Is this a good radiant? - Radiant Cut Help- PLLEEAASSEEE

[sruizaroo]

Hello all,

My boyfriend and I are looking to get engaged. I''ve totally taken over the diamond shopping b/c god bless him, I think I am more meticulous (i.e. anal!) than he is. I''m also more patient when it comes to shopping. I''m doing my best to do my radiant research. (I have my heart set on a rectangular radiant.) We''re looking to get around 1 carat (may go up to like 1.3). The best radiant I''ve seen so far has the following stats:

1.04 carat
F color
VS1
VG polish
G symmetry
slightly thick to thick girdle
no flourescence
table 72%
depth 56.4%
measurements 6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
ratio 1.2

I do not have the crown height. I believe the depth and table percentages make it a not very well cut radiant. It looks pretty nice in person, best I''ve seen so far. But I''m not sure if we should get this one ($5,020) or if I should keep looking. Can I do better? From what I''ve read on here it is pretty difficult to find a well cut radiant. Please advise. I''d appreciate any and all help! Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/17/2010 10:25:52 AM
Author:sruizaroo
Hello all,

My boyfriend and I are looking to get engaged. I've totally taken over the diamond shopping b/c god bless him, I think I am more meticulous (i.e. anal!) than he is. I'm also more patient when it comes to shopping. I'm doing my best to do my radiant research. (I have my heart set on a rectangular radiant.) We're looking to get around 1 carat (may go up to like 1.3). The best radiant I've seen so far has the following stats:

1.04 carat
F color
VS1
VG polish
G symmetry
slightly thick to thick girdle
no flourescence
table 72%
depth 56.4%
measurements 6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
ratio 1.2

I do not have the crown height. I believe the depth and table percentages make it a not very well cut radiant. It looks pretty nice in person, best I've seen so far. But I'm not sure if we should get this one ($5,020) or if I should keep looking. Can I do better? From what I've read on here it is pretty difficult to find a well cut radiant. Please advise. I'd appreciate any and all help! Thanks!

Hi sruiz

This is very unusual, in all the time I have been here I have never ever seen so much interest in radiants and other fancy shapes as there has been recently.....

I take it this diamond is GIA graded? Are the depth and table percentages correct? If so the stone is very shallow with a large table and is not likely to be well cut, have you compared many other radiants in person?

 

[sruizaroo]

Yes, it is GIA graded. I have seen about 14 radiants in person. What should I be looking for in a well cut radiant? I''ve been told that the depth and table should both be between 58 and 69%. Is that correct? It seems very hard to find a well cut radiant! I don''t mind continuing my search. Any advice?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/17/2010 10:25:52 AM
Author:sruizaroo
Hello all,

My boyfriend and I are looking to get engaged. I''ve totally taken over the diamond shopping b/c god bless him, I think I am more meticulous (i.e. anal!) than he is. I''m also more patient when it comes to shopping. I''m doing my best to do my radiant research. (I have my heart set on a rectangular radiant.) We''re looking to get around 1 carat (may go up to like 1.3). The best radiant I''ve seen so far has the following stats:

1.04 carat
F color
VS1
VG polish
G symmetry
slightly thick to thick girdle
no flourescence
table 72%
depth 56.4%
measurements 6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
ratio 1.2

I do not have the crown height. I believe the depth and table percentages make it a not very well cut radiant. It looks pretty nice in person, best I''ve seen so far. But I''m not sure if we should get this one ($5,020) or if I should keep looking. Can I do better? From what I''ve read on here it is pretty difficult to find a well cut radiant. Please advise. I''d appreciate any and all help! Thanks!

You are selecting a cut known to be used to save weight and not for light performance. If you have seen it in many lighting conditions (away from intense jewelery store lights) outside, under a table, in low ligthing etc and still like it than that just may be a keeper.

You can have other vendors search for radiants but each one will have to be judged by an ASET image, video or viewing in person.

I would think 56.4% depth in a fancy will have obstruction issues(darkness in areas) especially in lower light conditions but that may not bother you.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/17/2010 10:36:53 AM
Author: sruizaroo
Yes, it is GIA graded. I have seen about 14 radiants in person. What should I be looking for in a well cut radiant? I've been told that the depth and table should both be between 58 and 69%. Is that correct? It seems very hard to find a well cut radiant! I don't mind continuing my search. Any advice?

Radiants can't really be judged by numbers, they are tricky shapes so the best thing to do is to view as many as you have done in person to see which type you prefer. Chances are this stone isn't the best cut looking at the depth and table variance and configuration, but if you really like this one, you could order your own ASET scope if you have time and the inclination and also try these tests. Ask if you can view the stone away from any bright jewellery store lights to see how it looks once these strong lights aren't ' powering' it, also hold it under a desk ( not a perfect test) but it will give you some idea, see what happens when the light to the stone is reduced. Although it might lose some performance you don't want the stone to go completely dead or appear to shrink visibly. But in the end it comes down to your preference.

 

[sruizaroo]

I haven''t seen it in too many light conditions, to be honest. The jeweler is holding it for me until Monday so I''m feeling a bit stressed. (On Monday he has to return it to his diamond dealer.) Perhaps I should just let it go and keep looking. I know that radiants aren''t as brilliant as some of the other stones (like round, for instance, duh) but I''d like to get the most brilliant radiant I possibly can, within reason. (And without bankrupting my boyfriend! haha). P.S. Thanks for all the advice so far. You people are quick!

 

[sruizaroo]

I do have an appointment with a diamond guy on Tuesday who will be showing me these two stones (and perhaps others):


F VS1 Radiant 1.02
VG polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 67.0%
table 72%
measurements 6.68x5.30x3.55
GIA cert. $4700
1.3 ratio


E VS2 Radiant 1.04
G polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 66.6%
table 68%
measurements 6.40x5.45x3.63
5200$
ratio 1.2

Do the stats on these look good? I thought the second one in particular could be promising. Thoughts?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/17/2010 10:52:31 AM
Author: sruizaroo
I do have an appointment with a diamond guy on Tuesday who will be showing me these two stones (and perhaps others):


F VS1 Radiant 1.02
VG polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 67.0%
table 72%
measurements 6.68x5.30x3.55
GIA cert. $4700
1.3 ratio


E VS2 Radiant 1.04
G polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 66.6%
table 68%
measurements 6.40x5.45x3.63
5200$
ratio 1.2

Do the stats on these look good? I thought the second one in particular could be promising. Thoughts?

Its not an absolute rule but having the table % being less than the depth can be desirable, but having said that some radiants with tables greater than the depth can also be beautiful diamonds so see what you think when you see them in person, particularly the second one.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/17/2010 10:52:31 AM
Author: sruizaroo
I do have an appointment with a diamond guy on Tuesday who will be showing me these two stones (and perhaps others):


F VS1 Radiant 1.02
VG polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 67.0%
table 72%
measurements 6.68x5.30x3.55
GIA cert. $4700
1.3 ratio


E VS2 Radiant 1.04
G polish, VG symm
no flourescence
depth 66.6%
table 68%
measurements 6.40x5.45x3.63
5200$
ratio 1.2

Do the stats on these look good? I thought the second one in particular could be promising. Thoughts?

I gotta just ask again are you sure you aren''t reversing depth and table when you post these to us, can you post a GIA report number for one of these, it is to me unusual to be offered so many radiants with table greater than depth.

 

[sruizaroo]

I don''t have GIA numbers for any of these but I may be able to get them on Tuesday when I see the last two diamonds I spoke about. Thanks again for everything!

 

[tyty333]

I dont know if this will help much, I think you need to go more by looks and idealscope aset images but here are some specs
for Radiants. Select Radiant from the pull down menu.

http://www.gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp

 

[lovemybling]

I am not an expert on Radiants but I do HAVE one. the statis on mine are

8.50X5.95X4.30
1.99 Carats
G Color SI2
Depth - 72.3%
Table 65%

Mine is Very rectangle, which is the way I prefer it. I believe my ratio is 1:4.
Also mine does not have a very apparent bow tie, again my preference.

Hope this help

 

[sruizaroo]

You guys have been so helpful. I feel like I have a slightly better understanding of radiants. I will let you know what happens on Tuesday. Thanks!!!

 

[sruizaroo]

I saw this radiant today:

Saw this one today:

1.02 carat
F VS1
6.67 x 5.59 x 3.49
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Very Good
No Flourescence
table: 69%
depth: 62.4%
girdle very thin to thin
ratio: 1.19

It looked pretty in person but I wonder if you guys think I can do better. Should I keep looking? What is your opinion on the radiant stats above? Any and all help would be appreciated! Thanks!

He no longer had the 1.04 I had posted about previously. Whaddtya guys think of this one?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/20/2010 10:20:21 PM
Author: sruizaroo
I saw this radiant today:

Saw this one today:

1.02 carat
F VS1
6.67 x 5.59 x 3.49
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Very Good
No Flourescence
table: 69%
depth: 62.4%
girdle very thin to thin
ratio: 1.19

It looked pretty in person but I wonder if you guys think I can do better. Should I keep looking? What is your opinion on the radiant stats above? Any and all help would be appreciated! Thanks!

He no longer had the 1.04 I had posted about previously. Whaddtya guys think of this one?

Reread what I wrote in the 3rd post in this thread that will answer your question again.

 

[sruizaroo]

GIA Report 17477700

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/20/2010 10:31:54 PM
Author: sruizaroo
GIA Report 17477700

Well you aren't reversing table and depth. You just keep choosing diamonds I would reject from the numbers alone.
I suspect its because these are cheap or you want a very rectangular stone, what is your budget?

LW = 1.2 in a radiant usually means

Table % more than depth % usually mean

Even if the numbers looked better to us not

like all the stones you posted so far, we couldn't help you select any stone without a photograph and (ASET image or video).

 

[iota15]

With respect, CCL, I searched for radiants for a long time and I wouldn''t necessarily reject these stones based on numbers alone (pictures and Aset perhaps, but not the numbers)... and plus, from my research of radiants, that 1.02 FVS1 actually has very, very nice numbers (according to gemappraisers.com''s cut grade chart - one of the few attempts to classify radiants by numbers). This opinion presumes the crown height is good as well.

Also, a few years ago, a representative from the Original Radiant Cut company (although who''s post I can''t find right now) also stated that he prefers depths and tables hovering around the 65% mark, I believe. The Original Radiant Cut''s own radiant database shows this is fairly accurate: http://www.radiantcut.com/SearchDirect.aspx

With respect to table size, a larger table is a fairly common occurence in radiants, as it saves the most weight from the cube shaped rough. This fact alone does not mean the diamond cannot also be beautiful. While it is preferable to have a smaller table in general because it produces more fire, a larger table does not necessarily mean it is a

diamond. She says the diamond looks pretty in person and I personally think that carries a lot of weight. GOG, who is a highly thought of vendor here, provided me with a number of radiants to select from last year - the majority of which had tables larger than depth.

The OP has also been presented with at least three diamonds in the 1.2 to 1.3 ratio range. I can only presume that she has a preference for these ranges. Lovemybling, who responded on this thread has a 1.4 and it looks great. I think ratios are a matter of preference. What the OP should watch for, given that she likes these rectangular stones, is for a heavy bowtie (dark area going across the belly of the stone). I also noticed from my search that it is more common to have a larger table size for more rectangular stones - not necessarily to their detriment.

To the OP - from the numbers, that F VS1 looks great. I''ve also seen more than 30 radiants in person, a large proportion of which were brought to me by the trusted vendors here. Without seeing them in person, it''s too difficult to determine the beauty of a radiant from where we stand (over the internet). I''ve seen quite a few with 70-72% tables, one of which become my favorite (I ddin''t buy it due to the colour).

Don''t dismiss what you see with your eyes. That is VERY important. You have the opportunity to touch them in person, so trust your judgment. At 14 radiants, you''ve seen more colorless radiants than 99.97% of the people on these boards. If you would like to reinforce what your eyes sees as pretty further, then we''ll need a photograph and at least an ASET image. If you can get both of those, we can help you further. I hope this helps.

 

[iota15]

OP - I don''t have the time to search through all of what Mr. Stan Grossbard (Original Radiant Cut owner) wrote but here is one of his posts: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/2-03-radiant-i-si1-with-59t-and-65d.35216/ He goes under the poster name: "Radiantman". At one point, I believe I had read almost everything he wrote - entirely overly excessive, in my opinion, but this diamond search thing has become a fun little hobby of mine. It is absolutely not necessary for you to read everything for you to get a great radiant... and personally, if you think what you have is pretty, you might have a few winners on your hands already.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/20/2010 11:21:31 PM
Author: iota15
With respect, CCL, I searched for radiants for a long time and I wouldn't necessarily reject these stones based on numbers alone (pictures and Aset perhaps, but not the numbers)... and plus, from my research of radiants, that 1.02 FVS1 actually has very, very nice numbers (according to gemappraisers.com's cut grade chart - one of the few attempts to classify radiants by numbers). This opinion presumes the crown height is good as well.

Iota you have totally missed the point, You cannot judge fancy shapes by the numbers period. Trying to do so leaves you with false positives and negatives.
Usually when table % exceeds depth % its a flat crown, or even worse a flat crown combined with a shallow pavillion.

Simply guessing that one is nice because some of the parameters(with missing information) fit the cut charts is not what they were designed for. The cut charts themself have limitations they are used for rejection not selection and with only some of the information (missing crown height) they are completely inconclusive.

Further the AGA cut charts favour more shallow diamonds with better spread this is often contrary to diamonds cut for the most intense light return.
In addition a good make would rarely have a thin to very thin girdle and that would be a red flag which requires checking for any experienced diamond buyer.

Also, a few years ago, a representative from the Original Radiant Cut company (although who's post I can't find right now) also stated that he prefers depths and tables hovering around the 65% mark, I believe. The Original Radiant Cut's own radiant database shows this is fairly accurate: http://www.radiantcut.com/SearchDirect.aspx

I would be more inclined to choose an original radiant cut as opposed to a generic due to larger virtual facets from fewer facets on the pavillion than for any inconclusive pattern about table and depth%.

With respect to table size, a larger table is a fairly common occurence in radiants, as it saves the most weight from the cube shaped rough. This fact alone does not mean the diamond cannot also be beautiful. While it is preferable to have a smaller table in general because it produces more fire, a larger table does not necessarily mean it is a

diamond. She says the diamond looks pretty in person and I personally think that carries a lot of weight. GOG, who is a highly thought of vendor here, provided me with a number of radiants to select from last year - the majority of which had tables larger than depth.

So then if she likes it in person then no need to come here and select a diamond based on its light performance.

A smaller table does not directly correlate to more fire, that is a commonly held novice opinion, not proven and misapplied often.

The OP has also been presented with at least three diamonds in the 1.2 to 1.3 ratio range. I can only presume that she has a preference for these ranges. Lovemybling, who responded on this thread has a 1.4 and it looks great. I think ratios are a matter of preference. What the OP should watch for, given that she likes these rectangular stones, is for a heavy bowtie (dark area going across the belly of the stone). I also noticed from my search that it is more common to have a larger table size for more rectangular stones - not necessarily to their detriment.

There are issues with stones with more rectangular ratios these include bowties(obstruction) and leakage. These arise from very shallow crowns and pavillion when considering the entire length of the stone. Often times there is so much leakage in high LW ratio radiants you can see right through the stone due to extremely shallow angles. 1.2 can already become problematic 1.3 to 1.4 is even more so.

In this particular diamond a depth of 62.4% with a LW ratio of 1.19 means the depth % taking the length would be 52%, I'll eat crow if that diamond has even close to the same intense light return and distribution of intense light return around the edges as any of these http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamondResults.php?shape=2048&resultsColumns=274694159.

To the OP - from the numbers, that F VS1 looks great. I've also seen more than 30 radiants in person, a large proportion of which were brought to me by the trusted vendors here. Without seeing them in person, it's too difficult to determine the beauty of a radiant from where we stand (over the internet). I've seen quite a few with 70-72% tables, one of which become my favorite (I ddin't buy it due to the colour).

Don't dismiss what you see with your eyes. That is VERY important. You have the opportunity to touch them in person, so trust your judgment. At 14 radiants, you've seen more colorless radiants than 99.97% of the people on these boards. If you would like to reinforce what your eyes sees as pretty further, then we'll need a photograph and at least an ASET image. If you can get both of those, we can help you further. I hope this helps.

Ignorance is bliss and respectfully all of this anecdotal evidence you have presented really is nothing but conjecture based on your limited experience. If the OP wants to just select by their eyes they don't need us, but if they care about optimal light return and comparisons between libraries of diamonds I would put away your trends based on " number patterns" and start looking at ASET images.

I don't particularly like diamonds with small virtual facets and a "crushed ice appearance" even moreso I really dislike diamonds with a "watery crushed ice appearance" (small virtual facets combined with widespread areas of leakage).

OP if you disagree with my preferences and/or don't mind either of those two appearances in a diamond than I suspect asking me to judge light performance or critique your diamonds is going to lead to a harsh critique not particularly applicable to your taste.

 

[iota15]

Date: 4/20/2010 10:45:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/20/2010 10:31:54 PM
Author: sruizaroo
GIA Report 17477700

Well you aren''t reversing table and depth. You just keep choosing diamonds I would reject from the numbers alone.
I suspect its because these are cheap or you want a very rectangular stone, what is your budget?

LW = 1.2 in a radiant usually means

Table % more than depth % usually mean

Even if the numbers looked better to us not

like all the stones you posted so far, we couldn''t help you select any stone without a photograph and (ASET image or video).

Wow. Are you just getting worked up because you realize how mean you might have seemed to the OP in this post?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/21/2010 1:20:08 AM
Author: iota15

Date: 4/20/2010 10:45:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/20/2010 10:31:54 PM
Author: sruizaroo
GIA Report 17477700

Well you aren''t reversing table and depth. You just keep choosing diamonds I would reject from the numbers alone.
I suspect its because these are cheap or you want a very rectangular stone, what is your budget?

LW = 1.2 in a radiant usually means

Table % more than depth % usually mean

Even if the numbers looked better to us not

like all the stones you posted so far, we couldn''t help you select any stone without a photograph and (ASET image or video).

Wow. Are you just getting worked up because you realize how mean you might have seemed to the OP in this post?

I''d rather be blunt than allow this to happen.

 

[iota15]

I think you need to read my post again - I never told her to pick the stone but rather, it shouldn't be rejected outright, given that (a) the numbers do not necessarily fall within the rejection parameters and (b) perhaps, given the OP's experience with a number of radiant stones, perhaps OP's visual inspection of "prettiness" could be used as one potential measure of light performance. This is obviously not as scientific as the images, which I fully use and endorse - but perhaps what she sees as "pretty" is a good light return and a nice contrast pattern. It certainly shouldn't be dismissed so easily. The OP has seen a number of stones, and in that learning period, she may have had the opportunity to recalibrate her ability to visually see brightness, contrast, and perhaps even fire and scintillation. She wouldn't describe it as such though. But with her experience with radiants and her understanding that it won't be as great a light performer as rounds, she's comparing apples with apples... and she's trying to find the best apple out there.

I agree light performance is important, and maybe it does perform worse than the square GOG stones (most rectangulars seem to perform worse than square-ish stones) but you don't know that either without an Aset image, which I told her to come back with if she wants our opinions further. (By the way, I have seen those square cut corners at GOG in person along with longer stones - a few of the longer stones were better in terms of light performance.)

With respect, you also contradict yourself with respect to the numbers. First, you say "you cannot judge fancy shapes by the numbers period. Trying to do so leaves you with false positives and negatives" Then, you essentially use the few incomplete numbers provided to reject all of these stones. I know AGA and any other numbers used and presented by supposed experts are just opinions and cannot be generalized to any particular stone, particularly to fancies like radiants. I told OP essentially to not reject these stones outright, like you suggested in your above posts. I understand they are rejection tools but according to those rejection tools, that F VS1 deserves more consideration.

Your points on the girdle (very thin to thin) is something for the OP to investigate. A very thin to thin may be a concern but it is not necessarily something to be used to reject the stone outright either. Perhaps Lorelei can shed some light on this issue... as you said though, it may require checking, like from an appraiser seeing the stone in person if it is indeed chosen based on other factors.

I did not know the following - "A smaller table does not directly correlate to more fire, that is a commonly held novice opinion, not proven and misapplied often." Learn something new every day!

I don't understand this though but I'm genuinely interested in knowing more- could you explain it to me? "In this particular diamond a depth of 62.4% with a LW ratio of 1.19 means the depth % taking the length would be 52%." How do I calculate the 52%? What does the 52% refer to? And what are it's implications?

With respect to the length, I also warned OP about the bowties of longer stones but it's not impossible for there to be a minimal bowtie in a longer stone, nor does it mean longer stones are necessarily problematic in terms of light performance. It may be anecdoctal, but you only need to find one great, light performing, pretty diamond out of the many out there. Luvmybling found a long stone with no bowtie (from the SMTB pictures I saw) and I agree, without the images, we simply do not know. If OP wants our opinion beyond her eyes, which is completely understandable, she should come with Aset images, pictures and at least a crown height and more.

Date: 4/21/2010 12:49:57 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/20/2010 11:21:31 PM
Author: iota15
With respect, CCL, I searched for radiants for a long time and I wouldn't necessarily reject these stones based on numbers alone (pictures and Aset perhaps, but not the numbers)... and plus, from my research of radiants, that 1.02 FVS1 actually has very, very nice numbers (according to gemappraisers.com's cut grade chart - one of the few attempts to classify radiants by numbers). This opinion presumes the crown height is good as well.

Iota you have totally missed the point, You cannot judge fancy shapes by the numbers period. Trying to do so leaves you with false positives and negatives.
Usually when table % exceeds depth % its a flat crown, or even worse a flat crown combined with a shallow pavillion.

Simply guessing that one is nice because some of the parameters(with missing information) fit the cut charts is not what they were designed for. The cut charts themself have limitations they are used for rejection not selection and with only some of the information (missing crown height) they are completely inconclusive.

Further the AGA cut charts favour more shallow diamonds with better spread this is often contrary to diamonds cut for the most intense light return.
In addition a good make would rarely have a thin to very thin girdle and that would be a red flag which requires checking for any experienced diamond buyer.

Also, a few years ago, a representative from the Original Radiant Cut company (although who's post I can't find right now) also stated that he prefers depths and tables hovering around the 65% mark, I believe. The Original Radiant Cut's own radiant database shows this is fairly accurate: http://www.radiantcut.com/SearchDirect.aspx

I would be more inclined to choose an original radiant cut as opposed to a generic due to larger virtual facets from fewer facets on the pavillion than for any inconclusive pattern about table and depth%.

With respect to table size, a larger table is a fairly common occurence in radiants, as it saves the most weight from the cube shaped rough. This fact alone does not mean the diamond cannot also be beautiful. While it is preferable to have a smaller table in general because it produces more fire, a larger table does not necessarily mean it is a

diamond. She says the diamond looks pretty in person and I personally think that carries a lot of weight. GOG, who is a highly thought of vendor here, provided me with a number of radiants to select from last year - the majority of which had tables larger than depth.

So then if she likes it in person then no need to come here and select a diamond based on its light performance.

A smaller table does not directly correlate to more fire, that is a commonly held novice opinion, not proven and misapplied often.

The OP has also been presented with at least three diamonds in the 1.2 to 1.3 ratio range. I can only presume that she has a preference for these ranges. Lovemybling, who responded on this thread has a 1.4 and it looks great. I think ratios are a matter of preference. What the OP should watch for, given that she likes these rectangular stones, is for a heavy bowtie (dark area going across the belly of the stone). I also noticed from my search that it is more common to have a larger table size for more rectangular stones - not necessarily to their detriment.

There are issues with stones with more rectangular ratios these include bowties(obstruction) and leakage. These arise from very shallow crowns and pavillion when considering the entire length of the stone. Often times there is so much leakage in high LW ratio radiants you can see right through the stone due to extremely shallow angles. 1.2 can already become problematic 1.3 to 1.4 is even more so.

In this particular diamond a depth of 62.4% with a LW ratio of 1.19 means the depth % taking the length would be 52%, I'll eat crow if that diamond has even close to the same intense light return and distribution of intense light return around the edges as any of these http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamondResults.php?shape=2048&resultsColumns=274694159.

To the OP - from the numbers, that F VS1 looks great. I've also seen more than 30 radiants in person, a large proportion of which were brought to me by the trusted vendors here. Without seeing them in person, it's too difficult to determine the beauty of a radiant from where we stand (over the internet). I've seen quite a few with 70-72% tables, one of which become my favorite (I ddin't buy it due to the colour).

Don't dismiss what you see with your eyes. That is VERY important. You have the opportunity to touch them in person, so trust your judgment. At 14 radiants, you've seen more colorless radiants than 99.97% of the people on these boards. If you would like to reinforce what your eyes sees as pretty further, then we'll need a photograph and at least an ASET image. If you can get both of those, we can help you further. I hope this helps.

Ignorance is bliss and respectfully all of this anecdotal evidence you have presented really is nothing but conjecture based on your limited experience. If the OP wants to just select by their eyes they don't need us, but if they care about optimal light return and comparisons between libraries of diamonds I would put away your trends based on ' number patterns' and start looking at ASET images.

I don't particularly like diamonds with small virtual facets and a 'crushed ice appearance' even moreso I really dislike diamonds with a 'watery crushed ice appearance' (small virtual facets combined with widespread areas of leakage).

OP if you disagree with my preferences and/or don't mind either of those two appearances in a diamond than I suspect asking me to judge light performance or critique your diamonds is going to lead to a harsh critique not particularly applicable to your taste.

 

[iota15]

Date: 4/21/2010 1:58:56 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/21/2010 1:20:08 AM
Author: iota15

Date: 4/20/2010 10:45:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/20/2010 10:31:54 PM
Author: sruizaroo
GIA Report 17477700

Well you aren''t reversing table and depth. You just keep choosing diamonds I would reject from the numbers alone.
I suspect its because these are cheap or you want a very rectangular stone, what is your budget?

LW = 1.2 in a radiant usually means

Table % more than depth % usually mean

Even if the numbers looked better to us not

like all the stones you posted so far, we couldn''t help you select any stone without a photograph and (ASET image or video).

Wow. Are you just getting worked up because you realize how mean you might have seemed to the OP in this post?

I''d rather be blunt than allow this to happen.

Are you sure you''re not the one who''s blind?

Radiants can be beautiful in their own way. It''s obvious that it''s not your preferred cut, which I fully understand. (I''m choosing a cushion right now over the radiants I''ve seen.) But there''s no need to reject the stones from what is posted thus far. If there is more information, then perhaps at that point, the stone can be properly rejected.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 2:17:04 AM
Author: iota15
with radiants and her understanding that it won''t be as great a light performer as rounds, she''s comparing apples with apples... and she''s trying to
Your points on the girdle (very thin to thin) is something for the OP to investigate. A very thin to thin may be a concern but it is not necessarily something to be used to reject the stone outright either. Perhaps Lorelei can shed some light on this issue... as you said though, it may require checking, like from an appraiser seeing the stone in person if it is indeed chosen based on other factors.

I would be glad to. Very thin girdles aren''t always a durability issue but it is advisable to get them checked by an expert. If the very thin part isn''t extensive and not placed in a potentially vulnerable area of the stone particularly with fancy shapes then there might not be a problem. Also if the very thin part only measures in the microns then again it might be fine. Take each as an individual is the best approach.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/20/2010 10:20:21 PM
Author: sruizaroo
I saw this radiant today:

Saw this one today:

1.02 carat
F VS1
6.67 x 5.59 x 3.49
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Very Good
No Flourescence
table: 69%
depth: 62.4%
girdle very thin to thin
ratio: 1.19

It looked pretty in person but I wonder if you guys think I can do better. Should I keep looking? What is your opinion on the radiant stats above? Any and all help would be appreciated! Thanks!

He no longer had the 1.04 I had posted about previously. Whaddtya guys think of this one?

Again the table is considerably larger than the depth and the girdle would need checking by a trusted expert to make sure it isn''t a potential durability issue. Although radiants aren''t normally cut for the best optical performance it is entirely possible you could find a well cut stone, what is your priority here?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/21/2010 2:37:14 AM
Author: iota15

Date: 4/21/2010 1:58:56 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/21/2010 1:20:08 AM
Author: iota15

Date: 4/20/2010 10:45:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/20/2010 10:31:54 PM
Author: sruizaroo
GIA Report 17477700

Well you aren''t reversing table and depth. You just keep choosing diamonds I would reject from the numbers alone.
I suspect its because these are cheap or you want a very rectangular stone, what is your budget?

LW = 1.2 in a radiant usually means

Table % more than depth % usually mean

Even if the numbers looked better to us not

like all the stones you posted so far, we couldn''t help you select any stone without a photograph and (ASET image or video).

Wow. Are you just getting worked up because you realize how mean you might have seemed to the OP in this post?

I''d rather be blunt than allow this to happen.

Are you sure you''re not the one who''s blind?

Radiants can be beautiful in their own way. It''s obvious that it''s not your preferred cut, which I fully understand. (I''m choosing a cushion right now over the radiants I''ve seen.) But there''s no need to reject the stones from what is posted thus far. If there is more information, then perhaps at that point, the stone can be properly rejected.

The radiant cut whether (original radiant cut) or otherwise has four mains that span from the culet to the corner lower girdle facets.

Two radiants with the same depth % and pavillion depth % but with different LW ratios will have very different pavillion main angles for these 4 important facets. The more rectangular the more shallow these pavillion main facet angles are and the less intense the light return will be to the viewer(very simplified the other pavillion and crown facets also play a role).

(This is something unfortunately not accounted for in the AGA cut charts and thus a reason why they can''t be applied too liberally). It is misleading to only consider the width of the stone in considering depth% as the depth% as a function of the length would be the following for the F VS1 (Depth/Length*100 = 52%)

A radiant with a moderately shallow depth and a larger LW ratio like the one above will suffer from the same problems as a more shallow square stone.
When I see a stone on the shallow end at 62.4% with an LW ratio ~1.2 I can take an educated guess that it will not return light as efficiently as a stone with a taller crown.

I would suggest that that the OP continue their search and look at stones with taller crowns, smaller tables, and greater depth so that they may know what a radiant diamond cut more strictly for light performance would look like.

Some people don''t care about light return and want the biggest spreadiest diamond with reasonable sparkle that is fine too, but limiting yourself to large table diamonds with table greater than spread is not an educated way to shop.

 

[sruizaroo]

Wow, I am more confused than ever. I am aware of the fact that rectangular radiants don''t have the greatest light return, but I want the best light return I can possibly get in a rectangular radiant. CCL, I know you said to look for smaller tables, but since I am a laymen here, can you give me some numbers? I won''t eliminate by #s but maybe it will help me be able to choose a set of them to look at.

 

[sruizaroo]

P.S. Thanks to all of you for all the information.

Lorelei, my priority here is a well cut stone. The best sparkle I can possibly get in a rectangular radiant. I am not a fan of the square shape, so even though it may have a better light return, I prefer the length of the rectangle.

I am so confused and stressed! I don''t know what to do!

 

[sruizaroo]

What sort of depth ranges should I be looking at? CCL, you said the one I posted was too shallow....