Do I really have to go to an 11mm round to see a difference???

[Dee*Jay]

So I've been reading all the threads about how much bigger you have to go in a stone to see a difference when it's set, as opposed to comparing two loose stones side by side where it's easy to see a difference. The answers I've come across so far include 5% of surface area; as little as .1 mm; someone else said go up 20% in carat weight...

So, I got out this mm chart I have at home to see if I could get a more visual grasp on the idea and to my eye I have to go from my current stone at 9.65 X 9.7 up to 11 mm to *really* see a difference.

Do stones look bigger set than they do loose? (Can't remember where I heard that but I've come across it a few times.)

Is my eye just being tricked because I'm looking at my current stone set on my hand as opposed to a black circle 11 mm wide or do you think I really need this large a jump?

If so, YIKES!!!

We're now talking 5 carats and if that's the case I need to sell A LOT more properties before I continue down the upgrade trail.

Please, someone tell me I don't need to go that big to see a difference...

 

[Lorelei]

Dee maybe this will help?

http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

Also I have often heard it said that diamonds do look bigger when set.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Oh Lorelei... I cut out these circles (sized correctly) last night and put them next to my stone. (I have some other charts at home too--can you say fun at Dee*Jay''s house with paper circles and double sided tape?!) I *think* I can see a difference at 10.4 but I''m not sure. I can definitely see a difference at 11 or so (and so can my wallet, LOL!)

It''s a challange though because I''m dealing with one real diamond and one circle cut out of paper, so I''m not sure I''m doing a good apples-to-apples (or in this case diamond-to-diamond) comparison.

Ug.

 

[Eva17]

Great reference chart Lorelei

Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks guys! I have ...ahem...been guilty of a little carat size origami myself too, much to DH's disgust with little circles of paper floating in his coffee...HA HA HA!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/2/2006 11:35:00 AM
Author: Dee*Jay
Oh Lorelei... I cut out these circles (sized correctly) last night and put them next to my stone. (I have some other charts at home too--can you say fun at Dee*Jay''s house with paper circles and double sided tape?!) I *think* I can see a difference at 10.4 but I''m not sure. I can definitely see a difference at 11 or so (and so can my wallet, LOL!)

It''s a challange though because I''m dealing with one real diamond and one circle cut out of paper, so I''m not sure I''m doing a good apples-to-apples (or in this case diamond-to-diamond) comparison.

Ug.

So then a way to make the comparison more "apples to apples" is to cut out another circle of paper the size of your current diamond.

Then compare the two circles of paper to see how notable the difference is/isn''t.

Yes, diamonds do look bigger when set.

 

[WinkHPD]

No, jumping up to a 10, or 10.25mm will show much difference! Now going to an 11, will REALLY slap those eyes into shape, but it is not necessary to go that big. Sure be FUN though!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Oh, Wink, thank god! When I had that realization that I was holding the 11 mm circle and not the 10 mm circle last night I about had a heart attack! So, really, going to just 10 will make a difference when set?

And Al, that's a great idea. (Why the hell didn't I think of that? LOL!)

BTW, why do diamonds look bigger when set?

 

[staceybelle]

Lorelei:

That. Is. Awesome. You are my new hero.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/2/2006 1:37:42 PM
Author: Dee*Jay

And Al, that''s a great idea. (Why the hell didn''t I think of that? LOL!)

BTW, why do diamonds look bigger when set?

Because it''s always easier to think of solutions when you don''t have a vested interest! LOl

It is totally easy for me when it comes to someone else''s stones......but when it comes to mine, all logic/reason flies out the window and the angsting begins!

It''s the smart shopper in me that wants to get the absolute best I can....

Diamonds look bigger when set because the prongs draw your eye around the perimeter of the diamond, and because they become what you focus on. Since they are a bit wider than the diamond, the total effect is to make the diamond appear larger.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/2/2006 1:43:11 PM
Author: staceybelle
Lorelei:

That. Is. Awesome. You are my new hero.

...blush....thanks Stacey!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 8/2/2006 1:43:58 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/2/2006 1:37:42 PM

Diamonds look bigger when set because the prongs draw your eye around the perimeter of the diamond, and because they become what you focus on. Since they are a bit wider than the diamond, the total effect is to make the diamond appear larger.

Hey, maybe I don''t need a bigger diamond--maybe I just need bigger prongs!

 

[aljdewey]

You can see it here.....

The inner blue line is the circumference edge of the stone.

The outer red line is the circumference line suggested to your eye by the prongs.

 

[Dee*Jay]

OK, stupid question time, then would more prongs enhance the "biggerness" ever more? (E.g., 6 or 8 vs. 4?)

(Biggerness -- sometimes you just need to make up a word!!!)

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/2/2006 1:54:52 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
OK, stupid question time, then would more prongs enhance the ''biggerness'' ever more? (E.g., 6 or 8 vs. 4?)

(Biggerness -- sometimes you just need to make up a word!!!)

I don''t think that''s a stupid question at all.

I honestly do think that 6-prongs do make a stone look bigger (more to draw the eye to circumference.).

I can''t necessary say that 8-prong setting does the same.....because 8-prong also gets busier. Not sure.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Thanks Al--you always know everything!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/2/2006 1:37:42 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
Oh, Wink, thank god! When I had that realization that I was holding the 11 mm circle and not the 10 mm circle last night I about had a heart attack! So, really, going to just 10 will make a difference when set?

And Al, that''s a great idea. (Why the hell didn''t I think of that? LOL!)

BTW, why do diamonds look bigger when set?

The human eye does not like jagged edges and what it does not like it tries to change.

The prongs extend out from the edges of the stone and our eyes in an effort to smooth out the outline tends to make the stone look larger. This is more exaggerated in a six prong than in a four prong.

Conversely, when we have a stone with a lot of leakage around the outside of the stone it can cause the stone to look smaller (I am now speaking about unset diamonds) as the eye does not like trying to hold the whole diameter when only part of it is lit. These would appear to be conflicting statements, but they are both true. I know this only because I have seen it with my own eyes...

Wink

P.S. I started this response yesterday morning and was unable to complete it before leaving the office for an appointment that took the rest of the day. If it has been better answered I would not be surprised.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Wink, thanks for coming back and continuing your answer. As for the 11 mm stone being fun--YES!!! (But I think my hubby might disown me at that point. He''s already a little horrified with what I''ve got now... )

 

[Mara]

6 prongs totally make my stone look bigger FER SURE. That''s why I''d be hesitant to go back to 4 prongs, maybe with a 3c...but I don''t know we''ll see....but if you have a choice, I''d go 6 prongs, the eye does try to follow a curvy line and it follows the prongs, and also it seems like the prong metal reflects back some of the stone sometimes so to my eye the whole thing tends to blur together when ''moving'' as in the hand is moving. It''s amazing how sometimes at angles your stone or ring looks huge and then other times it looks normal. Or vice versa. The eyes are funny things.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Mara, I was hoping you''d chime in when you saw the part about 11 mms!

I''ve been exploring my options and for some reason I keep getting drawn back to the idea of 8 *tiny* claw prongs like Whieflash does on one of their earring settings. That might be TOO much, but with a big enough stone, maybe not.

 

[Mara]

like the handmade earrings, those are lovely, i asked brian about making that in a ring setting and he said it would be too delicate as is, but they could possibly beef it up a bit for a ring to be sturdy. i don''t know that i''d like it as much if it was beefier, so i don''t know that i would personally pursue that...but yes maybe with a 4c stone the 8 prongs would appear to be more balanced out? hard to say really!!

i think honestly you could go from 3.37 to a 4c and see a nice difference. don''t you have like size 5 fingers or something? that 5c that i tried on at WF...you saw the pictures right? my actual ring area is probably about a 5.5 and my knuckles are more like 6''s so that 5c looked like a monster on me. do you want me to post the picture again for you here? you do not need a 5c girl!!!! that''s just insane for daily wear IMO! definitely not home depot style. LOL!

 

[Mara]

hehe here''s the 5c just cuz i want to show you how crazeee big it is on my hand.

 

[Mara]

 

[Dee*Jay]

Oh yes, I saw those pics! I go back daily to drool over that 5 ct on your hand, LOL!

Going to 4 cts would be about a .7 mm difference (9.7 to 10.4). Hmmm.... you might be saving me from myself. I *really* was (am!) thinking 5 ct, but if you all think 4 might get me a visual difference... well, maybe we can all compromise at 4.5(ish?).

ETA: Holy cow! You posted the pics while I was typing and I do have to confess that thing is a monster (but in a good way!!!).

 

[Mara]

4.2?

did you see solange''s 4c? her pictures are around here somewhere. i don''t recall her finger size but i think it was under a 6 so maybe like 5ish? anyway, that thing was BIG.

 

[jcrow]

and just think- that 5 ct. is without prongs

 

[Dee*Jay]

Ah yes, the *prong factor*! Now I have even one more thing to think about...

(At what point does a PSer''s head just *E*X*P*L*O*D*E* ???)

 

[solange]

Date: 8/3/2006 2:24:24 PM
Author: Mara
4.2?

did you see solange''s 4c? her pictures are around here somewhere. i don''t recall her finger size but i think it was under a 6 so maybe like 5ish? anyway, that thing was BIG.

I don''t know how to transfer pictures no matter how many times it is explained to me. My stone is 4.10 and since it is 59.9 deep, it has a fairly large spread for its size and it has a lot of life so it is very flashy. You can see it under Just received my 4+ carat ring from Whiteflash. I would appreciate it if someone would transfer it here.

My ring size is 6.25. I don''t think the stone is too big at all but it depends where you live and where you go. We live in Manhattan and I often see stones this size and much larger so mine does not attract that much attention in certain circumstances. I will say this though. I don''t think I would want anything much larger because although I love my ring and wear it around the house a lot, I do not wear it out that often. Some of my closest friends have never seen it because it would seem ostentatious and make me feel uncomfortable.

I hope you can find my ring here and that it helps you make a decision.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Solange, I''m so glad you weighed in! I''ve been back to look at your pics approximately 1,000 times and your ring is gorgeous.

I traded e-mails with a vendor yesterday and he made the funny (but true) comment that if I went from my current stone to one I had come across the difference would be noticeable to me "but to the rest of the world you''ve just replaced one huge diamond with one huge diamond." Sad but true I''m afraid!

 

[solange]

Thank you for the nice compliment. My ring is 10.43 by 10.48. I will try to post a new picture when my husband gets around to taking some since I don''t know how to transfer it.
As to difference in appearance of size, if it makes a difference to you, that is all that matters.