Help with Radiant

[chadrock]

I was set on a 1.76 ct. Princess when my jeweler called me and said he was getting in what was described by the broker he goes through as "an amazing Radiant diamond." He had all the specs besides the Crown Height %. I understand that traditionally, crown height % was calculated by taking the crown height divided by the average diameter (I''ve read that GIA applies this to Radiant Stones and substitutes the width for the diameter). However, I''ve read that the length of the stone, when measuring a radiant shape, should also be taken into consideration. If I calculate the crown height % using the first method, the crown height is 14.9%.

I went and looked at the stone and it was beautiful however, when I put the specs into the chart provided at www.gemappraisers.com for radiant shaped diamonds, it came back as an average cut at 3A. Here are the specs:

1.76 ct. Radiant

Clarity: SI1

Color: F

6.90 x 6.69 x 4.80 mm

Table: 69%

Crown Height: ?? (estimating somewhere in the 14% range)

Girdle Thickness: Slightly Thick to Thick

Polish/Symmetry: Good/Good

Depth: 70.5%

These specs result in the following: Table is 2A, Depth is 3A (the chart did not let me input this - it was calculated and came back at 71.7%, which is slightly deeper than the actual measurement of 70.5%), Girdle is 1A, Crown Height is 1A, Polish is 1A and Symmetry is 1A (polish and symmetry are not primary determining factors). So, overall, the diamond would get a 3A, which equates to a U.S. Domestic Average Cut.

To add to my confusion, I found other charts that gave different specs for an ideal to very good cut and this diamond fit in that category.

I''m so confused. Please help!

 

[icelady]

Hi Chadrock,

Welcome to PriceScope!

What did your eyes tell you about the Radiant cut you saw? Did you compare it to the Princess you were interested in? Were you able to compare it to other Radiants? Since there are more than one set of standards for Radiants, you really have to see them and compare them to find the one that appeals to you most.

You may also want to check out this site and look for their ideal cut proportions since it is the original Radiant cut site! Good luck, and happy hunting.

 

[chadrock]

I actually saw that site before I posted this topic, but I had a difficult time understanding the adjusted calculations.

I thought the Radiant was very pretty, but you could probably lay an average/good cut next to an excellent cut and I wouldn''t be able to tell the difference. My eyes are very good at spotting clarity, but cut and color aren''t so easy for me. Also, if the diamond looks great to me, but I know or think that it is a poor/average cut based on some charts, that will be in the back of my mind.

 

[Nicrez]

This one MAY be amazing, but again your eyes have to have it... Numbers don''t always work, and charts can only tell you so much. Even the numbers on the Original Radiant site are only so helpful. They basically tell you enough to know that the radiant SHOULD have a depth and table under 70%.

As for adjusted percentages, consider that you have different lengths of radiants. Some come square (few) and most come a bit rectangular. Now if you have a depth percentage, it is actually the depth of the stone in relation to the girdle diameter, which is the 100% it''s compared to. In round stones that''s easy, as it''s round and even an average is close to the same number (which could be a 6.5mm and a 6.2mm at it''s smallest)... BUT in shaped stones, you need to consider that Length and Width are NOT equal (most radiants AREN''T), and so that depth compared to the girdle diameter (which could be a 7.25mm and a 6.04mm). Longer stones need to be adjusted to maximize their brilliance, since the furthest lengths need depth to sparkle back, so that''s the adjustment.

it''s fairly complex, and the average joe will not really understand all that because of the fact that it''s not DEPTH as we know it, but a depth in RELATION to the girdle diameter (where the AVERAGE of that diameter is 100%) and the depth is the percent of that 100% girdle diameter... Like I said it''s pretty heady, and I am sure I don''t even have it all figured out. Basically even GIA isn''t anywhere close to getting standards on facies because they are not round and easy...

Shaped stones need to be seen to be loved... and I can''t think of a day where I will ever recommend a princess over a radiant, but in the end, it''s your stone, your money, and your choice... Radiants are amazing when well cut, but it''s tough to find generics that are... Good luck and SEE as many of them as you can!!!

 

[chadrock]

So, what would you say about this Radiant based on the specs given? I can get the diamond for around $9,900.

 

[Nicrez]

I can never tell you how a radiant will perform based on numbers alone, but it SEEMS to be OK...For a 1.76ct, $9000 seems a bit low... I have a radiant at about the same carat weight (actually 1.73cts) and it was actually A lot more, but my clarity was also VVS... (so that boosts it)

In the end you EYES will be the judge. have you seen it yet? What do you think? Is it brilliant white, or does it have more fire? is there a slightly dark ring in the eye of the stone? When you move it around how good is the scintillation and sparkles??

I never saw it, so I can''t attest to if it''s a good deal or not... because at this point, you are buying a stone that MAY or MAY not be cut well. the AGA charts suggests that the perfect stone is 60% to 65% for both depth and table....NEVER SEEN ONE. Unless someone can tell me they have, I don''t know if that "perfect'' stone exists, so again....SEE THE STONE and see what your eyes tell you!

 

[chadrock]

Also, are the more square radiant diamonds more desirable than the rectangular ones? More rare?

 

[chadrock]

The price is what it is because the jeweler is a friend of a friend (you know that whole story) so I''m not getting the mark up that would normally be put on the stone

What does the dark ring in the center mean? Is light escaping somewhere it shouldn''t be?

I have seen the stone and it looks really nice, but what you said "you are buying a stone that MAY or MAY not be cut well" is my exact concern. I think it looks nice, but like I said in an above reply, "you could probably lay an average/good cut next to an excellent cut and I wouldn''t be able to tell the difference." That''s my concern... I buy a diamond that looks nice, but in reality, it is a poorly cut diamond. This would hurt if I went to trade up or sell the diamond.

 

[Nicrez]

First of all, avoid selling it...You never do well in that business transaction. Trading up may work if you use the SAME person, and they have a good trade-up policy (get it in writing...years down the line, you will be GLAD you did!)

Squares are more desirable in MY book, but most radiant lovers will disagree with me and say that the radiant was cut by Henry grossbard as the consession between emerald lovers (long elegant diamonds) who wanted more sparkle (like a round), so traditionalist would gasp at the square radiant being desirable. For most people it's a matter of choice. Is it rare. You bet! Less demand, as most people like square princess stones, but to me there is NO comparison.

Next question, will you buy a radiant on a leap of faith that you are getting it at a "cut rate" price? Consider the STATS on a radiant (not sure how often it's updated or what the total number of stones surveyed for this was, but according to PS the LOWEST for your color, clarity and size group in a 3B cut is $7,295.2, and the average is $10,149.92 based on this page of PS:

https://www.pricescope.com/RepRange.asp?shp=7&rng=8

Okay and as for buying a dud, shaped stones are always less expensive than round stones with the same quality, so don't think you will get a stone that will sell SO MUCH less... basically, if the guy who is selling it to you thinks it's the cat's meow, put it in writing that he will buy the stone from you at the same price, if you want to sell it. That would cinch the deal for me...

If you like the stone, and you have no way of noticing it's flaws, then I doubt your lady will...and the cut grades for fancies are FAR away, so don't worry about getting killed on resale in that respect. Just think Do I like it NOW? If yes, and it's worth your price, then do it. If you are still unsure, see some more, compare, and pick the best one.

How many have you seen? And have you seen the Originals?

 

[Nicrez]

Dark Ring: Basically that is what we see as a reflection of the girdle... In a round stone that is usually called a Fish eye and not considered desirable.

Radiants are different animals all together. The designer of the Radiant actually MAKES many of his stones to have the girdle refelction in the eye of the stone, to give it a bit more of that round symmetric appeal. Most radiants cut have it, and I am told it''s not only normal, but desirable...

I personally am not a fan of it. I like the look with TOTAL randomness AND I like them square. I love to go against convention!

It''s a taste preference, but if you see it and like it, cool, if not, the random pattern usually comes about from a shallower depth and greater table. The ring usually comes from a deeper depth and smaller table, FYI...