×
carat vs. color  length*  width*
  ×

(or examine a )
* size in mm (optional)

1.8ct Ruby (Oval, 9.2×6.13mm, Red) vs 1.51ct Ruby (Oval, 8.67×5.78mm, Red)


Quick summary: When looked from above (face-up position), 1.8ct Ruby (9.2×6.13mm, oval cut) appears 13% larger than 1.51ct Ruby (8.67×5.78mm, oval cut). See below how they compare side-by-side on a ring and finger.

1.8ct Ruby (oval cut)
vs
 1.51ct Ruby (oval cut)
red
 
red
9.2×6.13 mm 8.67×5.78 mm
actual size
Actual size of 1.8ct Ruby (oval cut, 9.2×6.13mm, Red color)   Actual size of 1.51ct Ruby (oval cut, 8.67×5.78mm, Red color)
Actual size is set for screen
Ring: Skin tone:
Ring width: 3.0 mm
Left finger image
Ring on left finger
Red 1.8ct Ruby (oval cut, 9.2×6.13mm) on a left ring and finger
64 mm
Right finger image
Ring on a right finger
Red 1.51ct Ruby (oval cut, 8.67×5.78mm) on a right ring and finger
Your settings
Ring
 Gold
Skin tone
 Light
Ring diameter
 16.9 mm
Ring width
 3.0 mm
Finger length
 64 mm
Finger coverage
 37% vs 35%
Saved...
Ring diameter: 16.9 mm
USA UK Asia EU1 EU2
Actual sizes of 1.8ct Ruby Oval (9.2×6.13mm, Red) and 1.51ct Ruby Oval (8.67×5.78mm, Red) as they would appear on a ring and finger. Adjust the ring and finger size to get an idea of how these gemstones would look on your finger.

Where to buy?

For certified gemstones, high-end gemstone jewelry, and birthstone jewelry, see Blue Nile

Face-up Size

The face-up size depends on the shape of the gem, its weight and the proportions of the cut. Face-up area is a measure of the size of the gem when viewed from above (as set in a ring). It tells you how big the gem is at the girdle plane.


1.8 Ct Ruby (Oval) 1.51 Ct Ruby (Oval)
9.2×6.13 mm vs 8.67×5.78 mm
46.24 mm²   41.09 mm²
Face-up size outline for 1.8ct Ruby (9.2×6.13mm, oval cut)
Face-up size outline for 1.51ct Ruby (8.67×5.78mm, oval cut)
1.8ct Ruby Oval (9.2×6.13mm)
1.51ct Ruby Oval (8.67×5.78mm)
Difference: 13% (5.15 mm²)
1.8ct Ruby (Oval, 9.2×6.13mm) has approx. 13% more face-up area than 1.51ct Ruby (Oval, 8.67×5.78mm).


Popular comparisons: