Visual difference between 2.3 and 2.5 ct?

[Diamondpursuit]

Please help! I picked out a 2.3 ct RB diamond for the e-ring, but now I''m so worried that it won''t have the "Wow" affect. When we were window shopping, my gf tried on a 2.45 that was very nice. She also tried on a 2.7-ish diamond and that was pretty big on her (big wow, but not yet gaudy). I would love to get her a 2.7+ if I could, but I just didn''t find any with the specs I''m looking for. So I was aiming for a 2.5, but didn''t find anything with the specs I''m looking for either! I blame Pricescope...too much information!!!

I finally picked out a 2.3 ct RB, but is this too small to have the "Wow" affect? Her ring size is 4.75-5 and the ring is going to be a solitaire (just in case that makes a difference in your evaluation). What''s the visual difference between a 2.3 (around 8.6 mm) and a 2.5 ct diamond (around 8.75 mm)? How significant will that .15mm drop in size be? I can''t believe I''m so concerned over .15 mm, but I am!!!

 

[dazedland]

I don't know much about RBs, but there are a # of other factors i.e. depth, table, angles that will effect how big it will look. In two diamonds that have the same specs I would say there isn't much of a difference. Going with a RB diamond opposed to any other cut than round will make the diamond appear larger anyways. Also I am sure you chose the 2.3 for a reason (the specs) so you are getting a better diamond (for what you are looking for).

 

[pyramid]

dazedland

Other fancy shaped diamonds generally look larger than a round brilliant diamond does.

 

[Kamuelamom]

Hi and welcome to PS! Assuming you are going for a well cut stone and proportions are such, 2.3 ct will have plenty of WOW effect to me, especially considering it will be set in a solitaire fashion. I don't know what visual difference you will see to the naked eye between 2.3 and 2.5 as I have not seen stones of those sizes side by side to compare, but I'm guessing that when you get up to those sizes, it will have plenty of bling regardless. Cut is king for bling!!

I have a size 4.5 and have a 1 ct center stone and to me it is plenty of bling since I also have side stones and a .60+ ctw band.

Good luck with your search and keep us posted.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 6/23/2005 9:09:05 PM
Author: Pyramid
dazedland

Other fancy shaped diamonds generally look larger than a round brilliant diamond does.

I believe the opposite is true. Shapes like asschers, radiants, and princess cuts all look smaller than round brilliants.

 

[Kamuelamom]

Date: 6/23/2005 9:16:22 PM
Author: MichelleCarmen
I believe the opposite is true. Shapes like asschers, radiants, and princess cuts all look smaller than round brilliants.

Agreed.

 

[pyramid]

Yes, I know the asscher does look smaller. But a princess has a larger diagonal measurement and pears, marquise and ovals look larger than a round of the same weight.

 

[hoorray]

Hi DP,

My DH bought me a 2.52 rb a couple of years ago. We looked at stones between 2 and 3ct, and narrowed down the perfect size to between 2.25 and 2.6. I opted for the larger size of those we were considering, and am very happy with it. After I received the 2.52 set in a solitaire, I realized that 2.25 would have also been fine. Now that I've had the ring for a while, I'm glad to have the bigger size, but I don't honestly think that difference would have been significant as long as the stone is a real sparkler.

I read here a long time ago that pros tend to think .1mm is when the difference is visible. But, how visible is another thing. When set on it's own, and not side by side a larger stone, I don't the thi difference will be significant. Especially in a larger sized stone, proportionally the difference is a much smaller % difference.

My suggestion is that if you want the stone to have the maximum POP, set in on a thin band. A higher setting head will also make it look it's largest.

Good luck!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 6/23/2005 9:20:55 PM
Author: Pyramid
Yes, I know the asscher does look smaller. But a princess has a larger diagonal measurement and pears, marquise and ovals look larger than a round of the same weight.

Not to argue. . .not my intention. . . but I think that round brilliants LOOK larger than princess cuts (regardless of the actual measurements, but appearance wise). If one compares a 1 ct. RB to a 1 ct. princess, the RB will look bigger.

 

[pyramid]

No it is not an argument. Yes I do think you are correct though about the princess. I think I have read that here too.

 

[blueroses]

IMO, a 2.3 RB on a size 4.75-5 finger is going to have PLENTY of WOW!!!! Seriously--I think it will be fine.

 

[Libster]

In my humble opinion....the 2.3 will have a great WOW factor!!!! I''d be thrilled with it!!!


Please post pics when you can, would love to see this beauty

 

[IrishEyes]

Will a 2.3ct. be too small to have the "wow" factor?! Are you kidding me?! I want to bang you over the head with a pot for that question! NO, IT WILL NOT BE TOO SMALL.....Geez......

It will be fine, I''m sure. She can always upgrade.

 

[dazedland]

Date: 6/23/2005 9:54:07 PM
Author: IrishEyes
Will a 2.3ct. be too small to have the ''wow'' factor?! Are you kidding me?! I want to bang you over the head with a pot for that question! NO, IT WILL NOT BE TOO SMALL.....Geez......

It will be fine, I''m sure. She can always upgrade.

I second that

 

[s95]

My jaw dropped when I read this. I think that 2.3ct is definitely a WOW size for a stone. Look at the thread called "Hooray, It''s Here!" on in SMTR and you''ll see how big a 1ct looks on a size 4.5 hand. A 2.3 carat will be huge. I guess if her friends all have 10 carat rings, then perhaps some of the WOW factor will be gone, but for most of us, a 2.3ct stone would be a dream come true.

 

[Dancing Fire]

yes, a 2.3 ct. is plenty big. the average e-ring in the US is somewhere between .75-.90 ct. keep in mind that the ring will always look bigger to the observer than the wear-er.

 

[Mara]

I think 2.3 will have a good WOW but yes 2.7 would have a bigger WOW! I''m a big stone girl so I''d like the bigger stone....

BUT I will say that .15mm in a stone as large as 8mm will not be a huge difference. So it''s not as though the 2.3 will look tiny and the 2.5 would look huge. I think a difference between a 2.3 and a 2.7 would be more visually there. But in reality the higher the carat weight, aka the larger the diameter of the stone to begin with, the less you see those small mm jumps.

For example if it was 4.5mm stone and it went to 4.65mm, it would be more visible than a 8.5mm to an 8.65mm.

Plus your gal''s finger is small so the 2.3 would look great!

 

[diamondlil]

Diamondpursuit,

Can you tell us more about the specs on each stone you are considering? In my opinion 2.3 ct on a size 5 hand will have a serious WOW affect. I also think that the 0.15 mm will only be noticeable if you were to hold the 2 stones side by side for direct comparison. I''m assuming the cuts are equal of course. If they were held at arms'' length (about 3 feet apart), I don''t think I could tell you which was the 2.3 versus the 2.5.

DiamondLil

 

[Giangi]

2.3carats is a VERY respectable size, and I bet it will look huge on your fiancée''s tiny finger

BTW, do we get to hear some details?

 

[Kaleigh]

My center stone is 2.36 and is plenty big!!!

 

[Diamondpursuit]

Sorry, I didn''t mean to imply that 2.3 ct isn''t big. I just don''t want her to be disappointed that the diamond I''m getting is smaller than the ones she tried on. Thank for all your reassurances!

I fell better, but I guess the real test will be when I see the diamond.

I will try to post pics of the ring when it''s set.

 

[belle]

Date: 6/24/2005 10:48:41 PM
Author: Diamondpursuit
Sorry, I didn''t mean to imply that 2.3 ct isn''t big. I just don''t want her to be disappointed that the diamond I''m getting is smaller than the ones she tried on. Thank for all your reassurances!

I fell better, but I guess the real test will be when I see the diamond.

I will try to post pics of the ring when it''s set.

best of luck to you! looking forward to seeing that ring!