Is the difference between a 1.7 and a 1.9 round noticeable?

[Lofi]

Hi all,

Is the difference between a 1.7 and a 1.9 round noticeable? Initially my FF and I were looking at 2ct rounds or as close as possible to 2 ct. I have a size 6-6.25 (when it''s hot out!) ring finger. I loved the way a 2 ct looked on my hand size-wise. But we are (like many people) dealing with the reality of the economy right now, so I don''t want us to blow the bank on a 2 ct when we can get a lovely 1.7 and possibly not tell the difference. I''ll attach a pic of my setting from Stardust Diamonds - it''s definitely one that will work in my favor with the finger coverage aspect; however, I tried it on at the store and it had a 1.5 ct in it... and I could tell immediately that it looked smaller than the other 2''s I was trying on.

Anyway, long story short - do you think I''d be able to tell a different between a 1.9 and a 1.7? (Assuming both were ideal cuts with the same table/depth ratio...)

Thanks in advance for your feedback!
L

 

[Stephan]

Yes, there is a small difference, but it is not huge.
For example, if you have a 1.7 ct, you would notice an obvious size difference when looking at a 2.04ct (20% bigger).
Less than 20% isn''t a big difference.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/21/2009 5:07:55 PM
Author:LFVDoll

Hi all,

Is the difference between a 1.7 and a 1.9 round noticeable? Initially my FF and I were looking at 2ct rounds or as close as possible to 2 ct. I have a size 6-6.25 (when it's hot out!) ring finger. I loved the way a 2 ct looked on my hand size-wise. But we are (like many people) dealing with the reality of the economy right now, so I don't want us to blow the bank on a 2 ct when we can get a lovely 1.7 and possibly not tell the difference. I'll attach a pic of my setting from Stardust Diamonds - it's definitely one that will work in my favor with the finger coverage aspect; however, I tried it on at the store and it had a 1.5 ct in it... and I could tell immediately that it looked smaller than the other 2's I was trying on.

Anyway, long story short - do you think I'd be able to tell a different between a 1.9 and a 1.7? (Assuming both were ideal cuts with the same table/depth ratio...)

Thanks in advance for your feedback!
L

Nope. If you put them side by side, you would most likely notice a "little" difference. But alone, in a ring, it's basically the same look. Especially in that (pretty) setting!

 

[tigian]

Such a gorgeous setting! I don''t think you will be able to tell the difference once the stone is set. A 1.7 stone would be my dream!

 

[stone-cold11]

QM, you mean a 15% difference in weight.

That translate to

1.7c approx 7.7mm
2.0c approx 8.2mm

So about a 0.5mm difference in diameter.

 

[Xedoc]

I agree with Ellen. I pulled up the numbers on two round diamonds with nearly identical %dimensions:
1.90 ct = 7.99mm avg diameter
1.70 ct = 7.67mm avg diameter
By looking at other diamonds of that carat weight, those numbers are very close to an average of that size, and even side by side, it''s VERY difficult to tell the difference of .05mm without a good measuring device.

As for 20% larger.. only by weight - NOT when the diamond is set and viewed from above.

The logic in me says it''s easy to apply a little formulation to cost/benefit of a round diamond:

area of a circle = pi*r^2

area of 1.90 ct = pi * (7.99mm/2)^2 = 50.1399 mm^2
area of 1.70 ct = pi * (7.67mm/2)^2 = 46.2041 mm^2

(7.85% difference)

As you can see, the actual "appearance" in size difference is much smaller than 20%. Slightly under 8%. Is 8% increase worth the increase in price? If it''s a 10-12% increase in price, that''s a possibility. If it''s 20%, then you''ll have to really think about it..

 

[Lofi]

WOW - Thanks for the quick responses! This is very helpful!! I really appreciate all of your feedback. I''ll be sure to share this information with my FF so he doesn''t get hung up on 1.9ish ct. rounds.

 

[Lauren Q]

I agree with Ellen. With the setting you chose which is beautiful by the way, you will not notice the difference. Side by side, not set, yes but small.

 

[D&T]

Beautiful Setting, Once set, you won''t notice at all.

 

[Lofi]

Thanks for all the nice comments on the setting! I wouldn't have picked this style out for myself initially, but once I tried it on, it was too good to be true... Just right for me.

Here's a pic of the side...

 

[atroop711]

first off I LOVE THIS SETTING...Now..I have a 1.77 round set in a halo and it looks like 2ct+ on my finger. I've never compared a 1.7 stone to 1.9 but I can tell you that a 1.7 in your setting will look great and have nice finger coverage

 

[Lofi]

Date: 8/21/2009 6:37:09 PM
Author: atroop711
first off I LOVE THIS SETTING...Now..I have a 1.77 round set in a halo and it looks like 2ct+ on my finger. I''ve never compared a 1.7 stone to 1.9 but I can tell you that a 1.7 in your setting will look great and have nice finger coverage

Thanks, Atroop! Big fan of your setting as well!!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/21/2009 5:23:34 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/21/2009 5:07:55 PM
Author:LFVDoll

Hi all,

Is the difference between a 1.7 and a 1.9 round noticeable? Initially my FF and I were looking at 2ct rounds or as close as possible to 2 ct. I have a size 6-6.25 (when it''s hot out!) ring finger. I loved the way a 2 ct looked on my hand size-wise. But we are (like many people) dealing with the reality of the economy right now, so I don''t want us to blow the bank on a 2 ct when we can get a lovely 1.7 and possibly not tell the difference. I''ll attach a pic of my setting from Stardust Diamonds - it''s definitely one that will work in my favor with the finger coverage aspect; however, I tried it on at the store and it had a 1.5 ct in it... and I could tell immediately that it looked smaller than the other 2''s I was trying on.

Anyway, long story short - do you think I''d be able to tell a different between a 1.9 and a 1.7? (Assuming both were ideal cuts with the same table/depth ratio...)

Thanks in advance for your feedback!
L

Nope. If you put them side by side, you would most likely notice a ''little'' difference. But alone, in a ring, it''s basically the same look. Especially in that (pretty) setting!

Ditto

 

[Ellen]

Love the profile!

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/22/2009 6:57:18 AM
Author: Ellen
Love the profile!

Ditto -- and the double row of pave and the split shank!

Don''t forget to post pictures after your stone is set!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/21/2009 5:46:08 PM
Author: Xedoc
I agree with Ellen. I pulled up the numbers on two round diamonds with nearly identical %dimensions:
1.90 ct = 7.99mm avg diameter
1.70 ct = 7.67mm avg diameter
By looking at other diamonds of that carat weight, those numbers are very close to an average of that size, and even side by side, it''s VERY difficult to tell the difference of .05mm without a good measuring device.

As for 20% larger.. only by weight - NOT when the diamond is set and viewed from above.

The logic in me says it''s easy to apply a little formulation to cost/benefit of a round diamond:

area of a circle = pi*r^2

area of 1.90 ct = pi * (7.99mm/2)^2 = 50.1399 mm^2
area of 1.70 ct = pi * (7.67mm/2)^2 = 46.2041 mm^2

(7.85% difference)

As you can see, the actual ''appearance'' in size difference is much smaller than 20%. Slightly under 8%. Is 8% increase worth the increase in price? If it''s a 10-12% increase in price, that''s a possibility. If it''s 20%, then you''ll have to really think about it..

Really?!!

People ACTUALLY, HONESTLY use this kind of math in everyday life?! (The only "pi" I utilize in everyday life is apple... lemon meringue... raspberry... chocolate peanut butter... well, you get my drift!

) Haha!

Anyway, I am soooooooo impressed. I am a math moron, and I totally ENVY these types of math skills!!! And when they can be used for something ever so practical as comparing diamond sizes -- well, I am ESPECIALLY impressed!

Oh, but I digress! (Sorry for the brief threadjack!)

I think a 1.7 will be lovely in that setting!!! (Beautiful setting, BTW!)

 

[ct-appr]

Ditto. I don''t think you will notice when it is set as long as the ring looks "full" (no space between the stone and the halos). Pretty ring!

 

[Lofi]

Date: 8/22/2009 7:58:35 AM
Author: sarap333

Date: 8/22/2009 6:57:18 AM

Author: Ellen

Love the profile!

Ditto -- and the double row of pave and the split shank!

Don''t forget to post pictures after your stone is set!

You bet I will!!

 

[Gypsy]

That setting is stunning!!!

BTW... I agree, in that setting you aren''t going to notice much difference at all.

 

[climbman]

I don''t mean to be picky, but technically the percentage increase is really 8.5% (not 7.85% as previously written). However, I would caution that considering the area increase is probably not the best tactic. It is commonly known that the human eye struggles to see differences in areas (which is why pie charts are met with some objection in certain business circles). Rather, I would suggest that the 4.2% increase in diameter in more relevant to most the eyes, and this is not so big.

Note: 8.5% = (7.99^2 - 7.67^2) / 7.67^2 is the percent increase.
The prior value can be found as 7.85% = (7.99^2 - 7.67^2) / 7.99^2.
This latter value may be interpreted as the percent increase in terms of the larger value, which is probably an atypical interpretation, but not wrong. If you are wondering where the pi is or the division by 2, none of that matters since it will cancel out of the ratio.
Final note: 4.2% = (7.99 - 7.67) / 7.67

 

[Ellen]

Gosh, all this math is making me go ------->

How about this.

Big diamond - slightly smaller diamond = very little difference.

Sorry, couldn''t resist.

 

[DChokie]

Taking a step back from the math...
Two weeks ago I was comparing a 2.11 to a 2.37 in person. The size difference was detectable to the naked eye when the two diamonds were placed near each other in a display case with a black background. However, when viewed in isolation (one diamond, and then the other), it was nearly impossible to detect the size difference. In conclusion, with the diamond on your finger, flashing it to viewers, the difference in .20ct won''t mean a thing, in my opinion.

 

[Lofi]

Date: 8/23/2009 7:35:55 PM
Author: DChokie
Taking a step back from the math...

Two weeks ago I was comparing a 2.11 to a 2.37 in person. The size difference was detectable to the naked eye when the two diamonds were placed near each other in a display case with a black background. However, when viewed in isolation (one diamond, and then the other), it was nearly impossible to detect the size difference. In conclusion, with the diamond on your finger, flashing it to viewers, the difference in .20ct won''t mean a thing, in my opinion.

Do you think it''s easier to notice a smaller weight difference in larger stones though?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/24/2009 12:20:52 AM
Author: LFVDoll

Date: 8/23/2009 7:35:55 PM
Author: DChokie
Taking a step back from the math...

Two weeks ago I was comparing a 2.11 to a 2.37 in person. The size difference was detectable to the naked eye when the two diamonds were placed near each other in a display case with a black background. However, when viewed in isolation (one diamond, and then the other), it was nearly impossible to detect the size difference. In conclusion, with the diamond on your finger, flashing it to viewers, the difference in .20ct won''t mean a thing, in my opinion.

Do you think it''s easier to notice a smaller weight difference in larger stones though?

It is easier to notice small size increases in smaller diamonds, once you get to around 1.5cts size increases have to be greater to get a noticeable visual difference.

 

[Londongirl1]

Date: 8/21/2009 6:22:46 PM
Author: Lauren Q
I agree with Ellen. With the setting you chose which is beautiful by the way, you will not notice the difference. Side by side, not set, yes but small.

Ditto. A solitaire setting would be a different matter but I think that your chosen setting will take some of the attention way from the centre stone so I personally wouldn''t be able to tell the difference

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I have to agree with the other posters, assuming an ideal-cut on both sizes, there is a small difference, but it will probably be hard to notice.

Comparing various levels of cut however, the story is entirely different. When visiting our retail-stores, I often dare them to put one of our stones side-by-side to one of the average cut-quality that they are selling, with the distinction that their own stone weighs about 15% more. The surprise of them seeing that a superior cut can easily compensate for about 15% in weight (in the sense that they seem the same size) is a strong message into converting them to stress the importance of cut-quality while selling.

On another note, it will be much harder to find a stone of 1.90 Ct. Even a 1.70 is not that readily available, so if you do find a 1.90, I would recommend immediately putting it on hold, because such rare find will be quickly snapped up.

Live long,

 

[DChokie]

Date: 8/24/2009 12:20:52 AM
Author: LFVDoll

Date: 8/23/2009 7:35:55 PM
Author: DChokie
Taking a step back from the math...

Two weeks ago I was comparing a 2.11 to a 2.37 in person. The size difference was detectable to the naked eye when the two diamonds were placed near each other in a display case with a black background. However, when viewed in isolation (one diamond, and then the other), it was nearly impossible to detect the size difference. In conclusion, with the diamond on your finger, flashing it to viewers, the difference in .20ct won't mean a thing, in my opinion.

Do you think it's easier to notice a smaller weight difference in larger stones though?

Probably, but we're still talking about minute differences - millimeters at best. Like Paul-Antwerp suggested, size is only one factor in the decision and, once you're talking about .20 carats, and millimeters of table size difference, you're practically splitting hairs for this category, and other factors can take on greater relative importance. For me, once I got down to those two stones (2.11 and 2.37), the size distinction gave way to color and (more importantly) cost distinctions. One diamond was a much stronger H (it had far less color than the other stone, which was also labeled an H), and it was also $2k cheaper. I simply couldn't justify spending an extra two grand on a stone with a miniscule size increase and a more noticeable color difference. Based on your initial post, you can probably appreciate this.

You're down to the nitty gritty, the minute details, the final factors, and I can sympathize because I was just there too. It's stressful! But it's important to not "lose sight of the forest for the trees." Take a step back and evaluate the larger picture. To put your mind at ease, I highly recommend going back to a store (any store, really) and asking to see diamonds in your 1.7-1.9 range. We can tell you that the difference is very, very small (just like everyone here did for me), but seeing it with your own eyes will give you much peace of mind - it did for me!

 

[Lofi]

Totally... PLUS I''d much prefer to have a higher quality stone and have it be slightly smaller than to sacrifice quality on a not that much larger stone.

 

[stone-cold11]

Actually it is more difficult to notice small difference in weight in large stone.

Mass = density x volume

Volume approx to (dimension) cube.

So roughly you double the size/mass, you will only see about an increase in dimension of cube root of 2.