How do these radiants compare?

[sparklyandsquare]

Searching for square radiants (not ready to buy quite yet, but I''m pricing & trying to figure out how all of the variables fit together. I''m particularly interested in which table/depth proportion is better, and whether the strong blue on the first one (color H) is a good thing or not. Here are the rocks:
-------------
RADIANT #1

Price: $3,027.00
Report: EGL
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 0.97
Color: H
Clarity: VS1
Depth:74.3
Table: 66
Girdle: SLTK-TK
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
Measurements: 5.48-5.37X3.99
Length/Width: 1.02
----------------------
RADIANT #2

Price: $3,078.00
Report: EGL
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 0.92
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 63.3
Table: 67
Girdle: MEDIUM
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 5.47-5.29X3.35
Length/Width: 1.03
-----------------
Any thoughts?

 

[valeria101]

Since you have time...

There are thee sets of standards applying to radiant cust, all three with serious overlapping:

the AGA chart

the specs for the branded, original radiant (WWW)

and light return tests (such as presented for THIS stone).

The first two incorporate opinions and experience on cut proportions, the third works with the optical effects of these proportions (sparkle, briliance, light return... by any name) and should work in combination with any of the other two. I am not fully convinced that hunting down a stone with top marks on every possible scale is the best way to go: these are just different points of view (each with allot of professional backing). However, very low marks would get me wandering 'what is missing'...

I would most likely not consider seriously a radiant without some posibility to evaluate it's optics. There is no way to tell what it would really do to light before some direct test on the stone. No rule to guess this by numbers is currently available. And a perfectly symmetricsl and polished dull, sparkless stone ... does not sound very appealing.

Just my 0.2, of course

 

[Nicrez]

After searching for radiants I have decided personally that a stone to be at it's whitest in this cut should be a G or better. EGL is not known for stict color or clarity standards, so an H to them could be I or even a J. I am not a fan of EGL certs and each one I saw, the radiants were graded better than they were.

The first radiant has a depth way too big for my taste. You are getting a smaller table because of it, and the stone will look smaller that it is intended because of the carat weight being in the bottom of the stone, where you can't see it. The girdle is also too thick to be cut with any precision. Also, it isn't as proportional as it should be.

I am also not a fan of STRONG blue florescence. Slight or even medium, but NOT strong blue. This is my preference, but many will argue. In a true "GIA" H, I have seen strong blue florescent stones sell at a slight discount.

The second stone is better, but with a table so large, compared to the depth, you will have the opposite problem happening. When you look at the stone from side angles and sometimes from above, you will see a glassy ring around the culet, which is the spot where light is not properly reflected. This is becuase the angles of refraction and reflection are missed with such a difference in height and depth. Light will just sink through that area, and you don't get the right sparkle.

This is a tough stone to get just right. Very few people know how to cut them, and even fewer people know how to find them. It's not impossible. Many people post here some lovely stones with great numbers, but only THEY know how they look in person. I suggest seeing these stones before even considering buying them.

It's always best to SEE the stones, as each has a life of it's own. By the numbers can tell you precision, but there are angles and measurements that aren't accounted for that although different than the AGA charts, can STILL create some nice stones. See them, and see which one "speaks to you", because in the end, that one may be the stone, but see as many as you can, because you can only decide which is best out of seeing the good the bad and the wow...the more you see, the more you know which is the right one! Good luck!!!

 

[valeria101]

Nicrez... how bad can this one be?

No, it is not overly deep (below 67, both table and depth). You know better what the Iscope signature of rads should look like. Whatever yours look like through it, we alreday know corresponds to a fiery personality

 

[Nicrez]

Fiery

Not the stone, so I can only assume, it me...

Thanks Ana!! It's the Romanian blood!

Is that the image that corresponds to the 63.3% depth and 67 table stone? That stone DOES look like it wouldn't leak much. But then again with radiants, tests on these things aren't always as good as a good eyeballing!

I still stand by my statement that it is VERY likely that the 2nd stone will have a glassy circle and when turned sideways can have a glassy aspect to it.

My stone has a larger table than depth. I liked the stone's brilliance over it's fire, which it still retains, but not to the extent some deeper stones had. My brilliance allows my stone to face up white white white, which is MY preference.

That said, I always suggest that the person SEE the stones, and not just rely on I-scopes, and tests. I hated that response when I first started posting, but BOY was it TRUE! My stones in the I-scope doesn't work all that well since it's set. When I can have it loose, I will try to photograph it. Also, little light leakage from that image, but the eyes say something else.

Aweaver75, I am not saying these stones are AWFUL. The second stone would be my choice out of the two by far. But to me a radiant that has THAT much of a table difference from the depth isn't cut to precision as the stone COULD be. Maybe you'll like this one. But I learned the thresholds for most well cut stones, and decided to choose somewhat outside that on PURPOSE. To each his own. Again, you're eyes will have it, so let us know how it goes...

 

[sparklyandsquare]

AGH! I was afraid you'd say that. I guess I'll just have to keep looking for local (DC metro) dealers that carry radiants and the such (that won't cost 3x as much as online sites!) I was trying to do this online because it seems like most the jewelry stores in my price range have limited knowledge/stock of anything but round/princess. Oh well, I'll keep trying..

 

[valeria101]

Not that bloody... this is the portrait of a Whiteflash stone. There is more where this one cam from

And the whole (missed?) point should have been that a picture is worth many numbers. If anyhting, this one would not be dull.

Hard to immagine such a red pic for a rectangular stone, but squares seem to do better for brightness.

Oh well. I hope there is more option for these rads than chasing the illusive nice, unbranded radiant in town. It would be quite a shame if all diamonds sold online would be rounds.

 

[Nicrez]

This is where I have to say that the more you know, the more you will suffer. Good Radiants are elusive, but the ones on Whiteflash that have nice numbers and specs are not dogs, just because you didn't see them. A pair of eyes are always required. and if you can go with a reliable set of eyes, even if they are NOT yours...then you could be OK.

Whiteflash has earned the respect of many people for their opinions on stones and such. Maybe that's a lot of trust to have in someone you never met, but they ARE professionals, in my book, and they carry excellent stock. Many Price Scope vendors have my trust, just by their experience with other people so far. Some vendors here don't from my experience with them. Each buyer has to learn their level of comfort with their vendor.

Buying on-line is difficult to do with shaped stones because there are no SET standards on them, as of yet. Round stones are easiest to find by numbers alone, and even then I would still rather see a stone, or have a pro see it. You can always try to set up a few stones be sent to a 3rd party appraiser who will let you see it, and maybe you can drive down your "viewing costs" that way. Ask and maybe it could happen, I don't know.

Either way, we had a lot of on-line vendors help us by having the stones sent to their local offices where we could see it, or hvae other stones locally shown to us, through their contacts. Ask if they have anyone in your area, but sadly, as of now, shaped stones need to be seen to be believed.

They DO lack that circular precision, but gain in shape and uniqueness. Just a shame they are so time consuming to track down in nice qualities!! All the best and I say, if you see enough (and I mean quite a few!) and you feel that you can accurately predict what a stone will look like by tweaking the numbers slightly, like a deeper pavillion and smaller crown, etc...then you can buy by numbers, but even I wouldn't do that! (I am also ANAL about cut!)