Size comparison between a .45 and a .51?

[MichelleCarmen]

Has anyone seen a size comparison photograph of a diamond around .45 and one that is around .51? I'm just curious as to how much of a noticable difference and why someone would go slightly over the 1/2 ct mark when there is such a markup.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

In ideal cut stones, there won''t be much size difference. It''s just that there aren''t going to be a lot of stones in the .45-.49 range so many people have to go to .5 to find a matching pair. Cutters always try to make the stones weigh in the upper size if they are close to a magic number such as .5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc.

 

[elle_chris]

I just did exactly that on five stones that range from .50-.53 and one of the reasons was availability. There was nothing else.
Another reason was a mental thing. I like knowing the smallest one was .50 (yes i''m crazy) and i''m hoping for a five stone ring that tiny bit is going to make a differnece on my BIG finger.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/5/2007 8:07:23 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

In ideal cut stones, there won''t be much size difference. It''s just that there aren''t going to be a lot of stones in the .45-.49 range so many people have to go to .5 to find a matching pair. Cutters always try to make the stones weigh in the upper size if they are close to a magic number such as .5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc.

True, and some manufacturers may try harder than they should.

Always use mm spread to match stones or compare face-up value - especially if comparing stones with no cut grades.

For example, here are sims of 0.46 and 0.50 ct rounds, both facing up at 5.00 mm. The 0.50 is too deep, which would have been penalized in either AGS or GIA''s system - but won''t be noted in systems where no cut grade is employed.

 

[Haven]

Elle--You're too funny! I'm sure that five stone beauty is going to look GORGEOUS on your hand! I have big-hand-image-issues too, so I understand your pain!

MC--I spent quite a while looking for a mate for a .45 stone that I have, and everyone is right, they are just hard to find. If you've found one though, go for it!

 

[marcy]

When I was picked out my solitaire I narrowed it down to 2 stones, one was .53 and one was .51 and we could see a difference in the size. They were both ideal cuts. It was not dramatic; I doubt I would notice the difference in size when mounted in a ring.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 8/5/2007 9:47:21 PM
Author: Haven
Elle--You''re too funny! I''m sure that five stone beauty is going to look GORGEOUS on your hand! I have big-hand-image-issues too, so I understand your pain!

MC--I spent quite a while looking for a mate for a .45 stone that I have, and everyone is right, they are just hard to find. If you''ve found one though, go for it!

Okay, thanks. I didn''t realize it was more about availability rather than reach the 1/2 ct. mark.

Haven, good luck with your diamond hunt. I did recently purchase two .41 stones, so I guess I was just lucky. Seems like the week after I purchased, all the other stones I was considering (about four other matching sets) were all sold. When I purchase a stone for a pendant, I''m not sure if I want to just stay under the .50 mark or go up a bit. The price jump kind of scares me!

 

[stebbo]

As John mentioned, overall proportions make a big difference on physical face-up size, and the apparent visual size because of the proportions effect on brightness (especially at the circumference). Analogy - a light bulb looks bigger on than off. Although you can't go on carat size alone, here's a picture I posted last year that gives a rough comparison between equi-proportioned diamonds (also ideal).<BR
Looking at the difference between a 0.25 and a 0.5 (25pt and 50pt), you're can see that you're not going to notice the difference between a 0.45 and a similarly proportioned 0.51, unless viewed next to each other (and then you'd have to be looking for it).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Stebbo, I've always liked that graphic. Can I have permission to use it with attribution? - Stebbo 2007 I suppose?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Bumpapotamus.

 

[stebbo]

Date: 8/6/2007 12:29:53 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Stebbo, I''ve always liked that graphic. Can I have permission to use it with attribution? - Stebbo 2007 I suppose?

Did I hear the mating call of a bumpapotamus?

For a nice guy like you... of course!

Use the version here. Just pop on ''reproduced with permission'' if you use it outside Pricescope

I also have a (slightly gorey) melee size chart too that you might remember from before. Feel free to use that as well, just don''t rotate it 90 degrees as it becomes rude.

 

[phoenixgirl]

It all depends on the diameter of the stones. The 0.45 could well have a larger spread than the 0.51.