Diamond size comparison

[Ellen]

Resized.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

one more (thanks, lisamarie!)

 

[lovewhitediamonds]

really, really, great thread diamondseeker -- thank you! Hopefully we can get some other shapes in here....

 

[sugarplum]

terrific thread, ds! very helpful!

 

[Harriet]

How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

 

[chrono]

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

Do you mind posting what''s the measurement of your ACA versus the chart? If it''s just a fraction, I wouldn''t worry. It would be great if you know the depth % too.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

I second not worrying. Some of the experts caution that these charts can be a bit optimistic and should be used as a guide only.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 4/24/2008 8:04:02 AM
Author: Chrono

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

Do you mind posting what''s the measurement of your ACA versus the chart? If it''s just a fraction, I wouldn''t worry. It would be great if you know the depth % too.

My ACA has a diameter of 9.92, making it smaller than the chart''s 10. The depth is 60.6%.

 

[cutey TT]

Before I bought my upgrade, I found a couple of really helpful threads talking about "visible size difference." Here are the links:

2.72 versus 2.86 for shebabes'' upgrade

4.69 mm versus 4.79 mm for IslandDreams

6.85 versus 7.4 mm for anika

.45 versus .51 for MC

Hope these are helpful!

 

[Harriet]

Date: 4/24/2008 8:05:59 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

I second not worrying. Some of the experts caution that these charts can be a bit optimistic and should be used as a guide only.

Your cat is adorable. Anymore photos?
I''m not worried, merely curious about ideal proportions and such. I honestly don''t know much about diamonds.

 

[777_LDY]

Great thread DS. I don''t know how to scale this down to actual size but this is a picture that WF sent me so I could see how the graduated effect of my stones would look side by side.

 

[isabel]

Here''s one courtesy of Whiteflash:

 

[isabel]

Specs:

2.05 G and 2.39 J

 

[chrono]

Date: 4/24/2008 8:22:00 AM
Author: Harriet

Date: 4/24/2008 8:05:59 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

I second not worrying. Some of the experts caution that these charts can be a bit optimistic and should be used as a guide only.

Your cat is adorable. Anymore photos?
I''m not worried, merely curious about ideal proportions and such. I honestly don''t know much about diamonds.

Harriet,
Umm, that''s a very furry long haired rabbit. It''s a picture that Lorelei found on the WWW.

As for the 9.92 mm vs 10 mm, that''s quite close. I really wouldn''t want a stone with less than 60% depth anyway because it may not have all the proper angles for an ideal cut. The chart is just an approximation and probably isn''t all that accurate.

 

[UCLABelle]

This is great!!! I love seeing the comparisons....

 

[risingsun]

Excellent reference thread. Thanks for posting.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/24/2008 11:59:08 AM
Author: Chrono

Date: 4/24/2008 8:22:00 AM
Author: Harriet

Date: 4/24/2008 8:05:59 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/23/2008 11:55:26 PM
Author: Harriet
How well cut are the stones in the chart? My ACA faces up smaller than the chart claims.

I second not worrying. Some of the experts caution that these charts can be a bit optimistic and should be used as a guide only.

Your cat is adorable. Anymore photos?
I''m not worried, merely curious about ideal proportions and such. I honestly don''t know much about diamonds.

Harriet,
Umm, that''s a very furry long haired rabbit. It''s a picture that Lorelei found on the WWW.

As for the 9.92 mm vs 10 mm, that''s quite close. I really wouldn''t want a stone with less than 60% depth anyway because it may not have all the proper angles for an ideal cut. The chart is just an approximation and probably isn''t all that accurate.

LOL!!! Chrono is indeed right!

This rabbit has been a source of confusion and some even thought the bunny''s face was actually his butt

, so Miss Ellen gave him some eyelashes!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My ideal cut stones do line up perfectly with that chart. My 1.6 ct. stone is 7.6mm and my .75's are in the 5.8mm range. Obviously there are factors such as depth and girdle size that will have an effect on the diameter. No one should worry if their stone is a few hundredths of a mm off the chart figure!

And thanks to all of you who have commented about liking the thread!

 

[Harriet]

Oh dear. That''s the second time I''ve mistaken the bunny for a cat. Which dirty mind thought its face was its butt?!

 

[honey22]

Ok, just to satisfy my own curiosity, does anyone have a pic of an 0.8ct and a 1.0ct side by side? I am starting to wonder if my 0.8ct will look closer to a 0.5ct than 1.0ct?!

 

[mandielee]

Date: 4/25/2008 2:21:23 AM
Author: honey22
Ok, just to satisfy my own curiosity, does anyone have a pic of an 0.8ct and a 1.0ct side by side? I am starting to wonder if my 0.8ct will look closer to a 0.5ct than 1.0ct?!

Or, for that matter, an 0.8 and an 0.9, or 0.9 and 1.0?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Admin / Andrey and I are working on a comprehensive solution.
Many of those sizes are not accurate

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/25/2008 8:59:11 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Admin / Andrey and I are working on a comprehensive solution.
Many of those sizes are not accurate

That would be great Garry!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/24/2008 12:50:49 PM
Author: Lorelei

LOL!!! Chrono is indeed right!

This rabbit has been a source of confusion and some even thought the bunny's face was actually his butt

, so Miss Ellen gave him some eyelashes!

I did.

Cuz Holly thought it was a hiney.

 

[chrono]

Date: 4/25/2008 8:59:11 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Admin / Andrey and I are working on a comprehensive solution.
Many of those sizes are not accurate

Thank you Andrei and Garry. Much appreciated.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/25/2008 11:50:52 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/24/2008 12:50:49 PM
Author: Lorelei

LOL!!! Chrono is indeed right!

This rabbit has been a source of confusion and some even thought the bunny''s face was actually his butt

, so Miss Ellen gave him some eyelashes!

I did.

Cuz Holly thought it was a hiney.

ROFL!!!

 

[Ellen]

1.52, 1.60, 1.70

And farther away.

 

[Lynn B]

This is a great thread, DS! Let's see if I have anything else to add...

Here is a 2.36 (mine) beside a 1.51,both AGS-0 stones. (I don't know the color of the smaller stone, but my stone is a J):

 

[Lynn B]

And here''s my stone again (AGS-0 2.36) next to my old stone, (AGS-0 1.53). Note not only size difference, but color/clarity comparison... 2.36 is a J/SI2, 1.53 is G/VS2. No visible difference (to my eyes, anyway!) in person, either -- except in SIZE, babeee, size!!!

 

[Lynn B]

And here''s a comparison of a .72 beside a .46: