Calling Radiant Experts...

[Pixie]

Hi Everyone,

I''ve been lurking for quite a while and studying as much as I can on radiants. My husband is buying me a 3-stone ring for our 10th anniversary (okay, we''ve only been married 4, but together for 10. He''s the one that mentioned our 10th anniversary of being together and that he wanted to get me a ring, so I''m taking him up on his offer!

) Here are details of a couple of diamonds I am looking at:

G VS1
2.00 ct
7.89 x 6.90 x 4.50 (L/W 1.14)
D 65.2%
T 66.0%
Crown Height 8.1%
Polish/Sym VG/VG
Culet - None
Fluor - None
Cost: $18,128

G SI1
2.04 ct
7.81 x 6.80 x 4.71 (L/W 1.15)
D 69.3%
T 64.0%
Crown Height 10.0%
Polish/Sym VG/Ex
Culet - None
Fluor - None
Cost: $14,884

It is not easy to find radiants with a depth less than 65%! Anyway, I have the GIA/Sarins on each of these. The SI1 is apparently "eye clean" from the manufacturer. Even though the depth is higher for stone #2, the measurements seem relatively close to #1 and it is quite a bit less in cost. Plus, the crown seems better as well. It seems to me that #2 might have a better cut, even with the higher depth. I know that I have to see them in person ultimately to decide, but I thought I would get your opinions first. Anyway, please let me know what you think! Thanks for your help in advance!!

 

[Pixie]

Sarin of Radiant #2

 

[Hest88]

Yeah, I''m liking #2. I think it''s worth seeing in person.

 

[coda72]

I''m not in love with either of those stones by the numbers, but if I had to pick one of the two, I would go with the second one. Here''s some other possibilities to check out:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?aff_id=ps621&cid=131&item=480232&scsize=1024

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=164086&aff_id=ps621

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=469756&aff_id=ps621


Of the 3 I listed, I like the numbers on the first one the best. James Allen also offers a pricescope discount.

 

[eks6426]

You really need to see the radiants to know which one you like best. You can have 2 radiants with the exact same basic numbers, yet they could look totally different. Can you call these in to look at them or have them sent to a local appraiser so you could look? Do you have pictures at least?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2006 5:39:50 PM
Author:Pixie

G VS1
2.00 ct
7.89 x 6.90 x 4.50 (L/W 1.14)
D 65.2%
T 66.0%
Crown Height 8.1%
Polish/Sym VG/VG
Culet - None
Fluor - None
Cost: $18,128

G SI1
2.04 ct
7.81 x 6.80 x 4.71 (L/W 1.15)
D 69.3%
T 64.0%
Crown Height 10.0%
Polish/Sym VG/Ex
Culet - None
Fluor - None
Cost: $14,884

Obviously the SI1 part lowered the cost of the second. But the price may allow higher clarity after all.

E.g: The first from Belle''s post - less than 16k, VS1 and definitely larger:

Radiant (GIA) G/VS1,
Weight: 1.98
Depth: 64.9%
Table: 62%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.25*6.72*4.36

If the discount was due to the lacking 0.02cts up to the 2 cts mark... this just makes the stone a good find, IMO.

SI1 is fine with me, as long as I know what and where the inclusions are and whether they show or not.


One more vote for ''seeing is believing'' about cut and everything. Have you seen those two? If so, you know allot more about the stones than the stats can tell in a post (IMO at least). If they are ''virtual'' listings, any chance the seller could provide some info on cut quality and the clarity status of the SI1 stone before you decide?

My 2c

 

[Pixie]

Thanks for your replies! I am being really picky about the shape. I want the stone to be squarish but a little rectangularish, but not too rectangular if you know what I mean. I''ve looked on Diamonds by Lauren''s site where there are so many 3 stone rings, and I like the look of the more square looking ones (I would like to have trillion sidestones). This is the reason I would like to stay with a L/W ratio around 1.1 to 1.15. I was willing to go up to 1.18 L/W, but by 1.20, it started looking too rectangular to me based on the gemappraiser shape guide. That definitely narrows down my choices. I was looking at the 1.98 ct one, but I think that''s 1.23 L/W. Other than that, that looks like it would have been a serious contender. James Allen has diamond #2 listed as Ideal, and they don''t have many Radiants classified as Ideal so I decided to look at it eventhough the depth is higher. And I''ve read on this site that a higher depth can still be a beautiful diamond, it may be that the stone looks a bit smaller, but since this stone''s dimensions are still in the ballpark of the one that is in the 65% depth range, I thought I wouldn''t lose too much in the look of the size.

I''m working with Whiteflash and have called in both stones. I should have pictures/idealscope images in the next couple of days, which I will post.