The round vs square "size" debate...what do you see?

[CharmyPoo]

I didn't read the posts but I would say the RB looks a tad bigger.

I think the RB looks way better than the Princess. For me, it will be a no brainer for me to take the RB.

The real question for me is price - how would a RB and a Princess compare given the same price, color, clarity, cut quality with the only difference being carat size.

 

[Laila619]

As a loyal round lover, I think the round looks much sparklier and prettier.

As for the size, well, you cannot compare a set stone (with prongs on the corners which add to the size) to an unset stone. Set stones always look larger than unset ones.

I think princess cuts get a size boost when they are set with V prongs, because it's similar to a halo setting in that it's an optical illusion which adds size.

 

[septsparkle]

I didn't read the posts but I would say the RB looks a tad bigger.

I think the RB looks way better than the Princess. For me, it will be a no brainer for me to take the RB.

The real question for me is price - how would a RB and a Princess compare given the same price, color, clarity, cut quality with the only difference being carat size.

Thanks Charmy!! I am going to take the RB! The price is the same basically because before I was paying a premium for the ACA AGS0 stone, whereas the round is a GIA EX cut, EX/EX polish/sym. I found the AGS cut charts online that allow you to find the chart for your stone's table size and then follow where it falls on the chart through crown angle, etc. and this stone's specs fall right in the middle of the AGS ideal charts and it also got a 0 grade on the Sarin report. So, it may not have an AGS report, but I think if it had been sent there it probably would have met the cut. I also think that had WF had it originally and listed it as an ES on their site, it would have been priced higher. However, since I took a chance and picked it blind from their virtual inventory I made out in that regard.

 

[septsparkle]

As a loyal round lover, I think the round looks much sparklier and prettier.

As for the size, well, you cannot compare a set stone (with prongs on the corners which add to the size) to an unset stone. Set stones always look larger than unset ones.

I think princess cuts get a size boost when they are set with V prongs, because it's similar to a halo setting in that it's an optical illusion which adds size.

Yep, I think you guys are right about the prongs. At Tiffany's I was comparing set stones to set stones, but I know the ones I looked at had thick girdles and I think that hid some of the weight, so those stones probably faced up smaller anyway. I also noticed that in the first picture where the RB looks a little bigger that if you look closely, the princess cut is lifted up a little bit...so while the round is standing on it's own, the princess cut is elevated by the prongs...so that would account for some size difference there and make the round a wee bit bigger. Still not as much as I expected, but I think once the round is set it will look a little larger then it does right now...and well...that's fine by me!!

 

[Laila619]

As a loyal round lover, I think the round looks much sparklier and prettier.

As for the size, well, you cannot compare a set stone (with prongs on the corners which add to the size) to an unset stone. Set stones always look larger than unset ones.

I think princess cuts get a size boost when they are set with V prongs, because it's similar to a halo setting in that it's an optical illusion which adds size.

Yep, I think you guys are right about the prongs. At Tiffany's I was comparing set stones to set stones, but I know the ones I looked at had thick girdles and I think that hid some of the weight, so those stones probably faced up smaller anyway. I also noticed that in the first picture where the RB looks a little bigger that if you look closely, the princess cut is lifted up a little bit...so while the round is standing on it's own, the princess cut is elevated by the prongs...so that would account for some size difference there and make the round a wee bit bigger. Still not as much as I expected, but I think once the round is set it will look a little larger then it does right now...and well...that's fine by me!!

That's why I think rounds set in 6 prongs look bigger than their 4 prong counterparts--same concept.

Interesting topic Sept!

 

[septsparkle]

Thanks, Laila. I agree about the 6 prongs, too!

 

[yennyfire]

I see maybe a smidge of a difference (the round looks a tad larger), but honestly, no one looking at it casually would ever notice. The color difference is really interesting. Do you think that can be explained by one being set and one not?

 

[septsparkle]

I see maybe a smidge of a difference (the round looks a tad larger), but honestly, no one looking at it casually would ever notice. The color difference is really interesting. Do you think that can be explained by one being set and one not?

No, I really don't believe so. Maybe a little bit, but I don't think this much. Actually, from what I've read, even on WF's own website the stone should show less color when set. Plus the appraiser saw it, too. That picture of the color difference is in bad lighting, so the stone doesn't appear quite so dark in real life, however the difference between the two stones is accurate as they were side by side and both in the same lighting, etc. If you look at the first picture you can sort of see what I see in the princess cut in normal household lighting. Do you see the hint of color around the edges towards all four corners? (If you are on a laptop, try adjusting your screen back and forward until you can notice it. I've noticed that sometimes I have to tilt my screen a bit to see color more accurately in photos) I also put the round stone in the little metal holder thing to try to compare more fairly since it would have been covered from above and have the illusion of prongs from the little claw and it appeared whiter then it did before.

Here is another of what I see in the princess from the side - it certainly isn't major...but it's there and drives me nuts because the color is inconsistent. It's not like the warmth you see in other cuts...it's more of a concentration in the corners and edges and that's why I don't like it.

 

[slg47]

septsparkle I am so happy that you are happy with the round! Are you going to use the micropave setting?

 

[septsparkle]

septsparkle I am so happy that you are happy with the round! Are you going to use the micropave setting?

You betcha!! WF is going to replace the head to hold the round stone and then I'm all set...(literally, lol). I LOVE this setting.

 

[slg47]

oh awesome, so glad they can replace the head! I can't wait to see pics of the finished ring!

 

[septsparkle]

oh awesome, so glad they can replace the head! I can't wait to see pics of the finished ring!

Yep, that's actually why I picked the legato with the micro pave, the others had an integrated head and I wanted this setting to be able to accommodate upgrades, etc. and Liza said this one was good for that because they can replace the head and its pretty inexpensive to do. I'm excited now, too. I was trying not to make a decision too soon that's why I waited a few days because I didn't want to jump the gun, but I'm positive about the round stone this time!

 

[Andelain]

oh awesome, so glad they can replace the head! I can't wait to see pics of the finished ring!

Yep, that's actually why I picked the legato with the micro pave, the others had an integrated head and I wanted this setting to be able to accommodate upgrades, etc. and Liza said this one was good for that because they can replace the head and its pretty inexpensive to do. I'm excited now, too. I was trying not to make a decision too soon that's why I waited a few days because I didn't want to jump the gun, but I'm positive about the round stone this time!

Darn! I was hoping you'd pick the princess and send that round back to WF.....

But seriously, I'm glad you found one you love. I can't wait to see the finished pics.

 

[septsparkle]

Darn! I was hoping you'd pick the princess and send that round back to WF.....

But seriously, I'm glad you found one you love. I can't wait to see the finished pics.

Sorry to disappoint!!

 

[AprilBaby]

I thought the round looked bigger by a tad.

 

[petrock<3]

Ok First impression:

In the first photo, I would say that the round looks definitely bigger. In the pics on your finger, it is a toss up.

Colorwise, the round looks whiter

 

[septsparkle]

Thanks for your input, guys!

Final verdict: I have officially emailed Liza and am going with the round! Can't wait to get it shipped back off for the countdown to begin again for my new ring. It's been a bit of torture having a new ring in the house and not wearing it, so I am pretty excited about this!!

Who would have known I'd pick the round over the princess after all these years of being a self-proclaimed princess lover.

Thanks everyone for your opinions, thoughts, help, guidance, photos, hand-holding, etc. along the way it is most appreciated!!! I sincerely thank you ALL!

 

[eluetherio]

The measurements for the princess stone are 1.366ct and 6.40 x 6.10 and the RB 1.39ct and is 7.18 x7.22. That's almost an entire mm larger then one side of the princess cut stone and I just don't see it! I really think it is a matter of the area because somehow my eyes are able to balance out the corners of the princess with the roundness of the RB and they truly do look the same to me.

Area of Square = Length*Width
Area of Circle =Pie*Radius*Radius

Faceup surface area of 1.366 round = 40.7 mm squared
SA of 1.39 princess= 39.0 mm squared

Round girdle plain is 4% bigger in surface area than the princess.

Crown height, cut, viewing angle, lighting, also make a difference in what is seen in the photographs but very simply princess cuts faceup smaller than rounds (5 - 15% less is a common range) but they are also significantly cheaper as well, overall you get more faceup size per $ (all other things considered equal) with a princess over a round.

I think this is a very smart comparison, i think a lot of people compare the diameter of a brilliant to the length and width of a square and automatically assume it's much bigger. but when you consider the area that you actually look at it's not that big a difference.

We struggled trying to decide between princess and round, luckily the setting we chose really looked good with a round so that helped.

 

[yssie]

The round looks bigger to me - and I think if both stones were unset, the round would look *huge* by comparison. Your eye may be drawn to the diagonal, but remember that diagonal has an extra mm or so of non-diamond material there boosting the apparent size

ETA; okay just read through, I'm late to this thread!

 

[Andelain]

Darn! I was hoping you'd pick the princess and send that round back to WF.....

But seriously, I'm glad you found one you love. I can't wait to see the finished pics.

Sorry to disappoint!!

No you're not!


Hope you really LOVE the new ring!

 

[daysie8]

Way to go Septsparkle!! How long til you have the awesome new ring?

I've always had a thing for RBs...but now through this traumatic experience, I may just wanna go down the fancy cut route! And I was just thinking, who knows, maybe afterall this debarcle, I will become colour/clarity sensitive and my bf will be cut/carat!

 

[oldminer]

It is my belief that if you took ten AGS000 rounds and compared them to ten AGS000 princess cuts with all 20 diamonds being the exact same carat weight, that you would find the round cuts having slightly larger square mm areas within the plane of their girdles. What you eyes might see may prove deceptive, but I think the physical measurements would tell you that at the fine end of cutting that rounds have incrementally more visible area than what is currently sold as the finest princess cuts.

The visual size difference of equal weight round and princess cuts would be far greater as the quality of cut decreases. Most princess cuts head for greater depths while many less well cut rounds may not so commonly just get deeper and may remain quite visibly large even as cut degrades.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Here are a couple of shots of "identical" stones for size comparison...both 1.57ct., AGS0's...the 45deg Princess looks larger to me than the round.

 

[oldminer]

If one measures the two provided images with a caliper the princess has a square surface are a bit less than 95% of the round diamond in this photo. Like I said, the eyes can decieve you and the actual difference of about 5% is not major, BUT there is no question about the fact that the round has more visible surface area.

Ultimately, you pick the stone you want the most and few people spend hours deciding between either a round or a princess as their last two choices. Most folks go with a shape choice early on and then comparison of visual size relates more to physical measures than to guesswork between differing shapes.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

David,

Of course, our eyes deceive us, but is that not the point? It also makes well-cut diamonds look bigger than they actually are or is it that it makes badly cut diamonds look smaller than they are?

In any case, I just want to remind you again that there is no direct relationship between depth and spread in a princess-cut.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

I think it depends on the person which looks larger and photos don't really show it accurately enough.
In person doing a similar challenge I saw the round as larger right away.
My sister who was also there to her they looked the same size.

 

[starryeyed]

Thanks for your input, guys!

Final verdict: I have officially emailed Liza and am going with the round! Can't wait to get it shipped back off for the countdown to begin again for my new ring. It's been a bit of torture having a new ring in the house and not wearing it, so I am pretty excited about this!!

Who would have known I'd pick the round over the princess after all these years of being a self-proclaimed princess lover.

Thanks everyone for your opinions, thoughts, help, guidance, photos, hand-holding, etc. along the way it is most appreciated!!! I sincerely thank you ALL!

Congratulations septsparkle!!

You know where I stand on this - when set square, the princess looks smaller to me. A well-cut RB is deliciously sparkly - to me, nothing compares if it's bling you want. I hope you will be thrilled with your new ring!

One thing you may want to keep in mind - if this RB is not an ACA or ES, will WF upgrade it in the future? I think you may need to get approval now before you buy it.

 

[oldminer]

Paul;

I challenge your continued advice that there is "no relationship" between depth and spread in a princess cut. There is often such a relationship and occasionally an exception. However, if any diamond is deeper than average, the visual size will ALWAYS be smaller than average. Add the secondary break angles in the pavilion to create a lumpy pavilion and basically thesame thing happens, more weight on the backside and somewhat less than optimal spread.

I think you would agree from personal experience that a 1ct AGS000 round very likely has a larger square area defined within its girdle plane than most 1 ct AGS000 Princess cuts. Do you not agree that this generalization is mostly correct and only incorrect on occasion?

I do agree that "sometimes" depth and spread can be separate issues, but when speaking of the defined best cut diamonds of the same weight, as I am doing here, there is little wiggle room for depth not to have an effect on spread. Do you disagree even with this?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Paul;

I challenge your continued advice that there is "no relationship" between depth and spread in a princess cut. There is often such a relationship and occasionally an exception. However, if any diamond is deeper than average, the visual size will ALWAYS be smaller than average. Add the secondary break angles in the pavilion to create a lumpy pavilion and basically thesame thing happens, more weight on the backside and somewhat less than optimal spread.

I think you would agree from personal experience that a 1ct AGS000 round very likely has a larger square area defined within its girdle plane than most 1 ct AGS000 Princess cuts. Do you not agree that this generalization is mostly correct and only incorrect on occasion?

I do agree that "sometimes" depth and spread can be separate issues, but when speaking of the defined best cut diamonds of the same weight, as I am doing here, there is little wiggle room for depth not to have an effect on spread. Do you disagree even with this?

I wouldn't want to rehash the very long thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-fancy-shape.139459/?hilit=depth spread fancy

Your point was that within precisely the same facet design depth% does directly correlate to faceup size.

Paul's point was without knowing the exact facet design a general trend like this can inaccurate and be detrimental to those who are not considering the information not available on the grading report.

I beleive this is especially problematic when comparing princess cuts designed for light performance(AGS 000) with a standard princess cut for weight. The AGS ideal princess cuts typically have taller crowns and thus an overall greater average depth percentages when compared to the standard princess. What a novice might do is automatically equate a greater depth percentage with a smaller faceup size, which may not always be the case because the average standard princess cut hides more weight in P1.

My opinion is that spread in carats (like Octonus spread) with an ideal tolk round as a reference, or surface area of the girdle plane in mm squared are much more accurate quantitative measures of faceup size than depth %. I am beginning to side with Garry H that a +/- spread in carats is the easiest for the end consumer to understand.

 

[oldminer]

Under the circumstances in this thread where a round is being compared to a princess cut, there is an absolute ability to measure the visible area of each and know for sure which is larger. The eyes can be fooled and that's okay since ultimately one selects the diamond they prefer, not the one which has to be physically larger. I was keeping my comments on the narrow target of this thread and Paul used words to imply that "no" relationship exists when clearly it does exist. I am sure what he and others mean to say is that one ought not make a blanket statement about depth and spread carelessly because so many other variables come into play that sometimes nothing is accomplished by depth - spread comparison. Sometimes it might even be misleading.

However, we are not comparing regular cut princess cuts with AGS000 princess cuts in this thread. Your comment and what Paul has commented on does pertain to the different proportion set of AGS style stones versus non AGS style stones in the princess cut. Here the thread is about which is larger and also which looks larger, too.

Generally I find that the one which actually is larger will look larger after thoughtful inspection. The eyes are good for certain jobs, but measuring is not one of their best abilities. Cutting techniques can have a plus or minus effect on size appearance, no question there.