Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

What shape looks biggest???

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
Any consensus on which shaped (cut) of a single diamond (per same carat weight) looks BIGGEST in a simple setting?

Thanks!
 

anne_h

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
999
Oval is up there. Then probably rounds.

Anne
 

ladykemma

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,194
ooohh, ovals! i have a 25 point round, a 28 point oval and a 29 point marquise. guess whick looks biggest? the oval !

Oval gets my vote.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
My favorite is the emerald (not asscher), what ranking does it receive?
 

diamondfan

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
11,016
I think ovals or rounds...
 

jaz464

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
2,022
Date: 4/3/2007 6:29:27 PM
Author: zhuzhu
My favorite is the emerald (not asscher), what ranking does it receive?
Sorry, ECs do not face up big for their weight
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 4/3/2007 6:29:27 PM
Author: zhuzhu
My favorite is the emerald (not asscher), what ranking does it receive?
I wouldn''t rank it very high in the "looks big" category - but there are other factors to consider. If you like emeralds, get an emerald. If you want it to look huge then get an oval or marquise. To *some* extent its all negligible anyway - just get the shape you enjoy.
 

FireGoddess

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
12,145
ECs, asschers, and cushions *generally* look small for their weight. There are exceptions though, but in general, this applies.
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,589
I''m saying what everyone else is at this point...but ovals, pears, mq tend to look large as long as they are cut not too deep. Rounds look bigger than princesses, asschers, etc. In general though, a lot is determined by the depth of the stone and the girdle thickness. For example my radiant has a depth of 60% and a thin girdle and it looks much larger than *most* rounds of the same carat weight while the average radiant with a 70% depth looks much smaller than the typical round of the same carat weight.
 

JenStone

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
490
Hi zhuzhu - you may have seen this before but here is a size comparison chart: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

To those who say ovals look the largest....is this due to an optical illusion? Looking at the chart above, it almost looks like the princess looks larger than a round! (In general, the square shapes look larger than the round ones.) Is it different in real life?
 

justjulia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,308
Date: 4/3/2007 8:22:45 PM
Author: kcoursolle
I''m saying what everyone else is at this point...but ovals, pears, mq tend to look large as long as they are cut not too deep. Rounds look bigger than princesses, asschers, etc. In general though, a lot is determined by the depth of the stone and the girdle thickness. For example my radiant has a depth of 60% and a thin girdle and it looks much larger than *most* rounds of the same carat weight while the average radiant with a 70% depth looks much smaller than the typical round of the same carat weight.
ditto
 

neatfreak

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
14,167
Date: 4/4/2007 9:01:07 AM
Author: JenStone
Hi zhuzhu - you may have seen this before but here is a size comparison chart: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf


To those who say ovals look the largest....is this due to an optical illusion? Looking at the chart above, it almost looks like the princess looks larger than a round! (In general, the square shapes look larger than the round ones.) Is it different in real life?
I don''t think that chart is realistic for the fancy shapes. For example, it says a 1c cushion is 5.5mm. Mine is only .81 and measures 5.94 x. 5.16. So I think it''s best just for a reference for size, but I don''t that it isn''t too accurate for most shapes. If you see IRL a princess and a round of the same carat weight the round always looks bigger to me. And ovals always look bigger IRL too, but this chart doesn''t reflect that...
 

Tacori E-ring

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
20,037
Date: 4/3/2007 6:16:17 PM
Author: ladykemma
marquise and pears
Agreed! Both my mom and MIL MQs (1.2-1.4) look as large as my 1.72 EC (IMHO)
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 4/4/2007 1:02:04 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 4/4/2007 9:01:07 AM
Author: JenStone
Hi zhuzhu - you may have seen this before but here is a size comparison chart: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf


To those who say ovals look the largest....is this due to an optical illusion? Looking at the chart above, it almost looks like the princess looks larger than a round! (In general, the square shapes look larger than the round ones.) Is it different in real life?
I don''t think that chart is realistic for the fancy shapes. For example, it says a 1c cushion is 5.5mm. Mine is only .81 and measures 5.94 x. 5.16. So I think it''s best just for a reference for size, but I don''t that it isn''t too accurate for most shapes. If you see IRL a princess and a round of the same carat weight the round always looks bigger to me. And ovals always look bigger IRL too, but this chart doesn''t reflect that...
actually if you take the average of your length and width it comes to 5.55 LOL I don''t know why it assumes that cushions are square and radiants are long... but whatever! I used the emerald outline and mine was basically spot on for size.

One of the reasons that marquise and ovals look large for their weight is because they can be relatively shallow cuts.
 

neatfreak

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
14,167
Date: 4/4/2007 5:07:09 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
Date: 4/4/2007 1:02:04 PM

Author: neatfreak


Date: 4/4/2007 9:01:07 AM

Author: JenStone

Hi zhuzhu - you may have seen this before but here is a size comparison chart: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf



To those who say ovals look the largest....is this due to an optical illusion? Looking at the chart above, it almost looks like the princess looks larger than a round! (In general, the square shapes look larger than the round ones.) Is it different in real life?

I don''t think that chart is realistic for the fancy shapes. For example, it says a 1c cushion is 5.5mm. Mine is only .81 and measures 5.94 x. 5.16. So I think it''s best just for a reference for size, but I don''t that it isn''t too accurate for most shapes. If you see IRL a princess and a round of the same carat weight the round always looks bigger to me. And ovals always look bigger IRL too, but this chart doesn''t reflect that...
actually if you take the average of your length and width it comes to 5.55 LOL I don''t know why it assumes that cushions are square and radiants are long... but whatever! I used the emerald outline and mine was basically spot on for size.


One of the reasons that marquise and ovals look large for their weight is because they can be relatively shallow cuts.
Cehra, you are totally right if you average them it comes to 5.5. BUT my cushion is a .81, which is 19 points away from a carat and according to the chart a CARAT should be 5.5. Weird huh? I just think that some shapes are misrepresented, which is why princesses look bigger than ovals on the chart but not in real life.
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 4/4/2007 1:02:04 PM
Author: neatfreak


Date: 4/4/2007 9:01:07 AM
Author: JenStone
Hi zhuzhu - you may have seen this before but here is a size comparison chart: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

To those who say ovals look the largest....is this due to an optical illusion? Looking at the chart above, it almost looks like the princess looks larger than a round! (In general, the square shapes look larger than the round ones.) Is it different in real life?
I don't think that chart is realistic for the fancy shapes. For example, it says a 1c cushion is 5.5mm. Mine is only .81 and measures 5.94 x. 5.16. So I think it's best just for a reference for size, but I don't that it isn't too accurate for most shapes. If you see IRL a princess and a round of the same carat weight the round always looks bigger to me. And ovals always look bigger IRL too, but this chart doesn't reflect that...
Correct. Cut - not carat weight - determines spread, especially with fancy shapes. For example, a PS search for 1.5 princess cuts today turns up avg face-up spreads from 6.20 all the way up to 6.77, and the most 'square' candidates at that weight are in the 6.40 range. Of course that could change tomorrow. There is more variation as size increases.

Use the spread information on that chart when making comparisons. Don't assume the carat weight will match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top