Help on cut and price

[nurse55]

Found two diamonds today, but am having a difficult time making the decision. Please let me know which stone you think is better, and whether you think the prices are fair:
#1 rectangular brilliant
2.67
8.69x7.66x4.66
depth: 60.8%
table: 67%
thin to medium
no cutlet, vgpolish, good symm. SI1 color G, no fluor
asking price:19,100


#2 rectangular brilliant
3.01
9.20x8.07x5.18
depth: 64.2%
table:75%
thin to slightly thick
no cutlet, good polish, good symm, SI2 color F, no fluor
20,708 dollars


Am looking for some input. I know you guys cannot make the decision for me. Am I getting ripped off. You have all told me large radiants are hard to come by!!!!!Thanks in advance

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Sorry... my eyes... mid afternoon bleriyness.... thought that read round brilliant.. will leave the following for prosperity

well inital queriying with the little 'Pricescope your diamond:' at the top of tese pages would seem on ave a 2.5ct would bounce around $20K for a G SI1

so on inital returns would be... good price at 2.65 but i would ask - why? - is it eye clean, that is, is the inclusions that make this a SI1 clarity diamond visable to the naked eye when viewed from above, as if set in a ring. I would say in a 2.5 - 3ct this is important as it is gettin on in the big size, and it would be terrible if you spent all that money and ended up with a stone with a big (some would say ugly) black spot dead centre under the table... on the other hand it could be a SI1 where theres a lot of little marks around the girdle and cant be seen without magnification.

But looking at the specs you have so far.. 67% and 75% tables seem a little on the overly large size! and the HCA on simple specs reckons the crown is just WAY too steep... do not consider purchase! (most tables are below 60%, 56-60% is considered good) in such a diamond, you'd end up with a very deep diamond, which would look like a much smaller diamond than it is. they are both oval in shape.. with both having a difference of over a mm between the widest and narrowest points on both stones

but at the price i start to think 'waryness' and i would rather spend $20K with ppl who had the tools and put forward the crown and pavilion information and are better could and will sparkle more.

try: 2.52 G SI1 59.7% 58% EGL m- no ex vg no 8.92*8.88*5.31 $7709 $19427 from whiteflash (larger diameter for less weight than the 2 you put forth) this one is also seems to be listed at 5 differnt vendors

or 2.52 G SI1 62.8% 60% GIA stk- no gd gd slt 8.59*8.63*5.41 $8636 $21763 from engagment rings direct


sorry for the inconvenious

 

[nurse55]

Come on guys...I know you are out there!!!!!Would appreciate some input from any or all the diamond experts out
there. This has been a very tough road if you look back at my previous thread, and I can really use some help and or advice. Thanks in advance

 

[Cath]

Hi nurse55, I''m not a radiant expert -- just wanted to say that it is still early in the morning right now. For the most part, only us east coasters and overseas people are awake. This thread should pick up later in the day as the midwest/west coast guys join in. Plus many of us here aren''t radiant experts, so we aren''t chiming in since we don''t have knowledge in this area.

Give your thread some more time. And good luck finding that perfect radiant!

 

[nurse55]

Thanks for the reply, Lord Summerisle. I question not having a GIA report on the first diamond you mentioned. Should I be skeptical or not? Everthing I have read has said GIA is the most accurate. In terms of the second, it does have some fluor which I didn''t think I should get. The price does seem alot considering it is a 2.5, am I wrong?????

 

[nurse55]

Lord Summerisle, what do you mean? Should I disregard everything you wrote initially.... Looking back at the specs, please reevaluate based on a radiant cut diamond.. Do you still feel the same based on the info putforth!!! Please reply ..

 

[noobie]

nurse55,

I only spent about three weeks looking for a radiant, so take what I say with a grain (pound) of salt. I bought a Jubilee instead. Some advice I got was to look for a table the same or smaller than depth (others discount that rule). I was actually resigned to probably buy a Grosbard (sp?) original radiant as they appeared to be more consistent but of course carried a premium.

Perhaps nicrez will chime in. She spent a great deal of time looking and found one that you can see here

Good luck

 

[pqcollectibles]

You aren''t getting a lot of response because radiants are an odd beast. Nicrez, as Noobie mentioned, spent quite a bit of time in her search. Nicrez and her FI didn''t just run out, look at a few stones, and buy the best they found on short notice. She looked in the diamond district in NYC, and took a great deal of time screening candidates that she had brought in "on memo" to preview before she found THE ONE.

Before they began looking at diamonds, Nicrez and her FI spent time learning what to look for in a good performing radiant. Her actual search spanned a period of months. She reached a point of frustration where she almost settled for the best among those she had seen prior to finding her perfect diamond. Her FI kept a spread sheet of stats on diamonds they had considered along with comments on IS, visual performance, and other info. She selected her stone based on a combination of stats, testing, and what her eyes told her was pleasing to her. It was quite a search, but it paid off in the end.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

I would say, as i mentioned in PM...

to clarify - would be better if you can see the stones for yourself - see if the inclusions are visable... and if they are... are they intrusive... or not...

disgregard comments on proportions as that isnt relevent to this discussion of such a cut... or at least i am in no position to be making comment on a cut i know nothing about... i had miss read this inital post as a round brilliant

sorry for the inconvinience

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

There is a radiant ring (3.01) listed on the Signed Pieces Website. Good luck in your search.

cheers--Sharon