Help with radiants

[gretsch]

i am hoping to find a radiant diamond that is more on the square side than rectangular. i saw one that was already set (and the jeweler was unwilling to take it out) and now i am on a quest to find a loose one. but will the same information for a good "regular" radiant cut apply to a square cut? if not, how do i find out what the dimensions should be for a square cut radiant? i would very much appreciate any info today as i will be looking around this weekend.
thanks!

 

[Nicrez]

If you are looking for radiants try doing a search here for radiants




Pinebud had been looking for a box radiant in this post:


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/square-radiant-advice.12286/}




Also check out the AGA charts, and notice that most well cut radiants are better cut with depth and tables UNDER 70%...

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Gretsch- do you happen to play the guitar? ( Gretsch is the name of a guitar company)




In general, look for a square radiant with a depth between 59-75%- There's a much wider range of acceptable depths in Radinat cut as compared to round.


Of course the lower depth stones will have a greater appearance of size as compared to stones in the higher ranger- and pricing should take the depth into account.


table size: the smaller ( below 70% ) table sizes are quite nice- but I tihnk you'll see a lot more seleciton of stones with table size in the 70's-many of these can be quite beautiful.




GOOD LUCK!

 

[Nicrez]

Shaped stones are truly the type of stones that need to be seen to be loved. We found a stone we thought was great by the numbers, but turns out it was UGLY! Honestly, I would never buy these stones sight unseen! If the depth is low (under 70%), the table should also optimally be lower by 1-3%...




Example: a 67% depth, could have a good 65% table and look good. Again, there is more to it than that. My radiant has a larger table than depth, but I did that on purpose. I like the white sparkliness of it, versus the FIRE that it COULD have had with a deeper depth. Deeper depth, more fire, lower depth, more sparkle, but NO EXTREMES! I also like that since the table % is larger, it LOOKS closer to a 2ct, but isn't...




I just saw a HORRIBLE stone in the window today which was a 2.02 carat, but had a tiny table and 77% depth. It was ridiculous looking that it was SMALLER than my 1.73, and basically had all it's precious carat weight at the bottom, where the ring covers it all. To me that's an inefficient stone that is sloppily cut.




Stick to stones that have their depth and table close to each other in number, but the table SHOULD be smaller. If the table is TOO large, and the depth doesn't follow it enough, you get a fisheye, or a glass table that will have a dead zone of no sparkle. It will seem like there is a glassy part in the middle by the culet where light does not refract properly...Be careful.




Optimal: under 70% for depth and table, with table under 1-3% less than depth. It will honestly optimize the look. 72% is ok, but try seeing some under 70% and you WILL se the difference!!! Good luck!!

 

[gretsch]

Thanks so much to all of you for your wonderful information. I feel better equipped now.
It sounds like it's best to be able to see a square radiant rather than buy over the internet, although I'm trading up so I don't think the internet would work out anyway.

diamondsbylauren, my hubby is a drummer.