5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62) vs 4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6)
Diamond size comparison
Actual size is set for screen
Change
sample image
|
vs. |
sample image
|
|||||||||
| 5.33 ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm) | 4.03 ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm) |
Cutting style
(modified) brilliant
Mixed
Weight
5.33 ct
4.03 ct
Measurements
9.69×9.68×6.62 mm
9.66×7.82×5.6 mm
L/W ratio
1
1.24
Face-up size
Borderline
Borderline
This diamond BARELY looks its weight!
This diamond BARELY looks its weight!
Actual diamond size
Before purchasing a diamond, one should make sure it looks its weight.
It's important to understand that
carat weight does not equal face-up size.
Two diamonds of exactly the same weight (and shape) can vary quite considerably in face-up size. This depends on the proportions of the cut (e.g., deep cuts will face up smaller).
Here you can see the actual sizes of 5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm) and 4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm) as they would appear on a ring and finger.
Adjust the ring and finger size to get an idea of how these stones would look on your finger.
Two diamonds of exactly the same weight (and shape) can vary quite considerably in face-up size. This depends on the proportions of the cut (e.g., deep cuts will face up smaller).
Here you can see the actual sizes of 5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm) and 4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm) as they would appear on a ring and finger.
Adjust the ring and finger size to get an idea of how these stones would look on your finger.
Settings
|
Ring:
Skin tone:
Ring width: 3.0 mm
Saved...
|
|
64 mm |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Actual size is set for screen
Change
Face-up area is a measure of the size of the diamond
when viewed from the top (as set in a ring).
It tells you how big the diamond is at the girdle plane. It's important for a diamond to have sufficient face-up size for its carat weight.
It tells you how big the diamond is at the girdle plane. It's important for a diamond to have sufficient face-up size for its carat weight.
| 5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm) | |
| 4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm) | |
| Difference: 12.66mm² (18%) |
5.33 carat Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm) has approx. 18% more face-up area than 4.03 carat Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm).
To learn about the accuracy of these numbers, click here.
Quick Buying Guide
Diamond prices vary greatly as they depend on the combination of unique characteristics (4Cs - Cut, Color, Clarity, and Carat). For best value, it's important to choose the combination that will reduce the price without having a negative impact on appearance.
Each shape has its own recommended balance of qualities that will give you the most bang for your buck. Below is a quick buying guide to give you an idea, but for more detailed explanation, please see the complete buying guides for the respective diamonds (links below).
Each shape has its own recommended balance of qualities that will give you the most bang for your buck. Below is a quick buying guide to give you an idea, but for more detailed explanation, please see the complete buying guides for the respective diamonds (links below).
5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm)
4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm)
Min. clarity
SI1 or better
SI or better
Min. color (platinum setting)
H+
H+
Min. color (yellow gold setting)
J+
J+
Depth percentage
59 - 70%
59 - 70%
Table percentage
56 - 70%
58 - 70%
Length-to-width ratio
1.00 - 1.35
1.00 - 1.35
Min. polish/symmetry
Good or better
Good or better
Additional Info
5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm)
4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm)
Face-up size
A bit small for 5.33 carat Cushion
A bit small for 4.03 carat Radiant
Facets
usually 58
usually between 62 - 70
Length
9.69 mm
9.66 mm
Width
9.68 mm
7.82 mm
Depth
6.62 mm
5.6 mm
Gram weight
1.07 g (0.0376 ounces)
0.81 g (0.0284 ounces)
Points
533 pts
403 pts
Volume
302.84 mm³
228.98 mm³
Compare diamonds
Choose diamonds to compare:
Popular comparisons:
- 5.33ct Cushion (9.69x9.68x6.62) vs. 4.03ct Radiant (9.19x9.19x5.88)
- 5.28ct Cushion (9.65x9.23x6.4) vs. 5.61ct Cushion (9.38x9.31x6.45)
- 5.33ct Cushion (10.62x9.32x6.44) vs. 2.54ct Cushion (8.99x7.79x4.8)
- 5.28ct Cushion (9.65x9.23x6.4) vs. 2.25ct Round (8.5x8.5x5.14)
- 5.37ct Cushion (10.55x9.58x6.72) vs. 5.07ct Emerald (10.87x8.25x5.65)
- 5.27ct Cushion (12.41x9.48x6.07) vs. 1ct Princess (5.51x5.51x3.97)
- 5.34ct Cushion (12.78x9.59x5.73) vs. 2.26ct Radiant (9.17x6.51x4.45)
- 5.3ct Cushion (10x10x6.4) vs. 3.96ct Round (10.23x10.2x6.24)
- 5.37ct Cushion (10.55x9.58x6.72) vs. 4.07ct Emerald (10.55x7.9x5.14)
Depth percentage for 5.33 carat Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm)
Depth percentage of Cushion cut is the ratio of the total depth (measured from table to culet)
to its width. The total depth percentage of this diamond
is 68.4%, which is OK.
(Recommended depth percentage for Cushions is between 59% and
70%)
Depth percentage for cushions is calculated with the following formula:
Depth percentage for cushions is calculated with the following formula:
Depth % = (total depth ÷ width) × 100
5.33 carat
Cushion
(9.69×9.68×6.62mm) depth %:
Total depth: 6.62 mm
Width = 9.68 mm
Width = 9.68 mm
Depth % = (6.62 ÷ 9.68 ) × 100 = 68.4%
Depth percentage for 4.03 carat Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm)
Depth percentage of Radiant cut is the ratio of the total depth (measured from table to culet)
to its width. The total depth percentage of this diamond
is 71.6%, which is too deep!.
(Recommended depth percentage for Radiants is between 59% and
70%)
Depth percentage for radiants is calculated with the following formula:
Depth percentage for radiants is calculated with the following formula:
Depth % = (total depth ÷ width) × 100
4.03 carat
Radiant
(9.66×7.82×5.6mm) depth %:
Total depth: 5.6 mm
Width = 7.82 mm
Width = 7.82 mm
Depth % = (5.6 ÷ 7.82 ) × 100 = 71.6%
About Depth Percentage
Depth percentage is one of the most important measurements as it plays a critical role in diamond's
appearance. If a diamond is cut too deep or too shallow, light leaks out, making
the stone less brilliant and fiery. Deep cuts also add hidden weight.
Diamonds that fall out of recommended depth range are generally less desirable and usually best to be avoided.
Diamonds that fall out of recommended depth range are generally less desirable and usually best to be avoided.
Face-up size evaluation for 5.33 carat Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm)
The face-up size of this 5.33 carat Cushion
(9.69×9.68×6.62mm) is slightly out of normal range for
5.33ct diamonds of this shape. Compared to 5.33
carat Cushion reference diamond,
this diamond appears a bit too small when viewed from the top, which means it's
probably a borderline chubby.
A chubby is a diamond with hidden extra weight that looks smaller than it should when viewed from the top. Hidden weight is typically a result of a poor cut usually linked to oversized girdle, deeper pavilion, and/or steeper crown.
In order to maximize profits, diamond cutters tend to retain as much weight from the rough as possible. This practice, however, can have detrimental effects on the stone's face-up size and its optical qualities. Poorly proportioned stones look duller and sparkle less than well cut stones. Chubby stones also look smaller.
A chubby is a diamond with hidden extra weight that looks smaller than it should when viewed from the top. Hidden weight is typically a result of a poor cut usually linked to oversized girdle, deeper pavilion, and/or steeper crown.
In order to maximize profits, diamond cutters tend to retain as much weight from the rough as possible. This practice, however, can have detrimental effects on the stone's face-up size and its optical qualities. Poorly proportioned stones look duller and sparkle less than well cut stones. Chubby stones also look smaller.
The bottom line:
One should never sacrifice beauty for weight.
You probably don't want to pay for extra weight that doesn't add anything to the beauty.
You want a stone that looks its weight. Sizewise, this 5.33ct Cushion looks like a well cut 4.59ct Cushion.
5.33 carat Cushion reference diamond
Since there are no specific ideal proportions defined for Cushion cuts,
an estimation formula is used to calculate the Cushion reference diamond.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Note: Cushion diamonds with face-up area of within 9% lower
and 12% higher than reference Cushion diamond area
are considered to be of adequate face-up size.
* Estimated Face-up area: Face-up area of Cushion cuts
is only an estimation (±5%). Due to uniqueness of each stone,
it's impossible to accurately calculate face-up area given only a diamond's measurements.
Face-up size evaluation for 4.03 carat Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm)
The face-up size of this 4.03 carat Radiant
(9.66×7.82×5.6mm) is slightly out of normal range for
4.03ct diamonds of this shape. Compared to 4.03
carat Radiant reference diamond,
this diamond appears a bit too small when viewed from the top, which means it's
probably a borderline chubby.
A chubby is a diamond with hidden extra weight that looks smaller than it should when viewed from the top. Hidden weight is typically a result of a poor cut usually linked to oversized girdle, deeper pavilion, and/or steeper crown.
In order to maximize profits, diamond cutters tend to retain as much weight from the rough as possible. This practice, however, can have detrimental effects on the stone's face-up size and its optical qualities. Poorly proportioned stones look duller and sparkle less than well cut stones. Chubby stones also look smaller.
A chubby is a diamond with hidden extra weight that looks smaller than it should when viewed from the top. Hidden weight is typically a result of a poor cut usually linked to oversized girdle, deeper pavilion, and/or steeper crown.
In order to maximize profits, diamond cutters tend to retain as much weight from the rough as possible. This practice, however, can have detrimental effects on the stone's face-up size and its optical qualities. Poorly proportioned stones look duller and sparkle less than well cut stones. Chubby stones also look smaller.
The bottom line:
One should never sacrifice beauty for weight.
You probably don't want to pay for extra weight that doesn't add anything to the beauty.
You want a stone that looks its weight. Sizewise, this 4.03ct Radiant looks like a well cut 3.4ct Radiant.
4.03 carat Radiant reference diamond
Since there are no specific ideal proportions defined for Radiant cuts,
an estimation formula is used to calculate the Radiant reference diamond.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Note: Radiant diamonds with face-up area of within 9% lower
and 12% higher than reference Radiant diamond area
are considered to be of adequate face-up size.
* Estimated Face-up area: Face-up area of Radiant cuts
is only an estimation (±4%). Due to uniqueness of each stone,
it's impossible to accurately calculate face-up area given only a diamond's measurements.
Face-up Area per Carat
Face-up area per carat is calculated by dividing face-up area of the diamond with
its carat weight. It tells you how many square millimeters of the top surface area
a diamond is showing or would show for 1 carat weight. This can be useful when comparing stones
of similar weights as it tells you how much spread per carat you will get.
Note: Face-up size does not linearly grow with carat weight,
which means the heavier the stone, the smaller its face-up area per carat (e.g., 1ct stone will have
higher face-up area per carat than 2ct stone).
Face-up area per carat
for 5.33ct Cushion (9.69×9.68×6.62mm):
Top surface area = 84.42 mm²
Weight = 5.33ct
Face-up area per carat = 84.42 ÷ 5.33 = 15.84mm²/ct
Weight = 5.33ct
Face-up area per carat = 84.42 ÷ 5.33 = 15.84mm²/ct
Face-up area per carat
for 4.03ct Radiant (9.66×7.82×5.6mm):
Top surface area = 71.76 mm²
Weight = 4.03ct
Face-up area per carat = 71.76 ÷ 4.03 = 17.81mm²/ct
Weight = 4.03ct
Face-up area per carat = 71.76 ÷ 4.03 = 17.81mm²/ct
Enter your screen size (diagonal)
My screen size is
inches
Actual size is currently adjusted to screen.
If your screen (phone, tablet, or monitor) is not in diagonal, then the actual size of a diamond, ring and finger will not be shown correctly.
If your screen (phone, tablet, or monitor) is not in diagonal, then the actual size of a diamond, ring and finger will not be shown correctly.