Radiant diamond comparable

[marnes]

After much searching for the perfect engagement ring where we both liked emerald and princess cut, I settled on the radiant cut because it seems like a good hybrid between the two.

So I found a good local jeweler (after many bad ones), where they actually have private rooms with different lighting settings and microscopes, etc. They offered me a diamond with the following stats:

Carat: 1.61
Shape: Radiant
Dimensions: 7.45 x 6.3 x 4.12
Depth: 65.40%
Table: 75%
Girdle: Med-Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: SI1
Color: D
Fluorescence: Faint
Price: $13,500 (later they brought it down to $12,315 after my comparisons)

So viewing the diamond, I really couldn''t see any faults in it due to all the facets. In my opinion it looks great. I initially passed on the diamond so I could do my own comparibles (using bluenile.com). I quickly discovered I could get much better diamonds for even less money including one with nearly identical stats including dimensions for $10,613 (27% cheaper) .... but ultimately liked this one:

Carat: 1.7
Shape: Radiant
Dimensions: 7.94x5.79x4.24
Depth: 73.2%
Table: 70%
Girdle: Thin-Medium
Culet: None
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Fluorescence: None
Price: $12,540

So for $1000 less, I can get a bigger diamond with superior stats across the board.

My fiancee to be has a tiny size 4 finger and I want to make a custom platinum Tiffany style ring with tapered baguettes on the sides (.38 carat each). I was told that a small finger like that would present challenges by forcing a steep angle on the baguettes. Therefore, I concluded it would be best to get a longer skinnier diamond such as this second one (1.37 aspect ratio compared to 1.18 on the first diamond).

However, I''m concerned that the 73.2% table, 70% depth falls out of range for what is considered desireable for a radiant cut.

However, I have already ordered the diamond and will receive it tomorrow. I plan to compare both diamonds to see them side by side. A F/VS-1 seems far better than a D/SI1 diamond because it''s more balanced. If I made a disasterous mistake, I have 30 days to send it back for a full refund.

I am not an expert by any means -- but I am a programmer that likes to see numbers and stats, and would like to hear from some of you to see what you think is good or any comments comparing the two.

Thanks in advance!

 

[marnes]

Bump! Nobody has any advice for me? I saw another compable diamond using this site''s search engine for a diamond with a better table/depth rating etc. Expecting the diamond I ordered from Blue Nile to arrive within moments....

 

[RADIANTMAN]

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Neither stone is optimal based on the numbers. Both tables are too big and the Blue Nile stone is too deep. But radiants are complicated and the numbers only take you so far. No theoretical proportion analysis can replace actually seeing the stone. Even radiants with perfect "numbers" can lack proper brilliance because of the many things that we cannot yet measure. Since you''re getting to see both diamonds, my advice would be to buy the one you like the best.

 

[marnes]

I did compare both stones in the store today over lunch at Robbins Brothers. Their D/SI1 stone did seem to have slightly more fire and looked slightly bigger due to the top surface area and I could tell the color difference between their stone and my blue nile purchase of the F/VS1 stone. But there were a lot of inclusions on their stone and the price seemed too high. I chose the Blue Nile stone because it had a greater length, smaller width, cleaner cut and polish, and because I didn''t want to deal with the hassle of sending it back and applying for credit.

I''m getting my ring made custom (from a wax model they will be building for this ring) based off:

http://www.tiffany.com/expertise/diamond/rings/engagement_fancy_ring.asp?ring=emdsides

While I like emerald cuts, the brilliance wasn''t there, so a radiant cut seemed the ideal substitue. If I purchased this ring at Tiffany''s with the specs of the stone, I''d be paying $30K plus taxes. By ordering through Blue Nile and paying Robbins Brothers $3K to make my platinum setting with the baguettes, I''m saving slightly over half.

Which leads to this question: Am I getting ripped off on the custom ring?

Here''s the prices I''ve been charged:

Platinum metal, 5DWT, $975
Labor, 8 hours @ $75/hour, $600
Tapered Baguettes (quantity 2, carat 0.150 each, VS1, G) $1225
Wax Model, $100

Total $2900 plus taxes.

Hmmm, the baguettes seems too small, but I have no idea really. I have to trust someone at some point. I do know that the baguette at the widest side adjacent to the center stone needs to be 2.65mm. The length of the baguette may need to be sacrificed to maintain a good angle for a size 4 ring. Thoughts?

Does anyone know a place to search for tapered baguettes online?

 

[marnes]

So I did a little more digging and discovered that a tapered baguette should ideally have a 1.5 aspect ratio. That would mean the baguettes should each be 2.65mm by 3.975mm. Does anyone know approximately what carat weight for a typical baguette of those proportions? Obviously depth is unknown

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi Marnes,
Congratulations!

Stan gave good advice- although you are now coming up against a disadvantage of buying a loose diamond separately from a ring.
The prices you''ve been quoted are fair- but what if you don''t like the finished product?

I can tell you that the only way to properly match side stones is by visual means- put them next to the center, and see what the results are.

Baguettes are one of the easier cuts - because they really won''t "Match" a radiant- they should, however compliment it.
This is a matter of color, and size- and there''s simply NO formula which is workable here.
Some center diamonds work better with longer baguattes, some work better with wider baguettes.

it''s essential to carefully choose sides based on the center.

 

[marnes]

Hi David,

Thanks for your comments. I did a little more digging at bluenile.com about rings with tapered baguettes and took a much less scientific route for comparing baguette sizes.

They have a two platinum rings with tapered baguettes. The smaller one is $1075 and has 1/6 cttw for the two baguettes, making them 0.083ct each. Seeing the photo with a 1.7ct center radiant stone, the baguettes were too small compared to the Tiffany setting proportions

The larger platinum ring is $2800 and had 3/8 cttw for the baguettes, making each baguette 0.1875ct. Seeing the photo with a 1.7ct center radiant stone, the baguettes are slightly too large. Therefore, I believe Robbins Brothers did a very good job getting the proportions right for that ring. 0.15ct per baguette seems dead on in my unprofessional opinion.

And $2900 for a custom ring with large baguettes is priced quite well compared to the non-custom Blue Nile settings.

As for what happens if I''m not satisfied with the final product: They are making a wax model of the ring with the baguettes and my diamond (that they now have in their possession). Once I approve it, then they will cast the ring -- or I can back out and get my money back minus the $100 for the model fee. I''ve already looked at some rings that they make, and am satisfied with the quality. Even with a loupe, the worksmanship is almost as good as Tiffany''s. However, once they cast the ring, I am stuck with it. Although, if they do a terrible job on it, I''ll simply demand that they fix it. I have to wait 3 weeks for the final product...

But hell, doing everything on my own, I''m saving $15K on what would be a $30K ring! Not bad for 16-20 hours legwork!

A tip I have for others... for those that are considering spending that much on a Tiffany''s ring... take a weekend trip to Portland, Oregon and buy the ring from the Tiffany location there. There is no sales tax in Oregon and from California, a weekend flight for two plus accommodation would be about $500. And then I''d be saving $2450 in taxes compared to purchasing the ring from Tiffany''s in California!

I also saved $1000 in tax money by purchasing from Blue Nile, based in Seattle. I only had to pay tax on the ring itself, as I wasn''t happy with any pre-made ring I saw. [$$)]

 

[marnes]

Hmmmmmmm

So, while I wait for the ring to be built, I took a weekend trip with my girlfriend and we spontaneously visited a Tiffany''s store. During this visit, we saw a radiant cut diamond with a very similar setting as the original post design, except instead of tapered baguettes, it has trillions. It seems the trillions are a much better match for a radiant centerstone, and it became quite apparent during our visit. She really liked this ring... so I decided to call up the jewellers and quickly get them to make some changes. We also got her sized there, and discovered she is a 3.5, not a 4!

Trillions are bigger diamonds. We also learned that the wedding bands don''t match this ring very well. At least they don''t have much of a selection of "dented" wedding bands that make room for the center stone.

So basically, I want the trillions to complement the center stone. With a length of 8mm on the 1.7 radiant, I wanted the trillions to be about 6mm per side. That makes the trillions approximately 0.38 carats each. So they have ordered that for me.

So I have one concern....

She is only a size 3.5 and with a 1.7ct radiant + 0.38ct trillion sidestones x 2, that could take up a lot of real-estate on her tiny finger. Because of this, I specifically seeked a taller skinnier diamond. 7.92mm tall and 5.79mm wide for the center stone. And if the trillions are 6mm on each side, the width would be 5.19mm x 2 = 10.38 + 5.79mm = 16.17mm from left tip of left trillion to right tip of right trillion assuming the trillians were perfectly horizontal, which would never happen. So to reduce that width, the angle of the trillians need to be steeper. At a steep 45 degree angle, which seems to be about the right Tiffany angle for this ring, using basic geometry, you get the 1 by 1 by root 2 (1.41) triangle. So 5.19mm at 45 degrees would only take up 3.68mm... reducing the horizontal footprint from 16.17mm to 13.15mm.

So now that I have a 13.15mm horizontal footprint for the diamonds and a size 3.5 ring... I don''t know how to figure out if the footprint is too big. Does anyone know how I can determine the proper balance for this custom ring. Trillian size and side stone angle are the two factors I can juggle. I just want to know if the diamonds I chose will be okay for her tiny finger.

Thanks!

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Marnes:

You might consider smaller trillions. The trillions should go more or less from the bottom of one cut corner to the top of the other. While the best way to choose side stones is, as David said, actually placing them next to the stone to see how they "sit" together, there are some general rules which can narrow your search. A goodl rule of thumb is that the trillions should be 65% - 70% of the length of the diamond. Using that formula, your trillions should be about 5-5.5 mm. This will narrow your "footprint" quite a bit, and make the ring much sleeker.

 

[marnes]

Okay, the trillions arrived and I took your advice. What I got were matching VS1 F trillions measuring 5mm x 4.9mm x 4.8mm. The total carat weight for both is 0.77. They are charging me $1995 for this pair. Does that seem in line? I''m a little curious as to why the cut is not symmetrical on all three sides. The shortest edge is 4% shorter than the longest end. May not be a big deal, I have no idea!

This is certainly taking longer than I expected, getting impatient. So I''m going to try to see them tonight and keep it a secret from my girlfriend. They have also ordered another set which is slightly bigger. Don''t know what the measurements, nor prices are, but they will arrive on Friday I believe.

What do you think?

 

[ame]

I think the .1 difference isn''t going to be very noticeable once set. I cant wait to see photos of this

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

We can see why some people employ an architect to design, procure and manage the building of a house

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I would say that smaller side stones might be in order for a ring size of 3.5. My ring size is 4.5 and my EC is 1.72 if that gives you any idea. Obviously her finger is smaller but I still have a surprising about of the sides of my ring visable. My EC is considered shorter and wider I don''t remember the exact ratio. I understand the frustration of going to a jewelry store and trying on rings 3 sizes too big. It is hard to get an idea of what it will look like. I know there are some ladies on here with 3.5 ring sizes who can show you there ring. Good luck.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 8/24/2005 6:22:15 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
We can see why some people employ an architect to design, procure and manage the building of a house

As usual, Garry and I are in total agreement.......


The thought of trying to design a ring ising percentages, and averages gives me the willies- How many times a combo that should have looked good, did not? MANY.

Parts need to be visually inpsected to make sure the proportions are correct- of course the "parts "we''re talking about here are diamonds.