How much does "good" symmetry bother you in a radiant?

[dizbug]

Should I rule out a radiant stone that has a "good" symmetry? I want super sparkly! Cut is the most important thing to me, so I don't want to skimp on anything significantly affecting cut. Thanks!

 

[Rockdiamond]

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

 

[ThiaChelf]

Ita....don't discount a stone with good polish and symmetry. Its not the same with radiants as in mrb stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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

 

[Karl_K]

It is always a question of where and how much.
The grade tells you next to nothing other than there is something to check in this case.
A lot of times its a small facet on the pavilion that would not polish in or got over polished and often not an issue.
Other times it can be an issue.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Agree - but be careful with polish - it can seriously dull a diamond, or just be a single rough facet with little effect

Personally....I've not seen many radiant cut stones graded "Good" symmetry that had eye visible dullness.
Like, I can't recall one. But then again I can't recall what I had for breakfast

 

[Rockdiamond]

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.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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.

 

[dizbug]

I never bother with table and depth % numbers at all.

I'm so jealous! Wish I had the expertise to just look at it and be DONE!

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'm so jealous! Wish I had the expertise to just look at it and be DONE!

The fact is, you do! You’re the only one that the diamond needs to please.
I’ll bet that, at some point Garry looks at the numbers.
the diamond I was talking about had reasonable depth %. It was the way it was distributed that was weird

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I’ll bet that, at some point Garry looks at the numbers.

Nup, but I always have an ASET and inclusion images.
If I did the numbers I would miss nice diamonds.
Only rounds work by #'s and then not by depth and table size, although you can reject with those #'s on rounds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I meant that you likely will look at the numbers after you’ve approved a stone. For the heck of it

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I meant that you likely will look at the numbers after you’ve approved a stone. For the heck of it

nup = no David. Really, no as in not at all. I never did but remember I used ideal-scope and ASET way before we ever started using grading reports as a regular thing.