Hi!
Fellow radiant lover here.
ots not productive to use Polish / Symmetry ratings to “judge” the cut of a radiant.
The nicest stones - especially rectangular ones- will have a less organized pattern of light return. Tons of sparkle with limited dark areas.
To achieve this look may, in some cases force the cutter to leave a given facet as is ( polish). Or it might be that facet pattern is not exactly the same on both sides of the stone. This would not necessarily be perceived by the human eye.
There’s many cases where a radiant with G/G is prettier than an Ex/Ex stone
Agree - but be careful with polish - it can seriously dull a diamond, or just be a single rough facet with little effect
I saw an interesting stone today. 9 x 7ish Colorless Radiant.
Rectangular diamonds, in general experience so many potential issues that square=ish diamonds don't.
I find that cutters attack this issue differently. Much more interesting than RBC diamonds, in that regard
The stone faced up quite well. Which surprised me because my first glance- table down, in the paper- revealed a stone which had a crown of ...maybe 3%. I'm not kidding. Flat as a pancake above the girdle.
Yet somehow it managed to look quite nice face up.
Even through a fair degree of tilt.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to pinhole numbers for a "crushed ice" sort of stone.
I never bother with table and depth % numbers at all.
The fact is, you do! You’re the only one that the diamond needs to please.I'm so jealous! Wish I had the expertise to just look at it and be DONE!
Nup, but I always have an ASET and inclusion images.I’ll bet that, at some point Garry looks at the numbers.
I meant that you likely will look at the numbers after you’ve approved a stone. For the heck of it![]()