RADIANT advice- calling all radiant resident experts!
Click to view full-size image.
Related topics
- Calling Radiant Experts...
- Calling all Radiant experts!
- Calling All Radiant Experts (Nicrez), I Need Help!!!
- Resident Experts: Finally Got My Stats
- Calling all Quebec born or Resident Brides!
- Calling Experts-Advice on 2ct RB Stone & Suggestions!
- ** Calling all Experts*** Advice needed on these 3 stones
- Calling All Cushion Cut Experts: Advice Needed ASAP on This Stone!
- Advice please - UK resident buying online
- Oval question for the resident Oval experts/lovers :)
My gf would be most appreciative! Lol!|
|
|
|
by Nicrez » November 3rd, 2004, 12:57 pm
I was in the same boat as you. Sadly, mine took 4 months. I don''t know what your time frame is, but I suggest seeing the Original Radiants, and as many as you can have them call over within your criteria... Don''t consider price for now. Honestly, sounds nuts to people on a budget, but when we looked we had a HIGHER budget, and our carat size criteria was HIGHER. We didn''t find that perfect stone, until we actually accepted to see a SMALLEr stone, and fell in love. We would have paid MORE for a better stone after all the nasty generics I saw, and TRUST ME, I saw some UGLIES!!!!
Keeping that in mind, it is ALWAYS best to go into this thinking of the stone''s cut and quality FIRST, and have an open mind in the size and quality of the stone you want. I also went down a color grade in my stone, and I have no problems with it!!! I WISH I could give you magic numbers like rounds stones have. I can''t.  This is the type of stone that does not emit symmetrical perfectly placed sparkles. It''s actual charm is the random reflection of light that makes the stone so mezmerizing... and add to that fact that not even ROUND stones have just ONE measurement of proportion to be beautiful...Many will argue that many tables sizes and depths make a good cut, and many would be right, as tastes vary out there, EVEN IN ROUNDS!!!! So, you need to see as many as you can to determine what you like the most. Do you like Fire and color sparkles? then you may want a radiant with a deeper depth, closer to 70%... If you like the white brilliance more than the fire, you may want a shorter depth (closer to 65%), with a greater table, which also makes the stone LOOK a bit bigger than a stone it''s carat weight, depending on HOW big the table is... REMEMBER: any extreme misproportion will make the stone bizarre looking...keep the difference between 6 percents or SO... again, no exact science, but it''s helpful... Crown height on the stone should also be between 8-15% I believe... Either way, get to see some stones, AND THEN consider price, because you never know if it''s worth it or not until you see what''s out there... GOOD LUCK!!! |
"
|
|
|
|
received email from a vendor helping me in my search for a fantastic radiant...put specs into diy cut grading. Two questions: Why does the gemappraisers.com diy grading not have an entry for ''depth''? And how important are the girdle specs? My vendor didn''t have the girlde specs in the email, so I will ask tomorrow. Thanks
How is this so far? 1.03 ct. VS2 E 6.66x5.23x3.6 68.8% depth 68 table EX VG 11.5% crown height |
9:58 PM
|
|
|
|
I''m going to the local store that offers radiantcut.com stones. Just wanted some tips...Ann, the lady at the store,said it would be a good day to swing by since they have several stones. Should I walk in there letting them know I frequent PS or should I just walk in as a normal customer? I''ve been compiling info from Nicrez and other radiant owners about what to look for, so I feel I''m prepared well. Talk to you all later... |
Hey everyone,|
|
|
|
Hey Chris, The stats you posted on the last stone look like you may want to see that one! I have to agree with Nic that you should try and see as many as you can. Ask to take them out into natural light too. My jeweler took me right outside to view the diamonds in the sun and natural light. I also agree with Nic about there being some real ugly Radiants as well. I often tell people that during my search I saw everything from a cut corner Princess to an Emerald cut with a few more facets,all being descibed as Radiant cut. My Radiant is not a branded Radiant. You can find them unbranded but you may spend less time looking if you start with Radiant-Cut branded first. Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
Radiants vary so much on shape, size, and look, you really just need to see few. When we show radiants, we show at least 4 stones. That way you see what is better about each of them. Good to see them in sunlight and also under the counter where there is no spot light. A good radiant will shine with almost no light on it. I love radiants. (when cut well)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Chris, good luck! I am by no means a pro at this, and even a seasoned veteran can tell you diamonds are NOT easy to put into categories of cut. GIA took 10-15 years to do it (for ROUND stones), and they STILL aren''t perfected!!! And rounds are FAR easier to calculate than fancy shapes... I always suggest looking at the original cuts to see what the designer had in mind. Not just Radiants, but the Asschers, and Quadrillions as well. People have choices, and it comes down to tastes. I personally like the Radiant Cut Radiants better, but some people on this site bought cut cornered princess stones that some people consider the same as Radiants, since they are named the same in a GIA lab report. Whatever floats your boat! I suggest looking at stones under 70% table and 70% depth. Also, if you want more fire, get a stone with a depth closer to 70% and a smaller table. If you want more brilliance, find a stone with a SHALLOWER pavillion depth, closer to the 60''s... Mine is more brilliant than fiery, and it has a very icy white appearance. They are great stones that when wel cut trul amaze most "non-believers". In my Gemology class everyone comments on how amazing that stone is, and trust me they have almost all been in the industry before and seen many diamonds... I''s a unique choice to choose Radiant and I hope you have a great experience picking out your favorite one! All the ebst, and let us know how it goes...and don''t forget... POST PICTURES!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Hi Icelady, I am going to see the one I posted, perhaps sometime next week it will be sent. I''m going today to the b&m that has the Grossbard inventory. Only thing today is, there will be no sunlight when I get there. I hope the premium for a branded stone isn''t outrageous, and I am still looking at all the ps vendors and others to see if another stone stands out numbers wise, then I''ll focus on seeing it on person. But from reading Nicrez'' saga and soaking up her knowledge on these stones, she went with a rcdc stone after an extensive search. So maybe it will be a good thing for me to START there and see where that takes me.
Thanks guys... |
|
|
|
|
HI Chris, One thing about Radiant Cuts which is different from other branded cuts is that the design was never "protected". In addition, the original design makes very good use of rough- as opposed to a design like the Royal Asscher with it's large corners. SO- the original Radiant Cut stones are uniformly nice, no question. Because of the two reasons above, there are a lot of stones from other sources which also have a cut which could be considered as good as the original. This means that if you were to find two really well cut Radiant Cut Diamonds, one a branded Radiant, and the other, non branded- there would likely be very little difference in price. As a matter of fact the F/VS2 at $6750 is not so far out of line- especially if you can walk in and buy it face to face. And thre are also many variations which are quite nice looking too Here's a very nice non branded stone- they do exist. This was a non traditional look- and quite attractivce. It had Depth of 68 and Table of 75. It was a K/SI2 There are definitely alternatives- and the original is always a great value. |
|
|
|
|
David - point about patents - they have a life - radiants would be out of that patent life by now anyway. Re the problem of choosing a well cut radiant or other fancy cut, if you wish to use an ideal-scope then my best experiance is described here http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_fancy.asp I like to look at the stone as I roll it in tweezers for princess and radiants, as shown on the series of Princess images on that page.
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer http://www.ideal-scope.com and http://www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au |
|
|
|
|
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer http://www.ideal-scope.com and http://www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au |
|
|
|
|
If Diamonds By Lauran used an ideal-scope on the diamond shown above they might have seen something like this
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer http://www.ideal-scope.com and http://www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au |
|
|
|
|
Ah, my old friend from down under and his pink toy!
Garry, I''m afraid that ( surprise) I disagree. Let''s be clear- you posted three images. On the far left is my photo- the two photos to the right are NOT of the same stone I posted. And I disagree that the stone which I photographed would look anything like the images you posted. The images you posted appeared to have a table in the...say 60% range, as opposed to the stone I posted which GIA said has a table of 75%
|
|
|
|
|
Like so many time before David, I will ask you to perform a test to see if the Dinosaur''s have it right. Find someone to do a Srain DiaVision scan, or better still send it to AGS and ask them to do a Helium scan. These enable us to make an actual DiamCalc image of the stone. Then it woill not be my interpretation, but the real thing. The Sarin DiaVision is about 2-3 year old software - should not be hard to find one within 1 minute walk from you :)
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer http://www.ideal-scope.com and http://www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au |
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
As some of you know, I have been looking for a radiant radiant for my radiant GF! :) I have my eye on 2 stones. Here are the stats: 1st. Original Radiant Cut brand 1.01 ct. F VS2 6.64x5.03x3.45 Girdle: Med-Slightly Thick Culet: Small Polish: Good Adjusted Depth: 59.8% Visible Area?: 31.67 No Fluor. 13.5x% adj. crown 43.4% adj. pavillion depth I went in to the local b&m that deals with Grossbard inventory to see the stone. It is rectangular (which my gf loves) and looked very nice! Cost to me is $6750. The 2nd stone I have been keeping an eye on is not branded, but seems like a potential one as well. Its stats: 1.03 E VS2 6.66x5.23x3.6 Girdle: Med-Slightly Thick Culet: None Polish: Excellent Symmetry: Very Good No Fluor. $5343 credit card, $5237 wire I have brilliancescope & sarin report for this stone as well. I also have 2 pictures, if I can upload them, you''ll see them here. I have another question: The sarin report I received for the 2nd diamond have slightly diff. LxWxH mm # it seems. Do they just round up/down? Well guys, what do you think? Let me know if you want to see the brilliancescope, as I am clueless to what they''re used for. I really think one of these is going to be a great choice for me and my gf! Thanks alot again...
|
|
|
|
|
Garry- Sorry- the stone is long gone- and the lady really was not interested in the helium test results.
Yes, I have access to all the latest tools right in my backyard- but I prefer to use my eyes. Chris- There are a few stats missing- especially on the second stone- does it have a GIA report? Secondly- the first stone sounds pretty nice to me- and since we are sure if it''s autheticity, I would ask this- the dimensions of the second stone seem strange. It''s a teeny bit longer- but it''s wider and deeper and olny .01 more in wieght- this is within the realm of possibility- yet the missing stats like table and depth have me wondering. It is common for a Sarin to give slightly different measurement than those found on a GIA report- the measurements are so precise that small differences in the measuring tools are common |
|
|
|
|
Not sure what the branded one can do better - this one charming fellow if there ever was one!
I would not look to top that Bscope scale - this machine tends to rate highest some darker stones (see what Garry calls "head obstruction", and Jonathan at GoodOldGold "constrast brilliance"). Basically, those stones look bright when seen in strong direct light from a distance (say on someone else''s hand) , but loose brilliance and appeal when looked from up close (on your own hand) because most of their facets would just reflect the viewer (or whatever object close to them) instead of catching light. This is one bias I know to look for in Bscope results... there are probably others as well, mre subtle. The pictures of the stone show a lovely shape, IMO. If you also like it, this is it. Speaking of numbers, do you have the standard GIA measurements for the branded radiant ? I am not sure I have the right formula for what Gissbardt calls "corrected" proportions. I''d hate to start guessing even those. |