size and shapes
- Thread starter angel03
- Start date
- Status
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
hi--you will get a zillion different answers-------my feelings and i am not an expert:
assuming you have one of each shape and they are all cut PERFECTLY (HA) then i believe that rounds always win visually/actual spread. which may or may not have anything to do with why some 90% of all stones sold are rounds. someone in the business may know the actual numbers .
Personally-I dont care for rounds. i find them sort of boring which is why i like old mines and old europeans and cushions. however in my book nothing compares to a well cut Emerald Cut. Which is why I am on my second emerald cut stone....elegant, understated....and I must confess i am not a flashy person so a large round would make me uncomfortable whereas a large EC isnt so in-your-face Just my thoughts...
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 15,808
"A zillion answers" is spot on !
I would vote for a long shape (''cause the more sizeable dimension catches the eye as "substantial")... marquize, baguette or long emerald cut, a skinny oval... something like that. Since marquizes are meant to look ok when cut long (1.75:1 or 2:1 length / width - where all other shapes would be deemed "skinny"), those get my vote for size. There aren''t too many brilliant marquizes it seems, and very brilliant stones definitely stand out more (and so appear larger) - but a bright marq would win the size game, IMO.
Among settings, bezels make larger rings out of anything, all things equal.
Anyway, there''s no better than trying rings on to see.
Beyond taste, prices per carat depend on shape - rounds are the most expensive of the non-branded cuts, so even if some fancy is smaller for the weight, it would also be less expensive than a round. To some extent, this price difference does compensate for the relatively smaller size of some fancy shapes.
Hope the 0.2 worth helps a bit
I would vote for a long shape (''cause the more sizeable dimension catches the eye as "substantial")... marquize, baguette or long emerald cut, a skinny oval... something like that. Since marquizes are meant to look ok when cut long (1.75:1 or 2:1 length / width - where all other shapes would be deemed "skinny"), those get my vote for size. There aren''t too many brilliant marquizes it seems, and very brilliant stones definitely stand out more (and so appear larger) - but a bright marq would win the size game, IMO.
Among settings, bezels make larger rings out of anything, all things equal.
Anyway, there''s no better than trying rings on to see.
Beyond taste, prices per carat depend on shape - rounds are the most expensive of the non-branded cuts, so even if some fancy is smaller for the weight, it would also be less expensive than a round. To some extent, this price difference does compensate for the relatively smaller size of some fancy shapes.
Hope the 0.2 worth helps a bit
- Status
300x240.png)