Which will look bigger?

[a98centdollar]

Hello all!

So I''ve been browsing these boards for awhile and I''ve educated myself a lot about diamonds. But one thing I just can''t quite understand is size! Because everything is in millimeters, it seems to me like the difference between 5.10 and 5.20mm would be unnoticeable!

Now, here is my dilemma, and I appreciate any help anyone can offer.

My lady likes both princess cut and round brilliant.

But the princess cuts seem to be so much smaller! I have narrowed it down to either a .95 ct princess cut that measures in at 5.41x5.41mm, or an .80 ct round brilliant that measures in at 6.01*6.03mm.

Which one would look bigger? They are almost equal in price, I just wonder if the numbers are messing with my head. I always though carat size outnumbered anything, but could it be that the .80 ct round would look larger??

Thanks in advance!

 

[stone-cold11]

Look at it this way, a round is measured at the diameter, a square is measure at it''s sides, if it is measured at it''s diagonal, it will be about 7.6mm.

Or look at it another way, area of the princess is about 29mm^2, area of the round is about 28mm^2.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Looking at the simple mm measurements you would think that the round would appear much larger. But as Stone points out, the eye takes into account the whole surface area when "computing" size, and in fact the surface areas are similar. So I think that those two diamonds, if held next to one another, would look about the same!

Which is why they are priced the same I think.

 

[HVVS]

And PS has a general rule of thumb about upgrades that am upgrade is usually not worthwhile if it gets you less than 10% larger surface area. I like RBs and their variations because they can be spready and face up large for the ct weight. not "waste" carat weight in stone depth. Some fancies can be cut shallow, too. Princess and cushion might face up small because they are deep. Asscher and emerald cuts have to be deep in order to have steps.