Which would look visually larger

[sparkles]

A AGS0 rb 2.5ct 8.73 x 8.73 or a 3.57 ct pear 12.96 x 8.32 x 5.43

Thanks

 

[Adylon]

the pear of course!

 

[sparkles]

Sorry....I should have compared something a bit more relevant in terms of price I''m looking at. AGS0 3.07ct 9.29 x 9.29 or the 3.57ct pear.

Thanks

 

[chrono]

The pear still wins!

 

[belle]

a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

 

[JohnQuixote]

In scale relative to each other:

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 2/28/2007 8:39:33 AM
Author: belle
a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

So, a square stone which measure 7.7 from point to point will look bigger than anything which measures less than 7.7 in diameter, for instance a 6.5 mm round stone of 1Ct?

 

[Beacon]

Date: 2/28/2007 11:35:23 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/28/2007 8:39:33 AM
Author: belle
a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

So, a square stone which measure 7.7 from point to point will look bigger than anything which measures less than 7.7 in diameter, for instance a 6.5 mm round stone of 1Ct?

I have seen stones of each of these proportions and the 7.7x7.7 princess dwarfs the 6.5mm round.

 

[Gypsy]

Diagem... only if the diamond was mounted or viewd <> like a kite. A princess diamond viewed as a square as with an diagonal measurement of 7.7 will probably look smaller than a 6.5 round. I know that my asscher is about 6x 6 when viewed square... and when measured on the diagonal it is larger than 6 x 6 and mine doesn''t have corners like a princess. It looks much larger when compared to a round if it''s viewed as a kite.

 

[Beacon]

Date: 2/28/2007 11:35:23 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/28/2007 8:39:33 AM
Author: belle
a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

So, a square stone which measure 7.7 from point to point will look bigger than anything which measures less than 7.7 in diameter, for instance a 6.5 mm round stone of 1Ct?

Ok, now I thnk I see where you are. You mean the hypotenus of the right triangle formed by the corners of a square princess cut. Been a long time since high school math for me!

Anyhow, to get a 7.7 hypotenus ( diagonal center line measurement) you need side measurements of about 5.5mm. Yes, that would look smaller, I think, than a 6.5mm round.

 

[pricescope]

Paul, what belle said was meant for the rounded shapes i believe which was the case of op question and she tried to make it simple within the matter.
Your princess will look larger than a trillion with smaller sides than "point-to point" it does not make belle wrong in this particular case.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2007 12:39:57 PM
Author: Beacon

Date: 2/28/2007 11:35:23 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/28/2007 8:39:33 AM
Author: belle
a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

So, a square stone which measure 7.7 from point to point will look bigger than anything which measures less than 7.7 in diameter, for instance a 6.5 mm round stone of 1Ct?

Ok, now I thnk I see where you are. You mean the hypotenus of the right triangle formed by the corners of a square princess cut. Been a long time since high school math for me!

Anyhow, to get a 7.7 hypotenus ( diagonal center line measurement) you need side measurements of about 5.5mm. Yes, that would look smaller, I think, than a 6.5mm round.

I think Paul was having fun with geometry. A 7.70 mm square, tip to tip, appears smaller that a 6.50 round because it is, in fact, a smaller stone in terms of what you see on the grading report (5.50 mm is right Beacon

).

 

[Beacon]

Thanks for clearing the confusion on this post! Good pictures.

 

[pricescope]

some time ago i made a pic for an asscher IRL- hand shot for one poster and never used it, so here you go. I believe the bigger asscher would give bigger visual difference.

 

[Beacon]

Measurements are........?

Our example is using a 5.5mm square (resulting in a 7.7 hypotenus) compared to a 6.5 round. The round is bigger in carats and looks bigger in size.

In the OPs question, I think the pear looks longer and that could be seen as ''bigger''.

 

[pricescope]

I believe original question was more about visual perception than actual measurements. Brain has it''s own ways interpreting optical information, let me dig out that picture with the rails.

 

[Gypsy]

LOL! That''s my hand!!! And my diamond. COOL!

 

[Beacon]

Love your nails and your ring!

 

[pricescope]

Heheh Gypsy, half of my files are you-related - get your ring already!

 

[Gypsy]

*Hangs head*... I'm sorry Irina. I'm working on it. Haven't heard anything from the qoute requests to date though.

Thank you Beacon... and you've seen it in person!!

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 2/28/2007 1:57:16 PM
Author: Pricescope
Heheh Gypsy, half of my files are you-related - get your ring already!

LOL!!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/28/2007 1:27:00 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 2/28/2007 12:39:57 PM
Author: Beacon

Date: 2/28/2007 11:35:23 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/28/2007 8:39:33 AM
Author: belle
a 13mm stone is going to look bigger than anything other than another 13mm stone.

So, a square stone which measure 7.7 from point to point will look bigger than anything which measures less than 7.7 in diameter, for instance a 6.5 mm round stone of 1Ct?

Ok, now I thnk I see where you are. You mean the hypotenus of the right triangle formed by the corners of a square princess cut. Been a long time since high school math for me!

Anyhow, to get a 7.7 hypotenus ( diagonal center line measurement) you need side measurements of about 5.5mm. Yes, that would look smaller, I think, than a 6.5mm round.

I think Paul was having fun with geometry. A 7.70 mm square, tip to tip, appears smaller that a 6.50 round because it is, in fact, a smaller stone in terms of what you see on the grading report (5.50 mm is right Beacon

).

Now for the opposite... a 5.50x550 mm. round will visually appear smaller than a 5.50x5.50mm square...

 

[pricescope]

Very nicely improved Wikipedia article, use all the links offered - there are great pictures and so much more illusions explained since i was there last time. Great job!