well ive finally decided on a radiant

[kmick]

i worked w. whiteflash and finally found one that was well cut w/ f color and vs2 clarity which had the proportions and fire i was looking for. ill attach some pics so you all can see. and they matched the lowest listed price!

i really appreciate all of the advice and feedback i got from you all, especially coda and lorelei. this has been a learning experience to say the least.

 

[kmick]

picture

 

[kmick]

sarin

 

[kmick]

ideal

 

[kmick]

ast

 

[kmick]

bumpin this up!! plesae help!!

 

[Lorelei]

To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don't forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

 

[kmick]

Date: 5/30/2008 11:10:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don''t forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

i know im just worried the depth is too high.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/30/2008 12:23:47 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 11:10:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don't forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

i know im just worried the depth is too high.

I don't know what to suggest really....If you found a radiant with what you consider perfect numbers, yet it didn't look as good - as is a distinct possibility - would you take it in preference to a radiant that perhaps didn't match up in one area according to your figures such as the depth, yet it looked gorgeous?

I am just trying to find out what will make a diamond ' mindclean' as we say for you, so that we can help you figure out the best way to go. If you really want to buy by numbers only, and bear in mind if so, it may take a while to find a radiant that matched your specifications exactly, then maybe that might be the best thing for you to do. Or to go by what even the experts may tell you, that a radiant's beauty and performance can't be predicted so much by the numbers, know that you have put a lot of research into this, and take a leap of faith on buying the diamond and not the paper.

 

[kmick]

Date: 5/30/2008 12:30:01 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/30/2008 12:23:47 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 11:10:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don''t forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

i know im just worried the depth is too high.

I don''t know what to suggest really....If you found a radiant with what you consider perfect numbers, yet it didn''t look as good - as is a distinct possibility - would you take it in preference to a radiant that perhaps didn''t match up in one area according to your figures such as the depth, yet it looked gorgeous?

I am just trying to find out what will make a diamond '' mindclean'' as we say for you, so that we can help you figure out the best way to go. If you really want to buy by numbers only, and bear in mind if so, it may take a while to find a radiant that matched your specifications exactly, then maybe that might be the best thing for you to do. Or to go by what even the experts may tell you, that a radiant''s beauty and performance can''t be predicted so much by the numbers, know that you have put a lot of research into this, and take a leap of faith on buying the diamond and not the paper.

i guess i really want the best of both worlds. coda said she would never buy one with a depth over 65% and that eliminates 95% of them right there. then the fact that im looking fora square makes it that much harder and on soemwhat of a budget. do tables and depths have a relationship i guess is my question? i think this diamond fits my numbers pretty good aside from the depth.....even though it is a bit deep it seems to have pretyt average dimensions 6.2 X 6.05 for its size.

i just do not fully understand table, depth, crown height, and how they are related and what to ultimately look for technically...

 

[kmick]

Date: 5/30/2008 12:59:24 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 12:30:01 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/30/2008 12:23:47 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 11:10:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don''t forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

i know im just worried the depth is too high.

I don''t know what to suggest really....If you found a radiant with what you consider perfect numbers, yet it didn''t look as good - as is a distinct possibility - would you take it in preference to a radiant that perhaps didn''t match up in one area according to your figures such as the depth, yet it looked gorgeous?

I am just trying to find out what will make a diamond '' mindclean'' as we say for you, so that we can help you figure out the best way to go. If you really want to buy by numbers only, and bear in mind if so, it may take a while to find a radiant that matched your specifications exactly, then maybe that might be the best thing for you to do. Or to go by what even the experts may tell you, that a radiant''s beauty and performance can''t be predicted so much by the numbers, know that you have put a lot of research into this, and take a leap of faith on buying the diamond and not the paper.

i guess i really want the best of both worlds. coda said she would never buy one with a depth over 65% and that eliminates 95% of them right there. then the fact that im looking fora square makes it that much harder and on soemwhat of a budget. do tables and depths have a relationship i guess is my question? i think this diamond fits my numbers pretty good aside from the depth.....even though it is a bit deep it seems to have pretyt average dimensions 6.2 X 6.05 for its size.

i just do not fully understand table, depth, crown height, and how they are related and what to ultimately look for technically...

this is the closest one i could find today.

http://www.bluenile.com/radiant-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-g-color-vs2-clarity_LD00197767?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/30/2008 12:59:24 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 12:30:01 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/30/2008 12:23:47 PM
Author: kmick

Date: 5/30/2008 11:10:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
To me K, this looks like a beautiful stone, the best out of all of them! I know how much you want to get this right, so don't forget WF do have a return policy if that helps give you some peace of mind.

i know im just worried the depth is too high.

I don't know what to suggest really....If you found a radiant with what you consider perfect numbers, yet it didn't look as good - as is a distinct possibility - would you take it in preference to a radiant that perhaps didn't match up in one area according to your figures such as the depth, yet it looked gorgeous?

I am just trying to find out what will make a diamond ' mindclean' as we say for you, so that we can help you figure out the best way to go. If you really want to buy by numbers only, and bear in mind if so, it may take a while to find a radiant that matched your specifications exactly, then maybe that might be the best thing for you to do. Or to go by what even the experts may tell you, that a radiant's beauty and performance can't be predicted so much by the numbers, know that you have put a lot of research into this, and take a leap of faith on buying the diamond and not the paper.

i guess i really want the best of both worlds. coda said she would never buy one with a depth over 65% and that eliminates 95% of them right there. then the fact that im looking fora square makes it that much harder and on soemwhat of a budget. do tables and depths have a relationship i guess is my question? i think this diamond fits my numbers pretty good aside from the depth.....even though it is a bit deep it seems to have pretyt average dimensions 6.2 X 6.05 for its size.

i just do not fully understand table, depth, crown height, and how they are related and what to ultimately look for technically...

In understand, I am trying to think what might be best.

Coda says she won't buy a radiant over 65% as that is her preference - it doesn't make it wrong to buy one with a depth a bit over that...I wonder, would it help if you spoke to an expert? If you are comfortable doing so, I would say for you to contact WF, and ask to speak to Brian. I know he sells diamonds, but I can assure you he is a true expert and cutter, and could be able to help you with many of your concerns - and also possibly reassure you that the numbers, particularly with fancy shapes tell only part of the story. Coda and I are only consumers with some knowledge, so I am wondering if you spoke or got advice from an expert, if that might give you the reassurance you seek? I can understand how you are feeling, and it can be hard when you are told what one person would do, then be worried that if you do something differently that you may get it wrong, but perhaps if someone with professional experience was to advise you, then you might be able to decide what is the best way to proceed with some of that advice.

Then that way you can decide if you absolutely have to buy by numbers, bearing in mind there is still no tried and tested formula for a radiant, and the ' paper' means a lot to you, or if you are willing to accept that the numbers are only part of it, and being comfortable with that if the diamond in question is beautiful.

As to the BN diamond, they don't often have the diamonds in house, so we can't tell how it would look.

 

[kmick]

thanks for understanding lorelei. i am going to speak with an expert, bob, from over at WF to get a good verdict on the diamond. He thought it looked like a really good one from the #s and pics and is going to take a look at it and call me in a little while. do you know him by chance?

i agree and think WF has been really good through this process.


thanks!
Kevin

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/30/2008 1:37:16 PM
Author: kmick
thanks for understanding lorelei. i am going to speak with an expert, bob, from over at WF to get a good verdict on the diamond. He thought it looked like a really good one from the #s and pics and is going to take a look at it and call me in a little while. do you know him by chance?

i agree and think WF has been really good through this process.


thanks!
Kevin

I forgot to mention, Bob is a great guy and you can always tell your concerns to him. He has a superb rep here, and you can trust his judgement. I haven't worked with Bob for a purchase, but I have been here over three years and heard how he does business and deals with his clients, he has a deservedly excellent reputation and many many happy repeat clients. So you can have every confidence in him, I know I would if I was buying from WF.

And you are welcome!

 

[ydiamonds]

I got a beautiful radiant from Bob with a 67.5 depth. Mine is rectangular though so I don''t know how this depth might impact the stone if it was square. I love my stone and Bob was great.

 

[kmick]

Date: 5/30/2008 5:50:03 PM
Author: ydiamonds
I got a beautiful radiant from Bob with a 67.5 depth. Mine is rectangular though so I don''t know how this depth might impact the stone if it was square. I love my stone and Bob was great.

cool, that makes me feel better about the purchase.

i''ll be sure to keep everyone updated when i get it.

thanks for chiming in and your feedback w. WF!

kevin