The size of a carat diamond
Diamond cutting technology will cause different sizes of diamonds. Take the standard round diamond as an example. The diameter of 1 carat diamond is 6.5mm, which is similar to the cross-sectional size of Chinese pencils we use every day. But for other shapes of diamonds, the diameter is different. For example, 1 carat heart-shaped diamond has a diameter of 6.5mm, 1 carat princess square diamond has a length of 5.5mm, 1 karalidian diamond has a diameter of 4.75mm, 1 carat pear-shaped diamond has a diameter of 5.5mm, 1 carat oval diamond has a diameter of 6.5mm,/kloc-0. The size of a diamond can be described in two ways. For most people, the size of a diamond is the size, that is, the size that we can really see with the naked eye when wearing it on our hands. A carat diamond also has a size standard. According to international standards, the diameter of a carat diamond is 6.5 mm, more than half a centimeter. If you wear it on your hand, it generally accounts for more than one-third of the width of a girl's ring finger, which is already very intuitive. However, due to the different shapes of diamonds, we actually see different sizes of diamonds.
The weight of a carat diamond
Another description of carat diamond size is weight, which is the first test standard in diamond 4c. The weight of one carat, like our physical weight, is expressed in grams. One carat weighs 0.2 grams, or 20 milligrams. Compared with the weight of the real thing, it is too small, but don't underestimate the weight. Its price is expensive, ranging from 20 thousand to 30 thousand, which shows that we can't measure the preciousness of goods by weight.
Rules for selecting a carat diamond
For friends who like carat diamonds, selection is a key step. In fact, we can compare the value of diamonds. Each diamond will have an appraisal certificate, which will specify the weight, color, cleanliness and cutting grade of the diamond in detail. If the price is comparable, you can choose diamonds with higher grade parameters, which is more cost-effective.