Square Radiant - Please Help

[spaceboy]

Can someone please help in regard to a diamond purchase I am considering?

It is a Radiant and the specs are as follows:

Weight: 1.01 carat
Measurements: 5.56 x 5.49 x 3.88
Depth: 70.7%
Table: 74%
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Fluorescence: None
Ratio: 1.01

I can buy this diamond for 3,900 with a 18k white gold cathedral setting included. It seems like a good deal to me and I’m looking for some thoughts on this. I’m far from an expert and would like some guidance.

Most of the Radiants that I have come across have been more rectangle in shape, but this seems to be a really nice stone. Lots of fire, but it looks a bit small for a 1.01 carat. Anything glaring in regard the specs above that I’m completely missing?

I know it seems pretty deep, but I thought that Radiants were supposed to be on the deeper end? I have done some research and it seems as if this is an average cut radiant, just want to know if I am optimizing my $ in regard to this purchase. PLEASE HELP!

I was looking to stay in the 4-5K range for the stone.

Also, I will be looking for a pave setting to upgrade to, but with so many options out there, I want my girlfriend to pick it out after I pop the question. Any suggestions in regard to where I should begin the search?

Thanks in advance for your time and help. All the knowledge that people have on this site is AMAZING. I appreciate your help and am VERY thankful!

Best regards,

B

 

[dani13]

Hello SB- welcome!

I am not very knowledgeable re: radiants, I will let the experts chime in there. But I wanted you to check out this thread below- I love diamond girl''s setting for her radiant- it is a pave band made by James Allen (aka Dirt Cheap Diamonds). I think it is just so pretty- perfect setting for a gorgeous radiant!!

Check it out:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-love-my-new-radiant-engagement-ring.29538/=

Good luck!

 

[coda72]

Square radiants seem to be hard to find right now. I did a Pricescope search and only came up with a couple of possibilities. I am not in love with the stone you were offered. It is a bit deep; most well-cut radiants have depths of 60-65%. With a depth of 70% it will definitely appear smaller than it should for its carat weight. The table also seems to big at 74%. I know you can''t always go by the numbers with these stones, but the numbers for this one just don''t seem to indicate a well-cut stone.. I think you should pass this one up.

Here''s a couple I found that might be worth a look:

http://www.engagementringsdirect.com/search.php?src=7300022

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=783215&aff_id=ps621

 

[spaceboy]

Can you advise as to the clairy I should consider in regard to a different radiant? I was looking to go no further than VS1. On the diamond that i was considering - clarity was a VS1, it didnt look as if any (no matter what the clarity was) would be visible to the eye if the clarity was any worse.

Please advise becasue i see some of your suggestions go as far as SI quality.

 

[coda72]

I think for radiants you could go as low as SI1 and maybe even SI2 and not see any inclusions. I have a VS2 and I would definitely look at SI''s the next time around. I can barely see inclusions in my VS2 even under a loupe. I have seen some SI2''s that were also very eyeclean. I could see the inclusions under the loupe, but nothing with the naked eye. So, I think VS1 is overkill, and I personally wouldn''t pay for that clarity.

 

[Diachi]

Date: 3/19/2006 3:33:53 PM
Author: coda72
I think for radiants you could go as low as SI1 and maybe even SI2 and not see any inclusions. I have a VS2 and I would definitely look at SI''s the next time around. I can barely see inclusions in my VS2 even under a loupe. I have seen some SI2''s that were also very eyeclean. I could see the inclusions under the loupe, but nothing with the naked eye. So, I think VS1 is overkill, and I personally wouldn''t pay for that clarity.

Just wanted to chime in here and say that I too have a square radiant and it is VS1. I''d DEFINATELY look at an "eye clean" SI1 if we were looking again. And as you will read here, cut is really the most important so I''d take the time to find a well cut stone if I were you...Good luck!

 

[spaceboy]

Thanks for all the advice.... I guess my next question is - What classifies/justifies a well cut radiant. I don’t believe there are any GIA standards set for this cut. It’s a bit difficult, for a novice such as myself, to differentiate between average/good/excellent cuts on a radiant.

Anything to look for?

Also, can you please enlighten me in regard to how the table size affects the overall size of the diamond? I now know to look for depths of 60-65%, but don’t know what to look for in regard to table. Does the larger table size mean a visually bigger diamond? I don’t think it does, but I just thought I would ask for some guidance.
Again, thanks for all your time & help!

 

[Diachi]

Go to the top of the page and select "Knowledge" and then "Advanced Tutorials". Scroll down the page (bottom, left side) and click on "Emeralds & Radiants". That will provide a Cut Class Chart to start your search. Keep in mind that Radiants can vary a lot from stone to stone so even with the "right" numbers, you have to make sure it looks like you want it too...

I have found that every time I have a question, there have been others before that have asked it already. Just type what it is regarding in the Search and most likely, you will find a wealth of information regarding whatever it is (i.e. "Large Table").