shape
carat
color
clarity

focusing on radiant cut- what tools can i use to ''see'' the quality, before I actually SEE the ring

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

chris143007

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
145
any help here would be appreciated!
1.gif
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
17,669
I think it is about equal or better to the best radiant I have ever seen - the light return is fantastic - it is pure white!!!!
(Actually the best radiant I have seen is about as good as an average princess cut and a fair to poor round).
But I am known as a radiant hater.
 

Nicrez

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
3,230
I can''t see the ring or the stone if you have posted something...not sure why.

Unlike Gary I adore radiants, simply because of their look being unique and light return to me can not always be measured by anything other than the eye. In the end, you do not walk around with a microscope, your GIA report or any other tool, but YOUR STONE. You need to be happy with it, and it has to speak to you.

Although rounds offer the most "measurable" light return, I do not care for a round at all. These are just personal prefernces, and if someone liked a duck shaped diamond, then that is what they find appealing...

Radiants are difficult to analyze by numbers alone. In all honesty, I did my search based on numbers alone at one point, and even the AGA charts were inconclusive, as a 1B cut was HORRIBLE to my eyes... I ended up with a 2A and LOVE it... Honestly, it is all a matter of what your eye finds pleasing, and any amount of testing and numbers crunching CAN NOT tell you that, if you don''t know what look you like!

Radiants have two basic looks. One is where they have shallower pavillions where they actually exhibit no ring in the center and diffuse lots of tiny sparkles out in a random and mesmerizing way. There may be a bit of loss at the endge in this type of stone.

Second there are stones that exhibit a slight round dark ring in the center, which is the look that radiants are generally known to have. This ring is the girdle reflection, and is usually caused by a deeper pavillion and a shallower crown. Obviously any stone with an extreme measurement in either table or pavillion will be less of a performer. I personally recommend a stone with measurements under 70% for each depth and table, as that tends to be the most efficient cut, and you will get more for your carat weight.

Also spread on a radiant is also important, as you don''t want a table EXTRAORDINARILY larger than the depth, or vie versa. Table greater than depth causes brilliance and loss of fire, and vice versa with a deeper depth and smaller table. Ovbiously smaller table, less visible surface area, and more carat weight is lost IN the ring and not visible... But of course any extreme is not helpful.

This is a stone that was patented in it''s original form and those who have followed the cut will say that there are many people cutting radiants with different standards. They were originally NOT cut to be princess-like, yet many people cut them as such, with depths that are huge and tables that follow, so they get a bizarre looking stone out of proportion. Many people have not seen good radiants, as the market is flooded with imitations that are simply cut to different and looser standards.

Unlike rounds, people are not jumping to analyze cut like a round, so if there are GOOD radiants out there, few people know how to cut them, and even fewer people know how to judge them. You need to see both the Original cut and the generic to know the difference, but even then it may be a difficult choice to make.

I would love to have more people do Radiant specific test one day, just like rounds get, but tailored to the stone'' cut and not placed into already made categories that it will never compete properly in. You can''t measure the size a penny in joules, but that doesn''t mean that joules are not a useful measurement, or that a penny is terrible because it can''t be properly standardized... it just means there''s a lot more work to be done by the whole diamond industry on a shape specific cut, and hopefully it will be perfected in our lifetime!

As for your radiant, I suggest looking at the Original Radiants available around you for comparison. Always interesting to see what the inventor INTENDED the radiant to look like, and that should help your comparison a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top