What shapes "show larger?

[po boy]

EDIT: I'm not sure what happened to the body i wrote???

We took another visit to a jeweler and I realized that my girlfriends main priority is a large (or at least large looking) stone. While she would be happy with something cut way too shallow for a large face, I prefer something that has the "right" proportions. We are looking in the neighborhood of 2 carats, and this nutty gal still wants it to look bigger!

Maybe I need to tip her off to pricescope so she can be enlightened to the many other fine aspects of these little rocks. I keep reminding myself that this ring is for her, not me (and if I play my cards right, she may let me get that boat and that vette sooner rather than later).

SO....what shape shows size the best....apples to differently shaped apples (well cut, same weight)???

 

[fire&ice]

As a general rule - ovals, pears & marquise - but it very much depends on cut & spread. RB''s look larger than most squares. But again, one must pay attention to cut - an RB that is deep and has a thicker girdle is going to look smaller than an RB with thin girdle & shallower.

Also, pay attention to the measurements of a stone & not just the carat weight.

 

[Maxine]

So for an oval, which length/width ratio would show larger? (and still be well cut)

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2005 1:34:57 PM
Author: Maxine
So for an oval, which length/width ratio would show larger? (and still be well cut)

I think Dave Atlas has a chart on ovals. I wish I could answer your question - but I only know RB''s. Sorry.

 

[cflutist]

Perhaps this will help. This is a picture of a clear plastic template they gave us during GIA Diamond Grading Class. Since it is a picture, it may NOT be to scale, but what it does show are the relative face up sizes of the different shapes for a given weight.

 

[Maxine]

Very interesting....thanks, CFlutist!!!!

 

[michela002]

Assuming you are talking well-cut stones (obviously how deep/shallow the stone is has an effect) pears and marquise tend to look big for their size. Emerald, asscher and princess cuts tend to look small for their size. I don''t know for sure but I think radiants tend to look a bit smaller ... and someone mentioned ovals looking bigger.

Often I think a round is your best option (maybe a cushion would be ok too?) because they sparkle so much that you don''t notice size as much.

As someone already said, when you''re browsing for stones don''t just look at the carat weight, also look at the dimensions (length and width) of the stone - this will tell you how big it will look.

If she wants SIZE SIZE SIZE how bout adding some sidestones to the ring? (i.e. a RB with pear side stones?) Might add overall extra "bling" that would make her happy, more than just the 2 ct (!!) will.

Or consider a pave "halo" around the stone that will make it look bigger on the hand (pic attached - it''s someone on pricescope''s ring I can''t remember whose ... isn''t it pretty? Lol.)

Good luck!

 

[valeria101]

All that "Indecisive" said plus...

For once, I would probably look at a marquise, about 2:2 L/w; with thin-medium girdle, 60%-ish table and depth below 60%. That, in my mind, the spreadiest, decent looking kind. Unless you might consider somethins even less common as a trillion or heart shape. All these shapes routinely come below 60% deep and their main cut fault is being toooo spready at times, not too deep as most other cuts. This has something to do with the type of rough these are cut from (macles and makeables, flat stuff that''s better put to use by making spready stones).

Second, it may not be mandatory to go for a fancy shape: you could find a round diamond with great light return and spready proportions. A round with the table above 60% but the right main angles and what not would make a bright white and large stone. Some of the scintillation and fire get killed, but white light return still gets top grades in such stones. The hard part with these is that there is no special advertising campaign and brands for spready rounds - you would need to contact a seller that already selects stones for cut quality, tell this story (or something close) and let them select just the thing.

Otherwise, peerhaps shifting through EGL reports (those carry information on proportions of non-AGS0 stones) and use the HCA and IdealSCope to find a winner. EGL labels some stones "ideal cut" or something. Those tend to have better (in HCA terms) proportions, but not all with the label do - the standard is a bit loose.

All in all, brilliance as well as spread makes a diamond eye catching. Rose cuts are the largest diamond cut for a given weight... and few want them due to lack of brilliance... I know you are after a tradeoff, but a blank diamond would not be all that impressive. There is no difficulty finding a 30% deep slice of diamond in just about any shape at ridiculous price - and those are cheap for all the right reasons

Hope some of this helps

Good luck !

 

[valeria101]

By the way

 

[oldminer]

If little compromise is to be made on the "quality" of cut, then a marquise is the largest "look" within a given weight range. Such a large look stone must be at the longer end of the preferred lenth to width ratios, such as 2:1 to 2.25:1. Any over depth causes the stone to look like it weighs less, so stick to around a 60-61 percent depth, not more.

If you spend some of the Vette money now on the ring, you may be better off than worrying about the car right now. This sounds like a girl who needs a big diamond, and you are the foirtunate one who has been elected to present it. No point in making a partial sacrifice that will go unappreciated. Do it right and get on to the next stage. Its your choice on how to proceed. It sounds like things will be challenging. Can you meet them?