SHAPE vs. SIZE :)

[Asscher102]

Hi!

Let''s say there are the four shapes....

asscher,
square-cut radiant,
princess,
and round.

And all four of them are 1.50 in carat size or at least very close in carat size!

Due to their *shape*, which shape of those 4 will always appear larger and why?

Thank you very much!!!!

 

[choro72]

This might help.

Basically, comparing a round shape with a square shape in the same carat weight, the round one has a larger diameter. Oval or Marquise are actually bigger than round, but round will show more brilliance.

Of course this general statement assumes that all other factors are equal.

 

[hairgirl95]

I am very much a size girl, and I like to get the most spread for my carat weight!

So, assuming all things are equal between the shapes you suggested, the square shapes (radiant, asscher, and princess) are ALL going to "face up" smaller than a round. They may all be the same carat weight, but the squares will look smaller compared to the round. Check out the link that Chrono posted--it gives great examples. If you are looking to MAXIMIZE the size appearance for the carat weight, as Chrono said, oval and marquise are going to give you more size appearance. For an example for you, I just changed stones last week. I had a 2.0 carat Radiant (rectangle not square), and the dimensions were roughly 7.60mm X 6.50mm. I traded the stone in for a 2.0 carat Oval, and its dimensions are roughly 9.70mm X 7.60mm. (Sorry I don't have the stones paperwork in front of me hence the estimate

) I will say my radiant was a very deep cut (84% uugh) so I lost some of the size appearance due to the depth. The oval I purchased is in the 53% depth vicinity, so its more shallow, giving the stone more size appearance. If you look at Chrono's guide link, the dimensions of my oval actually face up similar to a 2.5 carat but its really a 2.0 carat. In comparison, the radiant I had actually faced up more like a 1.5 carat and it was a 2.0 carat. Depth makes a huge difference!! Sorry for all the rambling here. Just sharing a point of view! You have to decide what is most important to you. Are you dead set on a certain cut? You seem to gravitate towards the square cuts (since 3 of the 4 shapes you posted are square.) Or is maximum size appearance more important to you? I look forward to seeing what you pick and reading the great advice you will get here. Good luck!!

 

[Lorelei]

Out of the ones you posted, the round ( if well cut) would probably look the biggest.

Shapes which can look the largest for their carat weight are pears, marquise and oval generally, Asschers can look small, but various factors can influence this and each diamond needs to be taken on it's own proportions.

HG, the poster who added the chart is Choro not Chrono!

 

[vespergirl]

Hello, I liked the same 4 shapes as you, have had two of them, and tried all 4 on, so this was may experience:

Round would look largest - they are less deep than the others, so there is a larger face up "spread" and diameter.

After that, princess. The un-cut corners make it look like it takes up more finger space.

After that, square radiant. This looks smaller than the princess, because of the cut corners.

The asscher looks the smallest by far. Even if it''s the same depth as a radiant, the fact that it''s a step-cut instead of a brilliant cut gives the stone less sparkliness, which makes it look smaller on your hand. At least, that''s what I thought when I was wearing one.

 

[chrono]

Hi there. The real Chrono is now here.

Anyway, there is no definitive answer to your question because it all varies due to the depth of the stones. Assuming that all have the same carat weight:

Asschers usually face up smaller because they need depth to look best in that cut. Being in the mid 60s to 70s depth, that are almost always the smallest.


Princesses are also on the small side. Many have depths in the low 70s.

Square-cut radiants are the next size up the chart. They tend towards being in the mid 60s.

Rounds will appear the largest of all with depths in the low 60s.

That said, there are other variables too. Asschers, princess and radiants will need to be higher up in the clarity and colour department due to their cut showing colour and inclusions more easily. You can get away with both a bit more in rounds because the sparkle of the round helps mask that to a certain degree.

It isn''t just the shape either. The sparkle factor of all 4 are so different: a step cut, pin point sparkle, crushed ice and medium round. It is like trying to decide whether you prefer vanilla, chocolate, strawberry or cherry flavoured ice cream.

 

[hairgirl95]

hee hee sorry about that Choro and Chrono!! I think I stayed up waaaaaay past my bedtime to be reading posts last night!!! I need to watch that--my eyes were obviously not reading correctly!!

If I do it again you both have full permission to call me hairGUY!!!!

 

[oldminer]

While the correct answer is round for the general case, one might find a shallower depth princess cut which had a diagonal from 180 degree opposite points greater than the diameter of the well cut round of the same exact weight. You would then need to use geometry formulas for the surface area within the round and the square girdle planes to actually know which stone was "larger". They eyes can readily be tricked.

 

[choro72]

haha, yes, I''m choro! And as you can tell, I am a lesser expert than chrono is

I think I''m going through what you are though...My eyes hurt these days from staring at the posts too long!

Anyway, sorry for the threadjacking Asscher, but I hope this has helped.