shape
carat
color
clarity

Carat size vs. measurements

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

sparkles31

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
20
Which determines how large a radiant actually looks from the top? Could you actually go by just measurements instead of carat size?
 

valeria101

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
15,808
Date: 1/10/2006 11:59:41 AM
Author:sparkles31


Which determines how large a radiant actually looks from the top?

Surface size, not weight - stones of the same weight can look quite different in size and the larger the weight, the more obvious this is.


Could you actually go by just measurements instead of carat size?

IMO, yes, sure.
Since you were looking for radiants 17-2cts...
2.gif


Here's an example of what I am trying to say:


weight:2.03 - size: 7.48x6.50x4.74

weight: 1.70 -size: 7.56x6.60x4.23

Both have reasonable numbers (neither is shallow well above 65%) and same grades (GIA) G-SI1, and about the same size (2cts a tiny hair smaller?). The weight makes for a 6k price difference... The tutorial about cut quality for the original radiants (at radiantcut.com) is the only place where I saw any mention about this weight versus size thing. On a database, it is quite obvious though.

I would not second guess the spread (whether a stone is large or small for its weight) based on depth & table percentages because for radiants the relation is not simple (more depth doesn't always mean a smaller stone). Since the diameter is given - the point is moot, hopefully.
 

SoonIHope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
2,152
For an example, look at my ring. It''s a cushion and it''s only 1.08 but EVERYONE thinks it looks a lot bigger than that, b/c apparently the spread is more like a 1.5. But it''s still cut really well and sparkles like crazy, so you would never guess that it''s cut shallow! So I''m all for choosing based on mm dimensions!
1.gif


lfaz2b.jpg
 

sparkles31

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
20
Date: 1/10/2006 12:12:17 PM
Author: albicocca
For an example, look at my ring. It''s a cushion and it''s only 1.08 but EVERYONE thinks it looks a lot bigger than that, b/c apparently the spread is more like a 1.5. But it''s still cut really well and sparkles like crazy, so you would never guess that it''s cut shallow! So I''m all for choosing based on mm dimensions!
1.gif
Yes definitely!!! It looks beautiful!!!!

Thanks for that
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top