I think you could tell the difference if those were side by side. But there wouldn''t be a huge difference otherwise. Here''s a picture of three stones. I don''t remember the exact mm, but you can estimate approximately 7.2 for the 1.4 ct., 6.5 for the 1.0 ct., and about 6.9mm for the 1.23.
Those two pictures are great. The 1.37 and 1.46 won't have much of a visible difference. I think you need at least a .30 ct difference for the size to be noticeable.
Well this is all good news. I didn't want this info to bias any comments, but the smaller stone I'm looking at is a better color grade and $2,700 less!!
I was wary of the smaller one, because I was originally looking at a 1.5, then I dropped to the 1.46 because of the price - now if I drop again to an even smaller stone (1.37) I don't want it to look too small compared to the 1.5 I was originally looking at.
Thanks for all the input and comparison pictures!
Well, I was originally looking at just under 1.5 myself. Those sizes are very hard to come by. Last week I ordered a 1.37 and a 1.63. One was a little small and the other a little large. But ultimately I went with the larger stone. If you can afford the 1.46 and it is a well cut stone and not too low in color, then I'd certainly encourage you to go for it! That size is hard to find and diamonds only grow more expensive over time. I'll give you a link to my thread and you can scroll down and see a few pictures of those sizes:
size differences are pretty hard to tell apart unless the diamonds are side by side. big and just a little bigger pretty much look the same to someone not doing a direct comparison.
(hey sureshoe, i think ps is great too!
)
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.