Questions about Radiant diamonds

[molson3]

I keep going back and forth between a Radiant and Asscher cut diamond. My girlfriend seems to lean more towards the radiant due to it having more sparkle. I know I''m looking for a diamond with a E-F color, VVS1-VS1 clarity, premuim cut, EXC-VG polish/smtry. I also would like it to be square rather than rectangle. The carat will be 1.25 to 1.5.

My question is: what depth % and table % should I truely be looking for? And in the measurement I not sure what is too deep. Is a stone that has measurements of 6.24 X 6.21 X 4.22 too deep? Will it make the stone look smaller?

Thanks for your help?

 

[windowshopper]

just my thoughts:

asschers should be almost perfectly square and radiants really arent supposed to be square-they are normally brilliant cut rectangles (I believe). A really good asscher (i assume you mean square emerald cut and not the branded Royal Asscher) are likely alot harder to find than a good radiant.


Personally a radiant will likely look a lot bigger if its well cut (asschers tend to be deep and need to be somewhat to have the right "look" and if she likes a radiant she mayn not like an asscher which are quite stark and simple compared to the brilliance of a radiant...........

EDIT--YOU SHOULD GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE UNDER KNOWLEDGE AND LOOK AT THE SPECS FOR FANCY CUT GRADES IT WILL HELP YOU ELIMINATE A LOT OF STONES AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS

 

[moosewendy]

The conventional answer to the depth/ table question is that both should be in the 60''s. If the radiant is square, the depth should be in the low to mid 60''s. Cut quality in a radiant is pretty complicated, though, and depth and table measurements don''t begin to tell the whole story. Even radiants with perfect #''s often fall short when you see them. If the stone you describe weighs about 1.20 cts, then it has the proper spread for its size. Whether it has the proper life you can''t even guess off the information provided.