DEPTH ON A RADIANT

[YMA]

I am looking at a 2.02c Radiant cut cornered Rectangular-Modified Brilliant


SPECS:

GIA Cert

Meas: 7.86 x 6.30 x 4.64mm

Depth: 73.7%

Table: 68%

Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick

Culet: NONE

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Good

Clarity: SI2(Very Eye Clean)

Color: J

Flourescence: NONE

From what I have been learning on pricescope, the depth is to deep. I need opionions on this stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is impossible to help with the data. Check out these 2 images and you can see that we have 6 variables for the same facet structure with equal table size and depth %.

You really need Sarin 3D scans for Gem Adviser, or Ideal-Scope photo''s.

(and never ever make a purchasing decision based on pretty photo''s)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/7/2005 8:19:17 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

It is impossible to help with the data. Check out these 2 images ...

Great picture! It saved a long discourse

What are the estimated weights for those two ?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

You didn''t provide the weight of the diamond, but those are the proper length and width measurements for a radiant weighing approximately 1.75 cts. If the diamond weighs considerably more, then it is a poorly cut stone which does not spread its size. If it weighs in the 1.75 range, then, while the depth % is still not ideal, the diamond can look O.K. You need more information to offer any kind of intelligent advice. Even with more information, like crown and pavilion angles and ideal scope images, you can only make educated guesses about what the stone may look like. Radiants and other fancies must be seen to be evaluated correctly.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 5/7/2005 8:19:17 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is impossible to help with the data. Check out these 2 images and you can see that we have 6 variables for the same facet structure with equal table size and depth %.

You really need Sarin 3D scans for Gem Adviser, or Ideal-Scope photo''s.

(and never ever make a purchasing decision based on pretty photo''s)

Yes Garry- definitely make purchase decisions on computer generated images- much better than a good digital photo.

Seriously- buyers should consider data about the company , and diamond - get all the info possible.
As Stan wrote, a Radiant of 73.7% can look good.
Personally, I would like to see a photo- and also know the weight.
If the photo looks good that leads to many more questions before one makes a purchase of this sort from an internet vendor.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

All jokes aside - the stone weighs 2.02ct.
And David if you have a full accurate 3D scan of any diamond, then you have a far more accurate system than vendor variable lighting.

I think you have said you take as many as 100 photo''s before you get the one ''you'' believe best represents the stone?

Maybe you better do a bit more learning about Gem Adviser and DiamCalc?

YMA any diamond that has a lousy ideal-scope red light return IS as lousy diamond.
If any vendor who can gve you a digital photo, but refuses to give you an ideal-scope photo - well - then i would wonder what they were trying to hide.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

PS - I think the spread is OK / normal

 

[jls944]

I notice that the weight of a diamond dramatically changes the "ideal" depth, table and crown proportions. What do you think a well cut 1.20 carat Radiant would have for a table, depth and crown?

Also, (this is a bit off the subject) but how does the girdle relate to the size of the table and depth? Is it the larger the depth, the smaller you want the girdle or vice versa? Thank you.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 5/8/2005 10:23:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
All jokes aside - the stone weighs 2.02ct.
And David if you have a full accurate 3D scan of any diamond, then you have a far more accurate system than vendor variable lighting.

I think you have said you take as many as 100 photo''s before you get the one ''you'' believe best represents the stone?

Maybe you better do a bit more learning about Gem Adviser and DiamCalc?

YMA any diamond that has a lousy ideal-scope red light return IS as lousy diamond.
If any vendor who can gve you a digital photo, but refuses to give you an ideal-scope photo - well - then i would wonder what they were trying to hide.

Yes and a wink is a good as a nod to a blind man.

Written with all due repsect for the visually challenged.


IDEALSCOPE DOES NOT WORK WITH RADIANT CUT DIAMONDS
See, maybe the reason I don''t like the Idealscope is cause I don''t sell them- that must be it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David does it work with round diamonds?
Does it work with princess cut diamonds?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Garry:

If the spread of that stone is "normal," that's because "normal" radiants are lumpy. By way of example, note the following two stones:

1.64 cts 7.96 x 6.39 x 4.07 - slightly larger than the 2.02
2.03 cts 8.47 x 6.59 x 4.12 - appx 13% larger than the 2.02

A well cut radiant spreads about the same as a comparable round - that is a 2 ct radiant should spread at least the equivalent of an 8 mm round. Assuming 5% cut corners (a conservative assumption), the 2.02 spreads the equivalent of a 7.75 mm round.

If that's not small looking, then I don't know what is.l

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes Stan - I just searched and there are many shallower spreadier stones listed on pricescope.