I tried to do find the average and mean in the e-ring eye candy folder and didn''t even make it through a tenth of it, haha.

I LOOOOOVE your new avatar!!

 

[Rhea]

Man! I knew my e-ring was small, it''s the size of other people''s side stones.

That''s a lot of fancy calculations you''ve done, aren''t you supposed to be writing a dissertation and visiting with your man?

Thank you for all your hard work!!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:46:08 PM
Author: neatfreak
All that calculation to get 1 carat! Lol.

It was much more than that! More than just that one question! Besides, 1 was the mode, 2.59 was the average...

And Gwen, your new picture is ADORABLE!

Thanks! I wish it wasn''t blurry, but I didn''t want to chop off half of either of our heads to make it a square. Oh well.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:52:04 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 5/23/2008 1:46:08 PM

Author: neatfreak

All that calculation to get 1 carat! Lol.

It was much more than that! More than just that one question! Besides, 1 was the mode, 2.59 was the average...

And Gwen, your new picture is ADORABLE!

Thanks! I wish it wasn''t blurry, but I didn''t want to chop off half of either of our heads to make it a square. Oh well.

True...but I think in this case the mode might be more telling...Considering the mode and the average are so off, it implies that the average is being heavily weighted by those few honker stones!

 

[gwendolyn]

NEL & Addy--If J was still here, I''d be doing other things, trust me!

He left yesterday morning, alas and alack. Now, about the dissertation, yes, I SHOULD be doing that, but...I''m not.

Honestly, with Excel, it didn''t take very long at all. And, I know this makes me a dork, but it was kinda neat.

 

[tberube]

So after all, the average PS stone is the same size as the most common size out in the general population. About 1 carat. Fascinating!!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:54:06 PM
Author: neatfreak
True...but I think in this case the mode might be more telling...Considering the mode and the average are so off, it implies that the average is being heavily weighted by those few honker stones!

Perhaps, but many of those honkers are classified as upgrades. Those first numbers are just people''s original solitaires, so at least some of the giant stones you''re thinking of weren''t included in those calculations because those people included their original solitaire info and their upgrade info.

It''s also why I put up what the extremes of each calc were, so you could see the range (since no one wants to look at 187 different arrangements of numbers for each tally). Anyway, although it was for fun, it did not JUST come out to 1ct. I figured out a lot more stuff than just that, thanks very much!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:58:07 PM
Author: tberube
So after all, the average PS stone is the same size as the most common size out in the general population. About 1 carat. Fascinating!!

For original e-rings, yes. That calc doesn''t include upgrades.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:54:37 PM
Author: gwendolyn
NEL & Addy--If J was still here, I''d be doing other things, trust me!

He left yesterday morning, alas and alack. Now, about the dissertation, yes, I SHOULD be doing that, but...I''m not.

Honestly, with Excel, it didn''t take very long at all. And, I know this makes me a dork, but it was kinda neat.

Aww, I''m glad you didn''t do it while J was in town

We definitely appreciate the work you put into it, thank you!!

 

[LegacyGirl]

Wow thanks Gwen! That was interesting. And your new pic is sooooooooo cute!

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:58:07 PM
Author: tberube
So after all, the average PS stone is the same size as the most common size out in the general population. About 1 carat. Fascinating!!

I thought .75 was more common?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:58:48 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 5/23/2008 1:54:06 PM

Author: neatfreak

True...but I think in this case the mode might be more telling...Considering the mode and the average are so off, it implies that the average is being heavily weighted by those few honker stones!

Perhaps, but many of those honkers are classified as upgrades. Those first numbers are just people''s original solitaires, so at least some of the giant stones you''re thinking of weren''t included in those calculations because those people included their original solitaire info and their upgrade info.

It''s also why I put up what the extremes of each calc were, so you could see the range (since no one wants to look at 187 different arrangements of numbers for each tally). Anyway, although it was for fun, it did not JUST come out to 1ct. I figured out a lot more stuff than just that, thanks very much!

I TOTALLY did not mean to discount all the calcs you did Gwen! It took a ton of work I''m sure!!!!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 2:15:31 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 5/23/2008 1:58:48 PM

Author: gwendolyn

Date: 5/23/2008 1:54:06 PM


Author: neatfreak


True...but I think in this case the mode might be more telling...Considering the mode and the average are so off, it implies that the average is being heavily weighted by those few honker stones!

Perhaps, but many of those honkers are classified as upgrades. Those first numbers are just people''s original solitaires, so at least some of the giant stones you''re thinking of weren''t included in those calculations because those people included their original solitaire info and their upgrade info.

It''s also why I put up what the extremes of each calc were, so you could see the range (since no one wants to look at 187 different arrangements of numbers for each tally). Anyway, although it was for fun, it did not JUST come out to 1ct. I figured out a lot more stuff than just that, thanks very much!

I TOTALLY did not mean to discount all the calcs you did Gwen! It took a ton of work I''m sure!!!!

No worries, m''dear, I was just slightly crestfallen to see that the first response was that it all boiled down to 1ct.

But it was just a momentary feeling! So no worries!

I am now curious to find out what the average and the mode (and the other stuff) are for everyone''s current e-rings (combining the solitaire stats with the upgrades. I am going to put together another column of data and see if I can figure it out. It will have to be ctw, though, because some people didn''t give me the breakdowns of the upgrades (which is why I only did upgrades in ctw).

So, give me a little while and I should have more info, if anyone else is curious.

 

[gwendolyn]

Additional info!

CTW of all current diamond e-rings (this includes all the original solitaire info, sidestone info, and upgrade info. If you gave me upgrade info, that ring was counted instead of your original. All numbers given are ctw.

Total sum of diamond e-ring carats: 338.386cts (yowsah! We are worth millions!)
Average diamond e-ring size: 1.89042458cts, extremes were 0.21cts and 10.1cts
Median: 1.52cts
Mode: 1.01cts What the?! Is this everyone falling for DeBeers' marketing?!

Ok. All done FOR REAL this time. I will shut up now.

Thank you!

 

[Burk]

WOW!

Interesting stuff. Good work gwen!!! I''ll have to go and participate to make more work for you.

 

[lyra]

Date: 5/23/2008 1:51:09 PM
Author: Addy
Man! I knew my e-ring was small, it''s the size of other people''s side stones.

Size isn''t everything. My original stone was .26 with .24ctw sidestones. It''s kind of pitiful looking and lost among the sidestones.

Thanks so much Gwendolyn!

Good job!

 

[Lynn B]

Darlin'', you got a liiiiiiittle too much time on your hands...

Seriously, INCREDIBLE work!

And I am TERRIBLY jealous, as I am a certified math moron! Wow, VERY interesting statistics. Thanks!

I thought this was especially interesting:

Average upgrade: 2.35777778cts

My upgrade size? Exactly 2.36 cts!!!! Haha! That''s me, Ms. Average!!!

 

[sparxs111]

So the mode was around 1 carat which is the average in North america. However I bet you money that most of those are excellent and ideal cuts, which would afr outweigh the average...

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Very interesting, thanks for doing the calculations. The nerd in me has a question. Did you see the data in a graph? I am wondering if extreams of size are right shifting the mean. I am just wondering if I should look at the medium or the mean to get an idea of what most people have here. Thanks.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 3:20:14 PM
Author: Lynn B
Darlin'', you got a liiiiiiittle too much time on your hands...

Am supposed to be writing my ''Findings & Discussion'' chapter for my dissertation. Shhh, don''t tell.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 3:42:01 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
Very interesting, thanks for doing the calculations. The nerd in me has a question. Did you see the data in a graph? I am wondering if extreams of size are right shifting the mean. I am just wondering if I should look at the medium or the mean to get an idea of what most people have here. Thanks.

No, I didn''t put the data into a graph. I listed the extremes to give people an idea of the outliers, how far to either end they go. In order to get the median, you essentially line up your data from the smallest values to the largest, and the number that falls precisely in the middle is the median. It''s only marginally useful in that it really only tells you something if all your numbers are spread evenly apart, which to some degree these are.

The mode (which I know you didn''t directly ask about) tells you which was the most common, which is reflective of the data in some ways but also not in others (for instance, there were some stones that were *almost* the same size but were off by 0.01ct so they don''t get counted as a reoccurring statistic even though if I had rounded the numbers they probably would have).

The mean, or average, was the original point of the whole thread. Although I find the mode interesting, I wanted to know how many carats would be passed around to all if we could mash them together and then divvy them up evenly. If you *really* want to get an idea what people have here, take a look through the thread where I got my info, and read how incredibly varied everyone''s stones are. And if I can figure it out, I''ll make you a chart too.

 

[gwendolyn]

Ok, let''s see if this works. I just made a scatter plot to show where most of the data lies (probably way more useful than any of the other stats I gave earlier

). Not sure if it will work, though...lemme see...

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Thanks for the review. I totally forgot what the mode is and I did remember the definition of medium (but I wasn''t sure I had it right). I have not formally done stats for 6 years now, but I may be starting a research project soon, so I guess i have to brush up.

Thanks for trying to do the graph and thanks again for taking this on, although I know you should be doing something elce . I did follow the thread. But it is helpful to see it put together like this for me.

 

[gwendolyn]

This time?

How can I show an Excel chart in here? Changing the extension isn't working, and I can't seem to save it as an image.

 

[purrfectpear]

I don''t think it will take a gif file. Has to be jpg doesn''t it?

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 5/23/2008 4:21:34 PM
Author: purrfectpear
I don''t think it will take a gif file. Has to be jpg doesn''t it?

First time I tried it as a jpg and it didn''t work. I think it''s because although I changed the extension, it didn''t convert the Excel file into an image file. There are instructions on how to do it in ''Help,'' but they don''t work on my Mac.

Am going to fiddle a bit more, because this chart is really pretty neat (man I am a dork), but I really am not that familiar with Excel, so if anyone has any hints, please feel free to share them with me. Thanks!

 

[gwendolyn]

AHA!!!!!! I figured it out! Pulled the Excel chart up and then did a screenshot!

So, yeah, here's my scatterplot diagram, showing you how the majority of folks have between 1-2 carats, and gives a nice visual representation of how many are way out of the 'norm.' The X-axis (going across the bottom there) doesn't mean anything. Those numbers are just the order in which I put the data into the chart. 187 people submitted their info, so that's why the chart goes up that high.