Is this a good radiant, opinions please

[oscardweather]

I am looking to get a radiant diamond, and the information out there is confusing. Some say the aspect ratio needs to be that of an emerald 1.4 or greater, but I keep seeing square or ratios of ~1.2. I found these diamond specs below. Does this qualify as a good radiant?
My search has been difficult, and I need any help out there.

Measurements: 6.58 x 5.33 x 3.62
Weight 1.01 ct
Depth 67.9%
Table 67%
Girdle: Medium to Very Thick
Cutlet: none
Polish: very good
Symmetry very good
Clarity: VVS2
Color: G
Flourescence: none

 

[radiantgirl]

Are you looking for a rectangular radiant? If so, this stone's ratio is 1.23 which will make it look pretty rectangular. GIA reports a radiant to be square if it is 1.05 or less. I would go down on the clarity if I were you. I don't think it's worth paying for the VVSI for a radiant. I would do VS1 - SI1.

I did had a hard time finding the right radiant, but we were looking for a square. Is this diamond from an online vendor? We got ours from Dirt Cheap Diamonds and they were great to work with.

 

[oscardweather]

Thanks,
Yes I want a more rectangular radiant, but I am also afraid of bow-ties. This process is so much more confusing than I imagined.
Thanks for your opinion.

Anyone else?

 

[coda72]

To me radiants that are somewhat rectangular with a 1.2 ratio are still very nice. They will look bigger than square ones. I don''t know what the industry preference is for the l/w ratio, but you should buy what you prefer.

As far as the one you picked out; it''s a bit deep for my tastes. Radiants tend to look smaller than rounds for example and this one will look a bit smaller because of the depth and the thick girdle. I generally like radiants with 60-65% depth.

If you want a more rectangular shape, here''s one that looks interesting:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=9827031


Here''s one that''s more square than the one you picked out, but still somewhat rectangular:

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00137546

Of these 2, I like the first one better. It''s cheaper, and it will appear pretty large since it is very rectangular. Square radiants seem to be in short supply.

 

[oscardweather]

Thanks Everyone,
Why is the clarity less important for a radiant?

Any other opinions welcome.

 

[coda72]

I think in general unless you are buying a step-cut stone like an emerald or an asscher, clarity is less important. It''s pretty unlikely that you will be able to see inclusions in a VS2 or higher without a loupe. I can''t even see the inclusions in my VS2 with a loupe! I would definitely consider the D, SI1 I sent you the link for if I were you; it looks like a promising stone. Have Whiteflash call it in, and they will be able to tell you if it''s eyeclean and if it has a bowtie.

 

[kcoursolle]

Hi there, I have a radiant diamond and I found that finding a really good one was difficult, but worth it! I like the rectangular ones best myself, as noted above they do look slightly bigger. I agree with what people have said so far, this diamond is slightly too deep, clarity overkill, and the girdle could be thinner. I think you could easily go to si1 or si2 with a radiant and save quite a bit of money. What I''ve found with radiants is that it really really helps to see a picture. Usually vendors will give you a picture if you ask them for one.