shape
carat
color
clarity

Would 0.5 - 1mm really matter for an "Octavia" Asscher cut moissanite?

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
I'm looking to buy an "Octavia" Asscher cut moissanite (heavy emphasis on the quotes there as I know it's not the original), as a for-fun ring, but I can't decide on the size of the stone.

I'd like to set it in a kite-set solitaire, since my peach sapphire just won't do in it—see my prev posts. I'm not sure how much the whole kite-setting would affect which size I should ultimately go for.

For reference, my ring size is 5.25.

There is quite a difference in price between my three options below (all three are GHI colour).
I originally wanted a 10x10 mm but I balked at the price :lol:
  • 10x10 mm (5 ct equivalent) - $360
  • 9.5x9.5 mm (4.5 ct eq.) - $320
  • 9x9 mm (3.5 ct eq.) - $260
I still have to pay for the setting, which will come out to around $250-260 for 18k RG...

So, would the 0.5 - 1 mm difference really matter? Will it make a difference, visually? Do you think I'll be happy with the 9x9 mm?
I mean, I know my wallet will, but will I ??? :lol:

Thanks all :)
 

lissyflo

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
1,541
9mm by 9mm gives a surface area of 81mm square. 10 by 10 gives 100 square mills of surface area. So the larger stone has 25% greater surface area which is considerable, plus the added depth gives a proportionately larger 3D volume too.

Have you put the sizes into the website that shows you stone coverage on a finger? I can never remember the site name but that could help you decide.

Do you think I'll be happy with the 9x9 mm?
I mean, I know my wallet will, but will I ??? :lol:
That’s something only you can answer!
 

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
9mm by 9mm gives a surface area of 81mm square. 10 by 10 gives 100 square mills of surface area. So the larger stone has 25% greater surface area which is considerable, plus the added depth gives a proportionately larger 3D volume too.

Have you put the sizes into the website that shows you stone coverage on a finger? I can never remember the site name but that could help you decide.

Numbers don't lie, I suppose! But the price difference is just... @[email protected]

The website is diamdb.com! I've plugged them in. I guess you really can see a difference... Would be even more noticeable if kite-set, do you think?

1637489782466.png


That’s something only you can answer!

Sigh... I have absolutely no idea! :((
 

rosethorn

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
108
It wouldn’t be an Octavia, but you could grab some asschers from diamondcz and see how big of a difference it makes to you in person.
 

LilAlex

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,500
  • 10x10 mm (5 ct equivalent) - $360
  • 9.5x9.5 mm (4.5 ct eq.) - $320
  • 9x9 mm (3.5 ct eq.) - $260
I still have to pay for the setting, which will come out to around $250-260 for 18k RG...

So, would the 0.5 - 1 mm difference really matter? Will it make a difference, visually?

Sounds like you are asking if anyone can really tell the difference between a 3.5-ct stone and a 5-ct stone (given similar cut/proportions). That would be an obvious yes -- otherwise who would ever buy a 5-ct stone? Or any stone if you could always get away with one that was 30% smaller in ct-weight?

The face-up size "only" increases as the 2/3 root and the diameter, as you suggest, only increases by the cube (1/3) root so that "sounds" like a very small difference -- but our eyes are pretty good at inferring that third dimension for objects of an expected shape. (This does not work for sapphires where they may be pancake-flat or iceberg-deep.)
 

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
It wouldn’t be an Octavia, but you could grab some asschers from diamondcz and see how big of a difference it makes to you in person.

Maybe I should! :D

Sounds like you are asking if anyone can really tell the difference between a 3.5-ct stone and a 5-ct stone (given similar cut/proportions). That would be an obvious yes -- otherwise who would ever buy a 5-ct stone? Or any stone if you could always get away with one that was 30% smaller in ct-weight?

The face-up size "only" increases as the 2/3 root and the diameter, as you suggest, only increases by the cube (1/3) root so that "sounds" like a very small difference -- but our eyes are pretty good at inferring that third dimension for objects of an expected shape. (This does not work for sapphires where they may be pancake-flat or iceberg-deep.)

Thank you so much!! :) Put this way, it sounds so much simpler than I made it out to be. I guess I was overthinking... An extra hundred dollars does make one think. :lol:

I suppose all I have to decide now is whether I'll be happy with the smaller stone or not. o_O
 

LilAlex

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,500
Unhelpful aside: I think a "problem" with a 5-ct stone is that to me it screams simulant unless the hair, shoes, car (maybe haughty demeanor?) match that price-point. And once you have telegraphed that it is fake, no one is super-eager to spend a lot of time looking at it. I guess then it is 100% for your own enjoyment -- which is probably the #1 priority anyway...

On the other hand, if I saw a ring with a tiny reddish stone and a diamond halo on a woman in full Park Avenue battle dress, I might think "Holy cow -- could that be an actual red diamond??"
 

MamaBee

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
11,526
Unhelpful aside: I think a "problem" with a 5-ct stone is that to me it screams simulant unless the hair, shoes, car (maybe haughty demeanor?) match that price-point. And once you have telegraphed that it is fake, no one is super-eager to spend a lot of time looking at it. I guess then it is 100% for your own enjoyment -- which is probably the #1 priority anyway...

On the other hand, if I saw a ring with a tiny reddish stone and a diamond halo on a woman in full Park Avenue battle dress, I might think "Holy cow -- could that be an actual red diamond??"

What I find is that people that truly have money..have the huge diamond ring but dress very casually without the fancy clothes. I find the people that overly dress up with designer everything don’t have as much. Of course this isn’t always the case..but I’ve run into this quite a lot.
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,349
The stone will has a huge crown. The height off the finger is going to increase. The size increase is in 3 dimensions, not just two.
 

LilAlex

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,500
What I find is that people that truly have money..have the huge diamond ring but dress very casually without the fancy clothes. I find the people that overly dress up with designer everything don’t have as much.

This is true. But if you are buying in the 3.5 - 5 ct range and it is genuine "earth-mined," you are not hangin' out at Applebee's. (Mean quote of the day, I know.)

Agreed, conspicuous "designer everything" is a tell. I did not mean logos galore = wealth. I mean that you can pretty much tell when it is a rich person slumming vs. a very unrich person "posing." More of our friends/colleagues are in the "unrich" category but are not prone to posing.

I do not know anyone who would wear a 5-ct diamond -- real or simulant. I am not sure that I have ever seen even a 2-ct in the wild around here so I don't really have a baseline for that, tbh.

But if it's an everyone-is-slumming event (kids' game, outdoor concert), all bets are off. :cool2:
 

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
Unhelpful aside: I think a "problem" with a 5-ct stone is that to me it screams simulant unless the hair, shoes, car (maybe haughty demeanor?) match that price-point. And once you have telegraphed that it is fake, no one is super-eager to spend a lot of time looking at it. I guess then it is 100% for your own enjoyment -- which is probably the #1 priority anyway...

On the other hand, if I saw a ring with a tiny reddish stone and a diamond halo on a woman in full Park Avenue battle dress, I might think "Holy cow -- could that be an actual red diamond??"

Well then, it's a very good thing I'm not out here trying to fool anyone into thinking I'm old money! Or of any money at all... :lol-2::lol-2:

I just want something big and sparkly for the fun of it. I'm 25—I can still make bad and gaudy choices and get away with it, methinks! :lol:

What I find is that people that truly have money..have the huge diamond ring but dress very casually without the fancy clothes. I find the people that overly dress up with designer everything don’t have as much. Of course this isn’t always the case..but I’ve run into this quite a lot.
I agree! The "old money" people I went to school with (I went to what would probably be the equivalent of an Ivy League here—my parents broke their backs to pay for my tuition, so I definitely wasn't in the same circles as most of those kids) would wear designer or diamonds to school but you couldn't even tell. They were very classy about it.

Now, the new money kids... :doh:

I do not know anyone who would wear a 5-ct diamond -- real or simulant.
Happy to make your internet-acquaintance, then! :lol:
 

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
All things considered, I think I'll probably just go with the 3.5 ct equivalent. It's cheaper, probably won't be as cumbersome to wear (mainly thinking about the height of the stone here), but will still be blingy!

Not because I think it'll seem "more believable"... we're still in lockdown in the Philippines, I don't go out of the house except to refill prescriptions :lol: There is no one to show off to, the purchase will be purely for me!
 

LilAlex

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,500
Not because I think it'll seem "more believable"... we're still in lockdown in the Philippines, I don't go out of the house except to refill prescriptions :lol: There is no one to show off to, the purchase will be purely for me!

Makes sense.

Sorry, I did not see what sub-forum this was in. Came to it by way of the "New Thread Posts" box off to the right.
 

margauxmines

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
114
Makes sense.

Sorry, I did not see what sub-forum this was in. Came to it by way of the "New Thread Posts" box off to the right.

No worries at all! Happens to the best of us :D And it was also an interesting discussion, so no harm done!
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    "Not so Fast!" says Mother Nature
    "Not so Fast!" says Mother Nature - 11/29
    Jewels of the Week: November 2021
    Jewels of the Week: November 2021 - 11/26
    Throwback Thursdays: November 2021
    Throwback Thursdays: November 2021 - 11/25
Top