Radiant - Princess or Emerald Cut Specs?

[curious_radiant]

I have been skimming these pages and the references re cut - I was curious - why are Radiants judged along cut guidelines similar to emeralds as far as what the appropriate table and depth should be as opposed to princess. To me, a radiant is more like a princess - at least the square ones... So then shouldn''t square radiants be judged along standards more like a Princess than a Emerald - or am I just missing something?

 

[coda72]

I''ll try to at least partially answer your question although I''m far from an expert. Hopefully David Atlas, the one who came up with the cut grading system will chime in here to help you out.

Princesses and radiants may appear to look alike, but they are actually cut quite differently. The radiant cut has a different faceting pattern in it. The radiant is actually a brilliantized step-cut. It''s a hybrid of an emerald cut combined with a brilliant cut such as a round stone. (This info is found on radiantcut.com). So, I''m guessing that''s why radiants are judged the same way as emeralds are since their origins are in the emerald cut.

As far as princess cut stones go, they don''t have the cut corners that both emeralds and radiants have, and they are cut differently. Princess cuts are often cut more deeply than radiant cuts are. So, since they are not really related to either emeralds or radiants cut-wise, they have their own set of guidelines.

As I read over this, it seems kind of jumbled, but maybe you can make something out of this. Hopefully an expert will post a better response.

 

[curious_radiant]

That does make sense. So radiants are step cuts merged with the brilliance of a round? I would have never guessed. Perhaps I am just to novice to notice the steps. I always hear them described as having a "cracked ice" look. Thank you for responding - I never knew there was so much to learn about these little beauties!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/9/2005 6:57:38 PM
Author:curious_radiant

why are Radiants judged along cut guidelines similar to emeralds as far as what the appropriate table and depth should be as opposed to princess.

Are you referring to the AGA tables?

Anyway, I don;t think the tables are meant to deliver precise evaluations of brilliance - if there is some connection, it has never been pointed out in particular and AGA has introduced complementary brilliance scores additional to the tables for quite some time now.

There is another site about radiants you might like to see: try www.radiantcut.com

What are you hoping to get from these cut grades? Not every grading system (and each shop seems to have one these days) guarantee the same...

 

[curious_radiant]

Yes, I am referring to AGA tables. I am debating between a princess and a radiant (i like the square look) and have been looking at the respective AGA charts and other charts online and some put emeralds and radiants together - when to my obviously inexperienced eyes - I would have thought a radiant is closer to a princess than an emerald. I was told by a friend that a radiant was a princess with the corners rounded - clearly that is not an expert answer!! But it certainly is a pretty stone.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Tables- very good for eating, or perhaps a friendly game of Poker- but use your eyes to judge a diamond....hehehe


Seriously- Coda''s explaination was very good.
Radiant cut diamonds are derivitive from Emerald Cuts.
Princess cuts'' corners influence the entire top and bottom facet pattern, changing the entire personality.

Look at a square radiant cut, and a square princess, and the differences are obvious.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2005 11:57:10 AM
Author: curious_radiant

I was told by a friend that a radiant was a princess with the corners rounded - clearly that is not an expert answer!! But it certainly is a pretty stone.

Some diamonds labeled 'radiant cut' really are like that - with the pavilion cut like a princess. And among the rest there are variations in the facet arrangement too...

There is a patented 'original radiant cut' (presented on the website mentioned above), but not all diamonds called 'radiant' are cut that way.

Hopefully this is not too confusing... I don't think either facet pattern produces always more brilliant stones than another... so it all comes down to what the stones you have in front look like. As far as I can tell, at least.

PS: I was writing this while David was posting. I don't know nearly as much as he does to put things squarely in place, but the note about tables sounds great! Maybe there is a bit of use for them - but the usual expectation that respecting those table & depth brackets will deliver the best diamond in the World... C'mon, it is far from that. Perhaps those lonely two numbers is all that shows on a standard lab report and adding more detail is all that much harder (since it takes holding the stone as opposed to reading a database) - but I doubt diamonds know this and strive to comply against all odds.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Hi Curious,

You raise a very good question. The answer is that radiants, princesses and emerald cuts all differ from one another in significant ways. They each need to be evaluated independently, and simply lumping any two of them together in my opinion, cannot be the best way to evaluate both shapes.

I''m not sure why Dave Atlas uses the same criteria for radiants and emeralds - obviously, he can speak for himself. My guess is he did it simply as a convenience, since the requisite research had not been done for radiants.

At Original Radiant, we apply standards unique to radiant cuts. There is quite a bit of overlap with the AGA, but it also differs in important ways.

 

[curious_radiant]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! That was a good tutorial for me and a good tip re perspective (i.e. tables are to eat on). I guess you really must see them to tell - I will have to visit a store this weekend and take a peek for myself. Thank you all so much!