Help: Realistic specs for sparkly RADIANT

[ZhenyaH]

I already have a solitaire e-ring with radiant cut diamond.

I must admit that I was a Fred Cueller enthusiast but I quickly realized there was something fishy. However, I still used the specs he usd to rate box radiants. When my fiance and I finally found something that came closed to the ideal specs, we sorta impulsively bought it. Yeah, we paid too much ($5250 for 1.03 carat SI1, G. Depth 56.7, Table 65, Crown 7.2, Good polish & symmetry). The stone, which I thought was really well cut, turned out to be shallow and spread cut and I''m not loving it as much as I did before. It looks glassy and there''s no sparkle.

So I''m thinking about getting a better stone. But here''s my dilemma:

I read enough posts on ideal radiant specs, etc. However, if you try to find something that fits within AGA parameters, good luck. If I find something with desirable table measurement, the depth is way off, or crown height or whatever. The ring I have is all over the AGA ratings--from 1A to 4B (1A being the girdle size and 4B being the crown height). And can you honestly calculate sparkliness from these numbers considering it''s a fancy cut stone??

I know what the ideal specs are but realistically speaking, what should I aim for? And what can I expect to get for ~$6000 from a B&M store with similar color and clarity??

My wedding date is fast approaching and I want to take care of this before my big day!!! Until then, I''ll continue to obsess like a total neurotic!

 

[cmcwill]

Hi!
I'm not sure about what you can get from a B&M store for that price range, but you could (and probably have) searched for your specs via pricescope and compared online vendor's selections. Here is a stone I have yet to see, but my boyfriend said it was much more sparkly than the others he was looking at the same day. The store is getting more in for us to look at on Friday, so I can help more then too!

.86 ct
F
VS1
67% table
68.9% depth
pol ex
sym vg
5.53 x 5.40

$4200 (to be haggeled out later)

I would keep table and depth under 70 and have table be @5% under depth if possible. symmetry helps too so dont forget to find that out. I have to get a crown height on this baby before we would consider a purchase though.

I hope this helps, I'll have more information this weekend!
Colleen

 

[Nicrez]

Radiant people...yes they are hard to find, but NOT impossible. I still search for radiants on ocassion, and I have been hard pressed for some good ones. I DID find nice pair on Whiteflash,, but they were .5cts




here are two that are under 70% for depth and table:


This is a 1.02 F VS1, D=67.2, and T=69 for $4,734


http://www.whiteflash.com/radiant/Radiant-cut-diamond-513137.htm




This is an E VVS2, D=69.2, T=70 for $4,540


http://www.whiteflash.com/radiant/Radiant-cut-diamond-614393.htm




I have to check if Whiteflash give PS members a discount, but you can ask, because I think they give you a 10%..?




My best suggestion is try The Radiant Cut (www.radiantcut.com) because we searched for MONTHS and made a nice little spreadsheet of EVERY stone we saw, depth, table, crown height, price, and the source of the stone (which store), and when we saw our stone, we didn't ask for a Sarin, or ANYTHING, that was it!




The Radiant Cut makes them all lovely and this particular one just JUMPED out at us...we were mad we didn't look at them before. Maybe you could save a bit of time, but I warn you they may be 15% more than a generic, but they ARE nicer...at least look at them, and you'll definately see why they are pricier...




Good luck and let us know what's going on...? Colleen, how is your search going...keep at it!!!

 

[cmcwill]

Its going well Nicrez, thanks for asking! I'll have MUCH more to post after this weekend when I head home to shop with my boyfriend! yay!

Colleen

 

[Nicrez]

YAY! Good luck Coleen, and have a great time! Remember to see every radiant you can, because even when the numbers don't mesh, you can still get a truly great stone! I saw a PERFECTLY square radiant with a 74% depth and everything else seemed great. It's florescence whitened it up from an F to a shocking white almost D! It had fire like no other stone...goes to show you, you need to see them. Have a fun time and post what you find, I am so curious!!

 

[lawgirl2831]

I''m confused.

On a radiant, its seems very consistent on table and depth % too look for.

one thing I dont'' know - do you want the table to be smaller than the depth or vice versa? what''s the impact of either?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/13/2005 4:28:48 PM
Author: lawgirl2831


one thing I dont' know - do you want the table to be smaller than the depth or vice versa? what's the impact of either?

There is so much more going on with a radiant cut beside those two % taht ... I really do not know how meaningful they are in aserach. You would probably need to look at a wide range for those unfortunate two numbers and get to see some radaints. Aside, that... I really don't know where to start!

Lets' say I would stay away from those that are too small for their weight (although the price is sometimes adjusted accordingly, so...) and I am not too fond of those with very large tables (towards 80%!). But spread (size) does not depend as strongly on depth for radiants as it does for rounds, so it would not help looking for, say, up to 65% depth and hope for a large stone for it's weight. It doesn't work. And then, one with more common 70%-ish depth may come at a better price for the actual size (diameter).

A thick girdle and steep upper girdle facets eat up allot more weight (=> downsized diamonds !?) than a bit of extra depth in the tip of the pavilion. Girdle thickness shows on the lab report - the other cut features with similar effect do not. Also, those thick girdles may correspond to fish-eye stones give shallower pavilion angles (and it may be the second tier of those, impossible to tell from total depth or anythis else on the lab report).

All in all, GIA lab reports do not describe cut quality for radiants all that well. What they do say is good to know, but there is no way to choose among diamonds based on that. Perhaps narrow doen to a couple that do not show extreme numbers, but among those, good luck - they need to be seen.

The whole thing is allot more confusing because the cut is relatively complicated with two layers of facets on both crown and pavilion which leaves you with lots of depth and angles to play with.

Basically, I don't know to sort radiants off a database aside looking for size, weight and price. Aside AGA, the website of the original radiant cut (www.radiantcut.com) has some useful information. Some of those radiants are listed online at Diamondsbylauren.com (the only such list with pictures I know of).

Just my 0.2. Hope some of this helps...

 

[Jean]

ZhenyaH.....I feel sad that you have a radiant that looks glassy and does not sparkle...

Mine has similar specs(depth 58.3, table 65.) I think it sparkles great, although if it is not clean it looks like sh** which tends to annoy me at times. I looked at several radiants on like and in person and mine had the most cracked glass look. I hope you find one that makes you happy!! Do you have any pics of the one you have now? If not, I can''t wait to see the new one!

 

[fancyrock]

Radiant lovers out here - You can use the helpful tools and guide chart from GemAppraisers.com to give you a better idea if the stone you are considering is a good one or an okay one. But I must advise you to ALWAYS, ALWAYS judge a stone in person and not just be chart & specs only. "you must see it to believe it"

happy hunting!!!

 

[coda72]

Date: 10/13/2005 4:28:48 PM
Author: lawgirl2831

one thing I dont'' know - do you want the table to be smaller than the depth or vice versa? what''s the impact of either?

I have read that it''s better if the table is smaller than the depth, but I don''t think that even if the table is a little larger than the depth that it will be a bad looking diamond. I think it''s more important that the two numbers be fairly close to each other. You don''t want a diamond with a 65% depth and a 75% table. 65% depth and say 68% table would not necessarily be bad though. The numbers are only meant to rule out stones. If all numbers look good, you will have to see the stone to see if it appeals to you.