Radiant cuts with Michael B. setting

Date: 4/27/2006 2:30:08 PM
Author: vivosogno
Wow! You read my mind! I want the same Michael B setting (2mm, princess, 3-sided pave, eternity band with pave on the prong). The setting alone runs around $7000+. Our salesperson said that there is another jeweler named Kirk Kara (?) who make an almost identical setting (in platinum, no less) for around 1/2 the price. Still expensive but worth it! I also want THIS setting with a radiant diamond.

We were looking for around a 1.5-2 carat center stone G-H VS2. Do you think it would be ok to go down to SI1? I've heard different opinions. I know that we need to look at the ring before hand. What size center stone were you looking at for the radiant? Where have you been looking for your loose stones? I'm trying to find the best value possible!!

Let me know how your search is going!

Date: 5/14/2006 1:12:51 AM
Author: vivosogno
You are so lucky radiant girl!!! I'm so jealous. I really like the 3 sided pave Michael B we know about the cost but still love it. Our jeweler told us we could still get the 2mm band even with a larger stone. i cant wait to see your new ring!!! when do you think he will give it to you?

Date: 5/13/2006 5:41:18 PM
Author: radiantgirl
I'm so excited! My boyfriend ordered the petite princess setting from Michael B.a few days ago, but we have no diamond yet. We are having a tough time finding the right square radiant diamond we both like. I have seen more than a handful, and have not yet found the right one yet. I am looking for the 'crushed iced look' I love so much in radiants. There are so many out there that are not well cut.

I think we are getting close though. I never thought we would ever get the diamond off the internet, but they have so much more to choose from. We have narrowed it down to two, both from Dirt Cheap Diamonds. Both are very close, but there are some differences. Below are the specs:

Stone #1
Carat weight: 1.23
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Dimensions: 6.24 x 6.16 x 4.07
L/W ratio: 1.01
Depth: 66.1%
Table: 63%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Thin

Stone #2
Carat weight: 1.23
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Dimensions: 6.02 x 5.90 x 4.06
L/W ratio: 1.02
Depth: 68.8%
Table: 67%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Thick - Very Thick

Stone #1 is about $250 more than Stone #2. The real major difference, I think, is the girdle thickness. Right now, I am leaning more towards Stone #1, but my only concern is that the girdle is thin. Should this be a concern for radiants? I have heard that it should be a concern if the girdle was Extremely Thin. The girdle is Stone #2 is Thick - Very Thick, which leads me to believe that is why there is a slight difference in the dimensions because more of the weight is in the girdle.

How do these two radiants look so far on paper? I would really appreciate it if the radiant experts or lovers out there to provide input on these two stones if possible. Nicrez? David - Diamonds By Lauren? Thank you so much in advance.

Date: 5/14/2006 8:21:51 PM
Author: coda72


I like stone #1. The dimensions are bigger and I like the depth better. I don't think the thin girdle will be a huge problem. Extremely thin would be a problem. Medium would be best, but sometimes it's hard to find everything you want in a stone. I don' t like the thick girdle and depth on stone #2. Have you seen pictures of these diamonds? It might be easier to judge them that way. Radiants can be bought by the numbers, but each of them look completely different, and it would be easier to tell your preference if you can see the stones themselves or at least pictures of them.