What stone LOOKS biggest for it''s carat weight?

[LoveMeDo]

I am going to the jeweler today to switch out my center stone. My ring was meant for round stones, but I have a princess center with two round stones. The center stone is too narrow for the center setting, so the round edges of the setting are visible on either side of my square stone (square peg in a round hole, basically). I''m trying to decide if I should switch to a round stone, or go with a bigger princess. The princess will obviously be more affordable, but which shape looks bigger? I heard that it was princess because of the corners, but recently I''ve heard that rounds actually appear larger.

Thanks!

 

[XChick03]

It''s hard to say, at least to me. Princess aren''t usually cut very well, so they appear smaller than they should. I have a .84 ct round and I''ve compared it to a few 1 ct princess stones and they look to be almost the same size to me. But I think a well cut princess would look larger. Hopefully someone more knowledgable will come along.

 

[sunkist]

Yes, i think rounds appear larger. Princesses and other fancies have a deeper cut and lose a larger diameter to the depth. Rounds that aren''t too deep should put more of the carat into the diameter. But also I think ovals look big for their carat weight. They have that long side that gives you more mm''s across! Of course for your setting it probably wouldn''t work. Do you like rounds? If so, I''d go for a round!

 

[belle]

ana posted up this graphic awhile back and i think it gives a good idea of what similar carat weights look like side by side...

 

[mrssalvo]

belle just posted the chart I was looking for. Also, amazon.com has a pretty cool chart that you can print out and it will show you all the diamond shapes and the general size for their weights.


link to size chart

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:02:24 PM
Author: belle
ana posted up this graphic awhile back and i think it gives a good idea of what similar carat weights look like side by side...

I dunno about that. This compares COST, not size. The round is 2cts, the other cuts are 3 carats. The princess is 2.4. This chart makes the round look SMALLEST for carat weight, which isn''t true.

I''d refer to the link Mssalvo posted! That''s SIZE only, not cost.

 

[XChick03]

Deco, I think it''s helpful just by showing that a 3 ct asscher is the same size as the 2 ct round. The other chart is very helpful too, and it has more of the shapes.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:09:18 PM
Author: XChick03
Deco, I think it''s helpful just by showing that a 3 ct asscher is the same size as the 2 ct round. The other chart is very helpful too, and it has more of the shapes.

True, but it looks like you can GET a 3ct asscher for the COST of a 2ct round also. Hmmmm.

 

[belle]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:06:10 PM
Author: decodelighted


I dunno about that. This compares COST, not size. The round is 2cts, the other cuts are 3 carats. The princess is 2.4. This chart makes the round look SMALLEST for carat weight, which isn''t true.

I''d refer to the link Mssalvo posted! That''s SIZE only, not cost.

i guess i could have taken out the cost part of the graphic

i was focusing on the dimensions (not just the carat weight)

mrssalvo''s link is great too. that amazon chart is very handy.

 

[belle]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:12:55 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 4/20/2006 3:09:18 PM
Author: XChick03
Deco, I think it''s helpful just by showing that a 3 ct asscher is the same size as the 2 ct round. The other chart is very helpful too, and it has more of the shapes.

True, but it looks like you can GET a 3ct asscher for the COST of a 2ct round also. Hmmmm.

hehehe...it IS true

 

[XChick03]

Hmm, for curiosity's sake I did a quick search, the cheapest G VS2 3 ct asscher is $30793 and the cheapest G VS2 2 ct round is $16025. Guess the chart isn't entirely accurate.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:20:38 PM
Author: XChick03
and the cheapest G VS2 2 ct round is $16025. .

where's the link to that stone

my search has them all in the low 20's.

 

[XChick03]

Oops, I think that was actually for a 2 ct asscher.

So, the cheapest 2 ct. G VS2 round is $21000.

So there is a pretty big price difference between rounds and asschers.

 

[belle]

i made these up for direct comparison

here are a princess and a round of the same carat weight:
(1.96ct)

8.13x8.13 (round) 7.12x7.12 (princess)

 

[mrssalvo]

the $ on the chart may be off but it is true in general many fancy shapes need to be larger to have the same spread as a smaller round. In that chart it takes a 3 ct asscher to match a 2 carat round and the price will be "about" the same. I was recently looking at cushions and the 1.5 carat cushion cost less than a 1.5 round but also faces up smaller. So I''d have to buy a larger cushion increasing the price to get the same spread as the round.

 

[belle]

here they are with the same lxw:
(8.13x8.13)


1.96ct (round) 2.91ct. (princess)

 

[Sundial]

Interesting photos Belle! I know when I bought my princess cut stud earrings I thought they looked smaller than rounds of the same carat weight. I had seen 1/2 carat rounds and thought the size was fine, but I ended up going with 3/4 carat princess cuts to get the same look.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/20/2006 3:06:10 PM
Author: decodelighted


I dunno about that. This compares COST, not size.

Not quite... all are the same price - the prices vary a bit by shape. So if you start with a given budget and the question ''what diamond looks big for the money'' - the answer may come from comparing shapes and sizes like that. The dimensions were taken from listings of diamonds that I considered to have good ''spread'' without being too shallow for each shape.

The charts from Amazon does not take into account that proportions make diamonds look larger or smaller for a given weight, it is not mean to.

Date: 4/20/2006 3:06:10 PM
Author: decodelighted


This chart makes the round look SMALLEST for carat weight, which isn''t true.

It would be for a given budget, because rounds are the most expensive shape...

So... joggling different shapes, and sizes for the same cost and grades, that''s what the picture looks like. It was ''real'' data from the Pricescope listings. So sizes are true. Sure enough, I could not know what each diamond looks like from its virtual description, so aside size, weight, grades and price... the looks are not ''real''.