RADIANT CUT QUESTION????

[YMA]

HELP!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY PLEASE, I am completely Diamond Illiterate!! I know this may be a DUMB question, but I need clarification!

This might be a weird question, but here it goes............I have a 2ct rectagular Radiant cut and was thinking about upgrading to a 3ct Squarish Radiant cut.

But when I placed the 3ct Diamond(71% depth) next to my 2ct diamond(72% depth) it did not look bigger at all, were my eyes deceiving me? What was the reason the 3ct didn't look bigger?

The jeweler said it would face up(?) bigger when set, is this true. I am so confused??????

Someone some had a diagram with the different shape of stones to show how they all looked, can someone please post that again or tell me where to look.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Radiant cuts are extremely complicated, and depth % by itself is not a particularly good predictor of spread. Among other factors, depth% needs to be adjusted to reflect shape. Rectangular radiants can carry higher depth%''s than squares without getting lumpy, so your 2 carater probably spreads bigger for its carat weight than the 3 (though they are both probably a bit small looking).

A 3 carat should look clearly bigger than a two. Instead of looking at depth %, try multiplying the length x width. For a 3 carat radiant, the L x W should be 70 - 73 sq MM. If it''s not, it doesn''t look like a 3 carat.

 

[pricescope]

YMA, here is a DiamCalc simulation for 2.0 ct radiant (72% depth)

 

[pricescope]

... and here is the same proportions but 3.0 ct. Difference is about 1.0 mm.

 

[pricescope]

If your 3 ct diamond has different proportions for crown, pavilion and girdle, it can also affect the spread.

Please post proportions and measurements for these diamonds so it would be easier to discuss.

 

[coda72]

Well, you have gotten some good answers already to your question, but I thought I''d add my view to this. I generally think rectangular shaped stones look larger than squares. If you had two stones with exactly the same specifications side by side I think the rectangular one would appear larger even if it wasn''t. It sort of is your eyes fooling you. For example, look at a pear or oval shaped stone next to almost any other shape and they will look bigger even if they are all the same carat weight. Stones that are longer just look bigger. That being said, I still don''t think your 2 carat rectangular should look larger than the 3 carat square. There must be something else in the numbers to account for this.

 

[YMA]

Thanks for all the answers I will get the "numbers" and post them so you guys can see it and then give me the real answers.

But one more question does the depth or spread help determine how big the stone looks, and what part does each play ie: does a larger spread mean a larger looking stone.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 10/27/2005 11:44:09 AM
Author: YMA
Thanks for all the answers I will get the ''numbers'' and post them so you guys can see it and then give me the real answers.

But one more question does the depth or spread help determine how big the stone looks, and what part does each play ie: does a larger spread mean a larger looking stone.

In general, yes but it might be subjective for different shapes. As Coda72 wrote, long shapes (oval or marquise) can appear bigger for its weight.