when can you tell the difference in size....

[carina]

Does a 1.90 RB look alot smaller than a 2.30 diamond?
8.42 - 8.49 x 5.17 are my measurements on my 2.29ct which of these is the circumference measurement and are these good measurements for this diamond size. The depth is 61 and the table is 61.

 

[sevens one]

here's an example of a 2.28ct rb

 

[sevens one]

here's a 1.90 ct

 

[Diamondsbybree]

sevens one, I love your ring~! Bling Bling~!

 

[sevens one]

Thanks but these aren't mine.
The first one is from mariahhlyn (I think)

The second one is Caratgirl

 

[innerkitten]

Stones can appear larger or smaller on certain peoples hands.

 

[sevens one]

Sorry, MaryAlaina is the owner of the 2.28ct rb.

And Caratgirl's ring size is 5 which makes the 1.90 seem even bigger.

 

[headlight]

If you are talking about a comparison between two of the same cuts (in this case RBs) the larger stone should look larger, as it is 40 points bigger (so, almost a 1/2 carat larger) but one would need to know the measurements of both particular stones as carat weight can be "lost" in a thick girdle, a deep cut stone, etc. I know that this board is not a fan of the "60/60" stone which is more like what a 61/61 would be like rather than the "ideal" cuts with smaller tables but my 3.29 RB is a 61/61 and it is gorgeous so I just have to say that there must be something to the GIA's position that there are many ways to create a nice looking diamond. One advantage to the larger table stones is that they do appear larger for their size as well, IMO.
Now, if you were talking about the comparison of a square cut stone in the 2.30 size to a RB in the 1.90 size, they would probably "appear" about the same as square cuts tend to look smaller than their same weight RB counterparts.
Also, the way in which a stone is set can have an impact on its size. Also, I think there is definitely a mental aspect in how one views their stone when they know that it is 2+ carats versus the 1.90 ct. stone.
I can tell you that my stone definitely looks larger than a straight out 3 carat -- I don't know if it is the extra almost third carat or the larger table or what.

 

[Jennifer5973]

If youn have a thin finger, the stone is going to look larger.Do they make lipo for fingers??????

I also agree that there are several ways to cut a beautiful diamond...and getting the most bang for your buck is a priority. I guess the breaking point is when cut is sacrificed for size, i.e., stone is cut shallow to allow for maximum spread but loses sparkle. I'm sure we've all seen some doosies like this...

 

[hoorray]

An expert once said that .1mm is when size starts to be visible to the eye. I would assume that these two stones would be more than .1mm different in diameter. How visible is hard to know. WHen I was looking at stones, the difference in 2.25 vs 2.5 was obvious when they were next to each other, but I don't know that the difference would be significant to me once it was set and on my finger. (They were both large looking on my hand).

Settings make a difference as do hand size. That said, everything else being equal, I think you would see the difference, but I don't know that it would be dignificant. Only you can decide that, based on what you are looking for. I erred on the large size since I wasn't sure aboutthe same issue, and in hindsight, I think the smaller stone would have accomplished what I was looking for just as well.

It's more significant to compare diameters than to compare carat weight.