Too small?

[window98]

Is this too small for a round 1.51 carat diamond? Does this mean that this one will appear smaller than other diamonds of the same weight?

7.32 x 7.36 x 4.52

 

[aljdewey]

Hi, Wondo.....yes, this diamond would appear smaller than a well-cut 1.5 diamond, which should measure around the 7.50 mm range.




It may not appear smaller than other 1.5 stones providing they are also sub-ideal cuts.

 

[window98]

Once the diamond is set on a ring, is there going to be an immediate distinction in size when compared to a diamond with a 7.4 or 7.5 diameter?

 

[Giangi]

Once set, the difference will be very, very slight. But if you had two stones side by side, one measuring 7.40mm and the other 7.50mm, you would see a little difference.

 

[caratgirl]

I thought that the suggested mm for a 1.5ct RB cut was 7.4mm, not 7.5mm?

 

[Thegroom]

----------------
On 12/1/2003 1:13:40 PM wondo99 wrote:

Is this too small for a round 1.51 carat diamond? Does this mean that this one will appear smaller than other diamonds of the same weight?

7.32 x 7.36 x 4.52
----------------

I bought a 1.51 round brilliant for my fiance that had an average diameter of about 7.34mm, just like your stone. The extra weight of my stone was carried in the slightly thick girdle but the price I paid accounted for the fact that it faced up more like a 1.4-1.45 carot rock. In our opinion it is plenty big! It's the envy of all of her friends everyone always WOWS over it's size. I think you'll be quite happy with it. I don't think people will inspect it close enough to see a difference. Their 1.5c could be smaller anyway if they bought it at a "maul" store... Just be sure the rest of the measurements check out and that the extra weight isn't due to an overly deep pavilion. That could lead to significant leakage.

 

[aljdewey]

There won't be a discernable difference in size when viewed alone, and I'd further wager that the difference would be extremely slight (if noticeable at all) if you went so far as to hold it right next to a 7.5 mm stone.




As long as the extra weight in the girdle or pavilion doesn't affect the performance (result in light leakage), you should be good to go.

 

[window98]

Here is the full info on the diamond. What do you guys think? How much light leakage will there be because of the slightly thick girdle?

1.51 ct GIA Cert
F, VS2
7.32 x 7.36 x 4.52
depth : 61.6
table : 56
crown angle : 35.2
pavilion angle : 40.4
crown height: 15.5%
pavilion height: 42.5%
girdle: slightly thick faceted
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
flour : none
culet : none
HCA: 0.7 (EX,EX,EX,VG)

 

[aljdewey]

Wondo, the diamond seems OK by the numbers.....but numbers have their limitations. The rest has to come from the eye.




If you can't see it in person, at least get a scope image and then talk to the vendor about the stone. Ask for his/her input on it and where it leaks. Most will tell you very frankly....they'd rather tell you straight than misrepresent the stone and risk you feeling lied to (and telling that to others.)

 

[window98]

So since the diamond is 7.32 x 7.36(and not around 7.4), does this mean it isn't that great of a cut? Should I be worried about this?

 

[in_need_of_help]

So since the diamond is 7.32 x 7.36(and not around 7.4), does this mean it isn't that great of a cut? Should I be worried about this? /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

--------------------------------- /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

The HCA numbers sound great.We have almost identical diamond measurements and HCA results.I would echo that you need to see the diamond.Mine is 1.54ct, 61.1D/56T, medium girdle, 7.46x7.43 and looks great!I cannot see a 1/10 of a mm difference.Can you?Check by looking at loose and set diamonds with known dimensions.

 

[Caratz]

----------------
On 12/1/2003 1:58:07 PM Giangi wrote:

Once set, the difference will be very, very slight. But if you had two stones side by side, one measuring 7.40mm and the other 7.50mm, you would see a little difference.

----------------

The 7.5 mm will have a 2.72% larger surface area than the 7.4.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 12/3/2003 3:44:49 AM Caratz wrote:

----------------
On 12/1/2003 1:58:07 PM Giangi wrote:





Once set, the difference will be very, very slight. But if you had two stones side by side, one measuring 7.40mm and the other 7.50mm, you would see a little difference.

----------------

The 7.5 mm will have a 2.72% larger surface area than the 7.4.

----------------

Carat, that's a great mathematical answer, the human eye doesn't quantify that way.

Putting the stones right next to one another, you'd have to really strain to pick the larger one. Again, you would *see* little difference.

 

[adamas]

Based on the numbers it is not too small. Overall depth is 61.5% If the girdle is polished (a safe bet these day's) that can easily account for a tad bit of additional depth. More important is the crown angle/table size. Diamonds are unique in that measurements just don't do it. You must physically see a stone.

 

[pqcollectibles]

Looks like the diameter was taken in the girdle. That might allow for some more light leakage than you would see in a super ideal cut. Keep in mind that every diamond leaks some light. Cutters cannot yet, and may never, produce a ZERO light leakage diamond.

Will you see the size difference???

If you had the diamonds loose, side by side, yes! If you put this 7.3mm, loose, next to a super ideal cut at or near 7.5mm you would see the difference.

Mounted?? Probably not. Most people out there are not wearing well cut diamonds to begin with. Most are deeper cut making their diameters a bit smaller. If your gal were to happen to be comparing her ring, side by side, with someone who owns a super dooper louper, then maybe, but chances are more than likely not.

With that HCA score, this diamond is probably a great performer. Who's gonna see past all the sparkle and fire to even notice it's a touch on the small side in diameter! As was stated before, numbers only help you narrow the field of contenders. From there, the real decision falls to your eye.

If the price is in line, and you don't want to take a blind step, you might consider asking the Vendor (if the Vendor will agree) to ship directly to an approved appraiser prior to payment. The appraiser works for you and will report directly to you. You will receive all kinds of report and pics prior to final payment.

 

[diamondsman]

Overall it is not a bad looking stone,other then the fact that it's a bit smaller in diameter than a 1.50 should be.

Was this stone the only choice you had? is the price less then a stone with the right diameter?

bottom line is ,If you can save $$ on this stone it is not that bad.

 

[fire&ice]

Yep, weight's in the girdle. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It gives you more protection, especially if you plan on setting in a higher 4 prong setting. The girdle is consistent all the way around. From the paper, someone took good care to cut this stone & hit the 1.5 mark.

On paper, the diamond seems very very nice.

 

[magna2]

A 1.5 ct diamond ideally would have a 7.4mm diameter, so the diamond that you are considering is slightly shy of that proportion. However, the rest of the proportions indicates that it is still a very well cut diamond. You won't notice the size difference even if you were to compare it side by side with an ideally proportioned diamond due to the ever so slight difference.

 

[window98]

Thanks everyone for your input. I bought the diamond from a local store(before this post) and got a pretty good deal on it(17% below the rap). I was trying to go by the numbers to get the best cut possible because frankly I really can't tell the difference between all the diamonds. After I had purchased it, I was a little bothered by the fact that it had a smaller diameter than all the 1.5 ideal diamonds I found online. It also doesn't help that her older sister has a 1.55 carat diamond and I'm afraid it's going to look smaller than hers when compared side by side.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 12/3/2003 3:27:33 PM wondo99 wrote:

It also doesn't help that her older sister has a 1.55 carat diamond and I'm afraid it's going to look smaller than hers when compared side by side. ----------------

Certainly not if the purchaser of the 1.55 didn't care about cut!

 

[Mara]

The eye percieves things differently than numbers. My stone looks like a 1.35c up top but people think it's a 1.50. I also get random people who think it's 1c. Someone even thought it was 'almost a carat'. So people's perceptions are never going to be quite accurate