Please Comment!

[ello]

OPTION 1:

Price: $23,989.00          
Report: GIA
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 3.35
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 63.4
Table: 68
Girdle: TN
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 9.92-8.12X5.15
Length/Width: 1.22


OR-

OPTION 2:

Price: $16,337.00          
Report: EGL
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 3.00
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 65
Table: 74
Girdle: TK-
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 8.44-8.08X5.19
Length/Width: 1.04
 
OR-

OPTION 3:

Price: $28,000.00          
Report: EGL
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 3.13
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 58.8
Table: 62
Girdle: very thin to slightly thick
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 8.86-8.64X5.08
Length/Width: 1.03

Please post your opinions - I am not sure what to look for in a Radiant.
Much appreciated!

 

[ello]

Please help Ladies & Gents! Your knowledge means so much to me!
Thanks

 

[Jennifer5973]

Date: 8/12/2005 10:18:22 PM
Author: Ries
Please help Ladies & Gents! Your knowledge means so much to me!
Thanks

Be patient-radiants are tough and few are well versed enough to offer qualified opinions.

One thing I can ofer is that I''ve learned here that numbers alone aren''t enough with fancies, especially radiants--they must be seen to be understood and evaluated properly.

 

[blueroses]

Ditto what Jenn said--I was going to say about the same: that radiants (and a lot of fancies) have to be evaluated w/ the eyes and not just by the numbers....but hang out and I''m sure you''ll get some feedback!

 

[ello]

hello! Thank you for replying - The diamond options are from online vendors so I will not have the opportunity to view them in person. I will wait patiently for a few more posts before we make our selection. Thank you all!

Happy weekend!

 

[MissAva]

f you are not going to see either before picking then you at the very least need to call and get some pictures emailed to you. Both of those stones could be lovely, but they could both be duds too. You need more info.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/12/2005 9:54:35 PM
Author:Ries

Please post your opinions - I am not sure what to look for in a Radiant.

I'd be looking for two sings - looks for the money ! That means brilliance, size, color and clarity in that order... Between E and G I do not feel there is much to say about color - these are no-excuse white. SI clarity sounds good, in theory but needs more detail because those inclusions have some chance of being unpleasant and there is no way to know without taking a look (at least at clarity plots and pictures, if not the gem). Size for the money shows on the report (where size = surface area, not weight). But brilliance is also very important and does not show anywhere in a lab report. It is very tempting to guess something from table & depth numbers simply because those are all that is available, but I would not even try - it can't work well.

The AGA tables are good for sorting through the numbers into a database ('guess youalready used them because your choices fall within those recommendations anyway), but they do not pretend to predict brilliance. Even if some connection exists, it may not have been tested to see if it is safe enough to pick just one rock based on that. If even the author of the tables does not say this...

Any chance to see these at all ?

Since all are SI, I would make clarity do the first weeding: if any of these has unpleasant inclusions it would be the first out of the selection regardless.

Then between the first and the third, the first sounds better - it is larger and less expensive. IMO, the slightly non-square shape (1.22 L/w) is appealing too. But... if either more discrete inclusions or better brilliance favors the second those would be more important things.

#2 is the smallest in th lot, but the G-SI1 spot is tempting and so is the price. I would be looking for G-SI begin with.

Can you ask for the clarity plots or/and the seller's impression of their clarity in person ? pictures ?

'Guess this post puts #3 at a slight disadvantage. I really can't find anything 'wrong' with any.
If I could call in just one to take a look, I would have a hard time deciding between #1 and #2. Clarity and shape would decide between these 'on paper' and then it remains to see how the pick turns out in person. The lab report can give a half-useful hint about potentially visible inclusions via the calrity plot (that it works worse than you might thing, IMO), but virtually nothing worth talking about about brilliance. And that would be the last judge.

Just a thought

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

Another thing to consider is are you looking for a more rectangular radiant? or square looking radiant? The first one you posted will appear more rectangular than the second two. You can determine this by the length to width ratio. After the l to w ratio reachers 1.05, the stone will begin to appear more rectangular than square.

 

[coda72]

I have a radiant, so I will try to help you, but I don''t have all that much knowledge.
#1 could be ok, but if you want an eyeclean diamond, you have to have the vendor look at it to tell you if he/she can see any inclusions without a loupe. The table is a little bigger than I would like, but it could still be a very nice diamond. You really need the vendor to take a look at it.

#2 has an EGL report, and diamonds with these reports have been known to be off on color and/or clarity grading. It''s a G, SI1, but if it were graded by GIA, it could be a H, SI2. I personally would not feel comfortable buying an H radiant. Fancy shapes tend to show more color than rounds. I also don''t like the table on this one, it just seems too large and may make it look glassy.

#3 is a tough one. It''s kind of pricy for a stone with an EGL report. Generally these sell for a little lower price. It also could be off on color and clarity, and with this one being an EGL SI2, you would need to again have the vendor look at it and see if it''s eyeclean. I would probably pass on this one.

#1 seems like the best possibility to me.

 

[ello]

hello & thank you for all of your time! It''s made me so happy after a rather crazy day to see resplies to my post!

Maybe this might help...
Option#1 - Whiteflash Radiant
Option#2 - Whiteflash Radiant
Option#3 - Original Radiant Cut Diamond

Does that help??? Any comments?

 

[MissAva]

If the first two are at WF then call and ask them to send you pictures. They have done this before for other customs I cannot imagine that they would be unwilling to help you. I dont recognize the third you listed but I really belive some pictures would help you an awful lot in this decision.

 

[coda72]

Since #1 and #2 are Whiteflash diamonds, you can call them and have them take a look at them for you. They will be able to tell you if either stone has eye visible inclusions and generally just how the stone looks. They will give you their opinion on which stone is the better one. If you decide you want to take a look at one or both of them, they will ship them to an independent appraiser near you, and you can go to the appraiser to take a look at them.

As for #3, since you didn''t state who the vendor is, I can''t tell you how you will be able to look at this diamond.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/14/2005 4:18:28 AM
Author: Ries

Maybe this might help...
Option#1 - Whiteflash Radiant
Option#2 - Whiteflash Radiant
Option#3 - Original Radiant Cut Diamond

Does that help?

Not really. The ''original radiants'' are not cut to look all the same as the H&A rounds are. It is a brand, but it does not produce carbon-copy diamonds.

I don''t know of any other pictures of such stones on the Web aside those at Diamodns by Lauren (HERE). They make the point (that the original cuts are not all alike) but do not show whether these stones are in a class by themselves. IMO, there is just as good to be found without the pedigree. However, fine cut does carry a premium with or without the brand. All in all, I would not use that brand name to justify a blind selection

But that is just one opinion, of course. And there are precious few radiants with proper presentation (pictures & all) online - at least that I know of.