|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Square Radiant Cut, which one should I choose???
|
|
 |
Square Radiant Cut, which one should I choose??? |
 |
| P: 11/4/2004 12:13:45 AM | |
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
My brothers friend is in the jewerly business, he owns a small store in Minnesota. I already have the setting and just need to purchase the stone, my girlfriend likes the radiant cut however she only likes it when it is square. The 2 choices he has for me are the following. I'm not a expert on diamonds, however he recommends the first one below. Just looking for some second opinions, the pictures included are 40X mag. |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:13:45 AM | |
|
There are 16 replies to this message. There are 16 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 11/4/2004 12:17:30 AM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
Pic of the 1st diamond at 40X
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:17:30 AM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 12:18:09 AM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
Pic of the 2nd at 40X Thanks, John 
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:18:09 AM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 10:52:28 AM | |
reena Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,531 Last Post: 8/22/2005 Member Since: 7/13/2004 |
holy cow, 80.8% depth on that first one!?!?!? i don't know a thing about radiants, but that one is going to look realllllly small for its carat weight. there's a reason the stone is so cheap for a 1c E/VS1. someone with more expertise will have to chime in on the second stone.
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 10:52:28 AM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 11:15:12 AM | |
Hest88 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,680 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 1/22/2003 |
Ack, stay far, far away from the first one! I can't believe he'd even show you the first one, unless you're on such a tight budget that extra $80 makes a huge difference. As for the 2nd one, it looks better but we can't really judge how well it performs without crown and pavilion info. Your friend doesn't have a Sarin machine in house to get the additional measurements, does he?
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 11:15:12 AM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 12:16:43 PM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
Here is the info. he gave me about the crown and pavilion, thanks again for all the help. crown 44.3 ' 18.1% pavilion 53.7 ' 46.5%
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:16:43 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 12:31:47 PM | |
|
Hest88 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,680 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 1/22/2003 |
Are those for the first or the second stone?
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:31:47 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 12:34:58 PM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
They are for the second stone, I forgot to mention that. crown 44.3 ' 18.1% pavilion 53.7 ' 46.5%
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 12:34:58 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 1:40:43 PM | |
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
These actually look like Princess cut cornered stones to me, not radiants. Also the depth is completely ridiculous on the first one, RUN! The scond one is also just as unattractive, and i feel the table is a bit too large looking. It comes down to comaprison, and if these are all you have to choose from, I say go with another shape...and I NEVER say that!!! "Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 1:40:43 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 2:35:56 PM | |
moremoremore Ideal Rock Total Posts: 6,825 Last Post: 2/9/2009 Member Since: 3/15/2004 |
 I agree. Yikes! ______________________________ Stewart says: I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggon'it, people like me. |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 2:35:56 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 3:05:46 PM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll probably just look else where, especially since he recommended the first one. About what range in the depth and table should I be looking for when it comes to a square radiant cut that is around 1c. Also, her second choice is a square emerald cut (asscher), about what range should I look for as well for this type of diamond arpund about 1c. Much appreciated.
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 3:05:46 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 3:10:10 PM | |
.jpg)
icelady Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,030 Last Post: 10/21/2006 Member Since: 11/25/2003 |
I have to agree with Nic that they look like cut corner princess diamonds. They are both deep stones and will not look their carat weight. Have you seen these stones in person, if so, what was your impression? You will want to compare them to others with a more traditional radiant look and better depth. I have a Radiant and am a Radiant lover, I would pass on these stones. My two cents! Happy hunting  Edited to add this site for you to browse. It is the Original Radiant cut site and has some great info on what dimensions to look for! icelady |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 3:10:10 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 4:07:47 PM | |
moosewendy Rough Rock Total Posts: 68 Last Post: 8/23/2005 Member Since: 10/13/2004 |
In a square, you want a depth% in the low to mid 60's. The table should be under 70. Be carefull, though, you can't judge a radiant solely off the #'s, you have to see the stone. 2 stones with the exact same specs can look completely different.
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 4:07:47 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 4:48:06 PM | |
|
jabryant76 Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 7/1/2006 Member Since: 11/1/2004 |
Thanks for all the reply's, I sent him a e-mail wondering why he recommended the first stone when all of you all telling me to run away, here is his response. Does he have a case or is he just blowing smoke up my you know what? His reply: Correct the stone is a little on the deep side....but it does not look like a really small 1 carat.....it would say it faces up like a well cut .90 to .95 carater.....I guess I like the stone so much because of the brilliance.....it is very, very even.....no windows....just nice and clean with loads of sparkle......super white, super clean and SUPER CHEAP! The table is right where you would want it to be..........with a deeper cut stone..........you would be very happy.
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 4:48:06 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 4:57:48 PM | |
|
reena Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,531 Last Post: 8/22/2005 Member Since: 7/13/2004 |
sure, you'd be happy--if you're happy paying for a 1 carat stone that doesn't look like a 1 carat stone. correct me if im wrong, people, but a well-cut 1 carat round brilliant is 6.5mm in diameter. this radiant (if it even is a radiant) is 5.12 mm. that's a significant difference. plus there is bound to be some loss of brilliance in a stone that deep, i would think. i dunno, jabryant, some pretty saavy consumers here (i am not including myself in that statement!) have told you to stay away. i would take their advice if i were you.
|
| Posted: 11/4/2004 4:57:48 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 7:24:01 PM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
based on the numbers alone, here is what you get for that first stone: One, the surface area based soley on the Length (5.12) * Width (5.11) = 26.16 mm Also note: that since a radiant has clipped corners, you need to subtract at least 5% of this total number to account for that missing portion, as you just found out the total surface area for the WHOLE table WITH corners, if you don't. With that adjustment the surface area becomes: 26.16 * .95 (the percent amount that WILL be seen) = 24.85mm as being the total surface area of that one carat stone The MINIMUM Radiant cut Spreads for carat weight are as follows (as dictated by the CREATOR of the ORIGINAL radiant cut on their site: This is where I got the numbers from: http://www.radiantcut.com/images/optimal.html as such, the minimum spread for a 1ct stone is 31mm (already accounting for the cut corners) The minimum spread for the .70ct is 25mm (also accounting for the cut corners) This means your stone is actually SMALLER looking than a .70ct stone, PLUS, the girdle shows that it is quite thick, and that it LITERALLY hits the 1ct mark. This is important for two reasons. One there is a thing in the industry called the "magic number". This means that to most people a desirable carat weight for a diamond is 1ct, versus a .98ct. ONE CARAT sounds larger and more impressive. Prices actually are MUCH higher for a 1ct stone than a .98ct. There is a SIGNIFICANT price incras just for that title. Thes emagic numbers happen at almost each carat break and each half way mark, like 1.5, 2.0ct, etc... Also, the girdle is thick, meaning that it is hiding a lot of diamond that you are not seeing, which usually get hidden under prongs. You would want your carat weight in the table to SHOW size, rather than just weighing it. Carat is a WEIGHT, and not a SIZE. So, basically they hid enough diamond you can't see in the girdle, JUST to make that "magic number" and make people want to buy a 1ct versus the .70ct it probably WOULD HAVE BEEN... Tell him you'll take it if he will sell it to you as a .70ct. See what he says, and if he'll stand by it then. 
"Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 7:24:01 PM | |
| P: 11/4/2004 7:41:28 PM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
Date: 11/4/2004 4:48  6 PMAuthor: jabryant76 Thanks for all the reply's, I sent him a e-mail wondering why he recommended the first stone when all of you all telling me to run away, here is his response. Does he have a case or is he just blowing smoke up my you know what? His reply: Correct the stone is a little on the deep side....but it does not look like a really small 1 carat.....it would say it faces up like a well cut .90 to .95 carater.....I guess I like the stone so much because of the brilliance.....it is very, very even.....no windows....just nice and clean with loads of sparkle......super white, super clean and SUPER CHEAP! The table is right where you would want it to be..........with a deeper cut stone..........you would be very happy. I just went through your post again, and noticed some funny wording... "very very even". I simply put a piece of paper at my screen and did a completely crude measurement of the symmetry of both sides. Looks like the diamond does not have proper symmetry. As a matter of fact, that is what disturbed me the MOST when I first saw it. I just couldn't put my finger on it. Look at the stone, and tell me that the 4 pavillion facets pointing to the culet are "very very even Is it just me or is the top left is HUGE, where the bottom right is TINY... they are totally lopsided. both stones in similar positions, the first stone is the one that looks unsymmetrical... Also, mentions windowing...that's when a stone is cut too deep and light escpaes through the bottom of the stone and is not reflected and refracted properly off the inside bottom of the diamond. Maybe this is reduced by the HUGE crown the stone has. Again, it's like walking around with one of those King Size novelty pencils you used to be able to buy at Niagra Falls, with those huge erasers, when all you need is just a simply number 2. yes it may do the job, but is completely cumbersome and inefficient doing it. "clean", meaning that most VS1's are not? Oooookaaaay.....  Or maybe he just had it steamed and wiped the dirt off maybe?My personal selling point for this stone...It's "super cheap", yes, because it's poorly cut, crooked, small for it's carat weight, and basically it's only selling point is that it's an E VS1. But that was the rough's advantage. The cutter destroyed that advantage when he cut this monster into a 1.00 ct monster stone... and my favorite... "the table is right where you would want it to be"...as opposed to underneath somewhere? Does it go anywhere else but OVER the pavillion? Wow, thank God that table is right there, or else I would be looking down a brialliantized pyramid!
"Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 11/4/2004 7:41:28 PM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
"