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

[sruizaroo]

Bob Hoskins at Whiteflash emailed me about these diamonds. Any look good to you? Again, I know you can''t judge solely by #s, but do you think any of these are worth inquiring further about (again, want a well cut rectangular stone. doesn''t have to be "super" rectangular, but i prefer when it is longer than it is wide):

Radiant 1.04 E VS1 STK-VTK N EX VG VG GIA N 67.7% 62% 7.12x5.11x3.46 $4909ps wire
Ratio 1.39:1

Radiant 1.02 G VS1 TN-M N EX VG GIA N 66.6% 62% 6.93x5.30x3.53 $4452ps wire
Ratio 1.30:1

Radiant 1.06 E VS2 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 67.3% 59% 6.96x5.07x3.41 $4771ps wire
Ratio 1.37:1


Radiant 1.03 F VS1 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 68.8% 65% 6.29x5.09x3.50 $4347ps wire
Ratio 1.23:1

Radiant 1.01 F VS1 VTK N VG VG GIA N 67.6% 64% 6.70x5.18x3.50 $4805ps wire
Ratio 1.29:1

Radiant 1.09 D VS2 TN-VTK N VG VG GIA N 65.2% 65% 6.50x5.61x3.66 $5524ps wire
Ratio 1.15:1

CCL, you asked about budget. I''m willing to go up to 8k for the center stone

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:02:44 PM
Author: 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!

I know its confusing but don't worry, we will help you through it!

If your priority is to find a well cut diamond then maybe a different approach in how you are looking might be in order. Are you open to buying online?
If so then there are various vendors you could try that could also help you with your search to find a well cut stone, Jon at www.goodoldgold.com has a great eye and is highly focused on cut quality so you would be in very safe hands with him, Jon also has an actual store where he sees clients by appointment.

Whiteflash is also a great vendor and more are listed below,

www.engagementringsdirect.com

www.jamesallen.com



If you prefer to buy from a jewellery store then see if you can find some radiants with table percentages which are less than the depth and purchase an ASET scope as I mentioned earlier in the thread. This along with your own eyes will help you get a feel for which stones are better cut, the ASET breaks the light running through the diamond into colour codes in order to help the viewer judge the light return. This is an excellent tutorial on how ASET works.

You can't judge by numbers so much as there are various proportion configurations that can work but looking for radiants that have the table size smaller than the depth can be a place to start but its not a guarantee of cut quality.

 

[sruizaroo]

Thanks, Lorelei. I will contact him. I am not against buying online but I kinda want to see the diamond in person before I buy. I will contact Jon at Good Old Gold, like you recommended. It''s good to know they have a store I can go to!

I am getting frustrated but I''ll keep on searching. I am almost ready to just get a round stone eventhough I''m not crazy about that shape b/c at least there is a cut rating on the round GIA certs!!!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:19:40 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks, Lorelei. I will contact him. I am not against buying online but I kinda want to see the diamond in person before I buy. I will contact Jon at Good Old Gold, like you recommended. It''s good to know they have a store I can go to!

I am getting frustrated but I''ll keep on searching. I am almost ready to just get a round stone eventhough I''m not crazy about that shape b/c at least there is a cut rating on the round GIA certs!!!!

Stick with what you want, you will find it!!! I don''t know where you are located but if you are in the NY area, James Allen have offices you can visit as do engagementringsdirect, also www.exceldiamonds.com and www.idjewelryonline.com do too.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:12:26 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Bob Hoskins at Whiteflash emailed me about these diamonds. Any look good to you? Again, I know you can''t judge solely by #s, but do you think any of these are worth inquiring further about (again, want a well cut rectangular stone. doesn''t have to be ''super'' rectangular, but i prefer when it is longer than it is wide):

Radiant 1.04 E VS1 STK-VTK N EX VG VG GIA N 67.7% 62% 7.12x5.11x3.46 $4909ps wire
Ratio 1.39:1

Radiant 1.02 G VS1 TN-M N EX VG GIA N 66.6% 62% 6.93x5.30x3.53 $4452ps wire
Ratio 1.30:1

Radiant 1.06 E VS2 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 67.3% 59% 6.96x5.07x3.41 $4771ps wire
Ratio 1.37:1



Radiant 1.03 F VS1 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 68.8% 65% 6.29x5.09x3.50 $4347ps wire
Ratio 1.23:1

Radiant 1.01 F VS1 VTK N VG VG GIA N 67.6% 64% 6.70x5.18x3.50 $4805ps wire
Ratio 1.29:1

Radiant 1.09 D VS2 TN-VTK N VG VG GIA N 65.2% 65% 6.50x5.61x3.66 $5524ps wire
Ratio 1.15:1

CCL, you asked about budget. I''m willing to go up to 8k for the center stone

Do you have links to the diamonds? Did Bob say these were in house at WF and that he had personally seen them or are they ones from the virtual listing he is suggesting?

 

[sruizaroo]

Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I''m not too happy about them.

 

[sruizaroo]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:35:29 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:12:26 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Bob Hoskins at Whiteflash emailed me about these diamonds. Any look good to you? Again, I know you can''t judge solely by #s, but do you think any of these are worth inquiring further about (again, want a well cut rectangular stone. doesn''t have to be ''super'' rectangular, but i prefer when it is longer than it is wide):

Radiant 1.04 E VS1 STK-VTK N EX VG VG GIA N 67.7% 62% 7.12x5.11x3.46 $4909ps wire
Ratio 1.39:1

Radiant 1.02 G VS1 TN-M N EX VG GIA N 66.6% 62% 6.93x5.30x3.53 $4452ps wire
Ratio 1.30:1

Radiant 1.06 E VS2 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 67.3% 59% 6.96x5.07x3.41 $4771ps wire
Ratio 1.37:1




Radiant 1.03 F VS1 STK-TK N VG VG GIA N 68.8% 65% 6.29x5.09x3.50 $4347ps wire
Ratio 1.23:1

Radiant 1.01 F VS1 VTK N VG VG GIA N 67.6% 64% 6.70x5.18x3.50 $4805ps wire
Ratio 1.29:1

Radiant 1.09 D VS2 TN-VTK N VG VG GIA N 65.2% 65% 6.50x5.61x3.66 $5524ps wire
Ratio 1.15:1

CCL, you asked about budget. I''m willing to go up to 8k for the center stone

Do you have links to the diamonds? Did Bob say these were in house at WF and that he had personally seen them or are they ones from the virtual listing he is suggesting?

These are not in house but he can bring them in to look at them for me. Well, not all of them. But I guess 1 or 2?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:36:57 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I''m not too happy about them.

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

 

[sruizaroo]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:43:37 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:36:57 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I''m not too happy about them.

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

The two James Allen diamonds I listed, how do the stats look to you? On both the table is less than the depth, but not all that much less. . . . ?

 

[Rockdiamond]

sruizaroo- I am afraid that this thread has done nothing but to confuse you.
The parts about trusting what your eyes see is good.
I''d throw all the technical details ( and the gemappraisers chart) in the circular bin- and instead focus your efforts on selecting a dealer who will address any questions you may have from an informed perspective.

I disagree with a lot of what has been written- and it''s important to notice that the advice is all coming from other consumers.
That may give you very well advised opinions from a consumer''s standpoint- but what can also happen is that the personal opinions of these other consumers get woven into the advice they give.
Nothing at all wrong with that- but it''s very different that getting well advised, expert advice.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

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!

A reasonable assumption is that a smaller table can have a taller crown (in brilliant faceting style) and thus a steeper crown angle (not always true but okay most of the time) but usually this is reasonable and is the source of your comment.
However if you neglect the pavillion angles than the the correlation cannot be proven at all.

If you sincerely want to learn a little bit more, take a look at this some of the the concepts for round brilliant diamonds and diamonds in general are applicable to brilliant faceted fancy shapes as well.

To quote Sasian et al.

"The fire matrices show that the old diamond-cutting industry
rule of increasing the crown angle to achieve more
fire is not necessarily true. It only significantly applies to
stones at or near the main cutter’s line"

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:45:51 PM
Author: sruizaroo

Date: 4/21/2010 12:43:37 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:36:57 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I''m not too happy about them.

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

The two James Allen diamonds I listed, how do the stats look to you? On both the table is less than the depth, but not all that much less. . . . ?

Sruiz

The problem with the basic numbers is that they give only a chalk outline of the stone, on paper they might have potential but its best to see what you think when you see them and if possible view an ASET image of them or under the ASET scope, JA do have this equipment available.

 

[sruizaroo]

Date: 4/21/2010 1:36:04 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:45:51 PM
Author: sruizaroo

Date: 4/21/2010 12:43:37 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:36:57 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I''m not too happy about them.

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

The two James Allen diamonds I listed, how do the stats look to you? On both the table is less than the depth, but not all that much less. . . . ?

Sruiz

The problem with the basic numbers is that they give only a chalk outline of the stone, on paper they might have potential but its best to see what you think when you see them and if possible view an ASET image of them or under the ASET scope, JA do have this equipment available.

I will see the two JA diamonds tomorrow and request ASET images. (You are right. They do provide them! Good to know!)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2010 3:11:41 PM
Author: sruizaroo

Date: 4/21/2010 1:36:04 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:45:51 PM
Author: sruizaroo

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

The two James Allen diamonds I listed, how do the stats look to you? On both the table is less than the depth, but not all that much less. . . . ?

Sruiz

The problem with the basic numbers is that they give only a chalk outline of the stone, on paper they might have potential but its best to see what you think when you see them and if possible view an ASET image of them or under the ASET scope, JA do have this equipment available.

I will see the two JA diamonds tomorrow and request ASET images. (You are right. They do provide them! Good to know!)

I know it will go well and let us know how you get on!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/21/2010 12:45:51 PM
Author: sruizaroo

Date: 4/21/2010 12:43:37 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2010 12:36:57 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks for all the information, and, more importantly- your patience!

I actually do have an appt with James Allen tomorrow to see these two GIA certified stones:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

I have been speaking to Bob Hoskins from Whiteflash. Just emailed goodoldgold. I will try the engagementring site and the other one you mentioned. Not excel. I emailed them several times and called with no response. Sooo, I'm not too happy about them.

Thats great you will be going to JA!!

There will probably be shipping fees involved with bringing the diamonds into WF, they should be able to bring in a couple no problem but Bob will let you know the costs etc.

The two James Allen diamonds I listed, how do the stats look to you? On both the table is less than the depth, but not all that much less. . . . ?

Suzie,

I'm sorry a lot of this discussion should have started differently and RD is right.
Ignore the numbers you'd be best to let the retailers figure those out you should just focus on the appearance you like.

First take a look at this video http://www.vimeo.com/6421361 any preferences?
http://www.vimeo.com/8766653 Still prefer the look of a radiant from these shapes?

Ultimately once you determine which type of outline, and LW ratio and the size of the flash or appearance you prefer, you can tell your retailers and they can search for you. I know Jon at GOG (long island) could find a radiant with your preferences but perhaps with a clear visual description other vendors like James Allen can as well.

What type of flash profile do you like of the 4 stones shown in the first video? This will help a lot in determining what proportions you should be looking for and also perhaps which vendor you should select to find your stone.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 4/21/2010 1:25:13 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I disagree with a lot of what has been written- and it's important to notice that the advice is all coming from other consumers.
That may give you very well advised opinions from a consumer's standpoint- but what can also happen is that the personal opinions of these other consumers get woven into the advice they give.
Nothing at all wrong with that- but it's very different that getting well advised, expert advice.

I am sorry - are you implying that you provide better advice because you are a vendor? We don't have a personal agenda to sell this consumer a diamond - you as a vendor do. Some vendors are also experts who understand cut. Your opinions of purely trusting the eye is not shared by many experts. I think you are adding confusion to the advice the poster has received. Your opinion is your "personal opinion". However, it's great you got your link in this thread.

To the poster - pick a couple trusted vendors and go with that. I think reaching out to 5 vendors might be a little too much and make your process more complicated and frustrating. For fancy shapes like a radiant, I think Good Old Gold and Whiteflash are excellent options. If you are located in NYC, it will be good to work with new york vendors so you can see it personally - that would include GOG, ERD, and I believe JA.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think that there's a place for both vendors and consumers to add input here.
In terms of understanding cut- it would be easy to feel that "most" diamond experts feel like the ones here on PS. IN the real world, that is very far from the truth.
In fact, the manner in which I judge cut is far more common among experts in cut in the trade art large ( and Charmy did not properly categorize how I feel it should be done). Not to say I'm right and others are wrong- but there's many different ways to judge what is the best cut diamond- and no clear cut answer. This is especially true when it comes to fancy shaped diamonds. Allowing readers a more diversified array of opinions can only be good.

I honestly believe that in a lot of cases, it gets far too technical to be of use for a consumer- this thread is a perfect example.

My position as a dealer is clear, you're right. As such, if there was an attempt to try and sell, that would be against PS policy, and the post removed.
How clear is a "prosumer's" position to the uninitiated?


ETA- to the OP- we're all basically saying the same thing- it's a great benefit to develop a relationship with a seller you feel comfortable with.
I have tremendous respect for the prosumers- ultimately a dealer can explain things in a way that is relevant to you. If you're looking in person ,so much the better.
On the whole PS prosumers do a remarkable job IMO.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Rockdiamond - I have to give you props. You always respond to "mean" posts with professionalism and never get angry. I am not trying to attack you personally - just sharing my view point.

 

[sruizaroo]

So I thought I''d update you all on my search. Sooo, I was supposed to go to JA today to see these 2 diamonds:

1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56

1.20 F VS1
depth 69.2
table 68
pol vg
symm vg
ratio 1.24
no flour
ratio 1.24
6.84 x 5.52 x 3.82

But we postponed it til next week. In addition to those two that I have on hold, I added this one to the mix:

1.01 F VVS2
depth 69
table 66
pol vg
symm vg
no fluor
ratio 1.29
6.67x5.16x3.56

They are going to have a gemologist review them all and I''m going to get ASET images. I will have these either tomorrow or Monday. If things look good, then I go in to see them.

A gemologist already viewed this one:
1.03 F VS2
depth 66.4
table 66
pol ex
symm vg
girdle thick
culet none
no flourescence
ratio 1.17
6.25 x 5.36 x 3.56


and said the following:

the outline was crisp and "gorgeous,", cloud in the table (not visible to naked eye), pinpoint outside table in in crown (not visible to naked eye), no dark spots, clean, very white and bright. Has extra faceting (?) that makes it very fiery. So that one sounds promising. We shall see what they say about the other 2. And I will keep you posted! I will post the ASET images once I get them, too. I feel like I''m getting closer!

Also, I reached out to GOG and am waiting to hear back.

 

[Lorelei]

You are definitely making progress and things are moving!

 

[sruizaroo]

Question- when you guys say a radiant is not cut for light performance, what exactly does that mean? It doesn''t sparkle as much as other shapes?

What stones are cut for light performance? I think rounds? Annnddd?

 

[Rockdiamond]

That is a GREAT question!

How can light "perform"?

If someone likes the way a round handles light better- and they get other people to agree, then they can say it "performs" better than a radiant.
That''s all that is happening here.

This is not a race- where the fastest light wins.
It''s about what people love to look at.
sruizaroo- by the standards common suggested here, arguably the world''s most famous diamond, the Hope Diamond- does not have the light performance of a 1/4ct EX cut grade round.
Take the term "light performance" and file it away among other useless terms.

 

[sruizaroo]

Thanks, Rockdiamond. Some people can be a lil mean on this site. And a lil condescending. I''m beginning to feel like my diamond shape choice is inferior!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2010 3:08:05 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Question- when you guys say a radiant is not cut for light performance, what exactly does that mean? It doesn't sparkle as much as other shapes?

What stones are cut for light performance? I think rounds? Annnddd?

Maybe a better way of putting it would be radiants and other fancy shapes aren't normally cut with the best visual effect in mind and in fact this can be applied to the majority of round diamonds out there too.

But generally the main priority of the owner of the stone can be to get the heaviest finished diamond possible in order to maximize profits. Cut is important but if the priority is to get the heaviest finished weight then that can mean the cut quality is sacrificed anywhere between a small to a significant amount. Depending also many diamond buyers aren't concerned with cut quality and still think cut refers to shape. Their priorities can be colour, clarity and carat in no particular order, they see a stone they love which has the other attributes they want and thats good enough. And in some cases it is not only good enough but it remains good enough as the buyer has got what they wanted from the transaction and the experience because they either don't care about the difference cut makes or they don't realize. Some buyers don't want to research and run away screaming in horror at technical cut explanations, they would rather go and look at a few diamonds and pick the one that they like best. Others want a little technical information which has been given in simplified terms in order to help them make their choice and thats fine for them, this group I would say is the largest. Few might want highly technical explanations, research to the tightest degree then purchase, it depends on the buyer.

A mediocre or poor cut will be like a dim lightbulb in comparison to its better cut counterparts which shine, sparkle and show life and beauty with very little encouragement. Also another unwanted effect of a poor cut can be that the diamond cannot make good use of its available light in anyway and as the light leaks out of the stone, its not lighting up throughout and from edge to edge which can make the stone look smaller that it actually is. With fancy shapes as you realize it can be difficult to find well cut examples, but its not impossible if you research and work with vendors that can provide images etc in order to make an informed choice. Often you will see fancy colour diamonds end up as radiants as these diamonds can hold more colour than other shapes - think Jlo's pink radiant from Harry Winston.

AGS labs have some fancy shapes available which have been cut graded, possibly we will see more of these in the future. But generally the majority of diamonds cut for the best visual performance are branded h&a rounds, AGS0 rounds etc.

The key with fancy shapes is to research and compare as much as possible to learn exactly what you like then find a stone which best fits your requirements.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2010 3:22:32 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Thanks, Rockdiamond. Some people can be a lil mean on this site. And a lil condescending. I'm beginning to feel like my diamond shape choice is inferior!

Your choice is in no way inferior and it is of the utmost importance to make sure we respect your choice! Its not about our preferences and what we would buy, but to help you. Thank you for letting us know how you feel as we do not want to come across as offputting or unkind/ condescending to new consumers, your thoughts are appreciated and noted.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Lorelei- sorry, but you''re just wrapping the same untrue stuff in a prettier package.
What did you mean that fancy shapes "aren''t normally cut with the best visual effect in mind"?
What if one loves marquise diamonds? Are they wrong?

I promise, I am not trying to argue, but you are propagating myths that I do find condescending- and I''m not a diamond cutter.
How can you claim to know the motivation of diamond cutters?
Clearly they have to make money- or they are out of business- but you''re making it sound like there''s some conspiracy to cut bad diamonds that weigh more, regardless of how they look.
What one person likes better in a cut is NOT better as a rule.
Rounds are NOT better than radiant cuts.
They may return more light based on some meaningless statistic- that does NOT make them "better"

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2010 3:45:01 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Lorelei- sorry, but you're just wrapping the same untrue stuff in a prettier package.
What did you mean that fancy shapes 'aren't normally cut with the best visual effect in mind'?
What if one loves marquise diamonds? Are they wrong?

I promise, I am not trying to argue, but you are propagating myths that I do find condescending- and I'm not a diamond cutter.
How can you claim to know the motivation of diamond cutters?
Clearly they have to make money- or they are out of business- but you're making it sound like there's some conspiracy to cut bad diamonds that weigh more, regardless of how they look.
What one person likes better in a cut is NOT better as a rule.
Rounds are NOT better than radiant cuts.
They may return more light based on some meaningless statistic- that does NOT make them 'better'

David, thats not how it has been coming across to me recently unfortunately....You seem to me to have become quite argumentative of late, or that is the way your posts are coming across. I have been as patient as possible with some of your recent posts and their implications, your little ' quotes' of terms I use or things I have said that you don't agree with concerning advice given but its becoming tedious.

The above concerning cutting plans and profits is what I have been taught and learned over the years here, if it is wrong fine - maybe a new discussion would be in order so we can learn more as consumers about the planning of the rough and the various priorities of the rough's owners.

Also making it sound as if I am propagating a conspiracy, I resent that implication that you could even accuse me of that. I also resent you accusing me of being condescending.

Also I did not say there were any rules relating to what one person prefers, that rounds are better than radiants etc etc.

 

[sruizaroo]

Date: 4/22/2010 3:26:31 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/22/2010 3:08:05 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Question- when you guys say a radiant is not cut for light performance, what exactly does that mean? It doesn''t sparkle as much as other shapes?

What stones are cut for light performance? I think rounds? Annnddd?

Maybe a better way of putting it would be radiants and other fancy shapes aren''t normally cut with the best visual effect in mind and in fact this can be applied to the majority of round diamonds out there too.

But generally the main priority of the owner of the stone can be to get the heaviest finished diamond possible in order to maximize profits. Cut is important but if the priority is to get the heaviest finished weight then that can mean the cut quality is sacrificed anywhere between a small to a significant amount. Depending also many diamond buyers aren''t concerned with cut quality and still think cut refers to shape. Their priorities can be colour, clarity and carat in no particular order, they see a stone they love which has the other attributes they want and thats good enough. And in some cases it is not only good enough but it remains good enough as the buyer has got what they wanted from the transaction and the experience because they either don''t care about the difference cut makes or they don''t realize. Some buyers don''t want to research and run away screaming in horror at technical cut explanations, they would rather go and look at a few diamonds and pick the one that they like best. Others want a little technical information which has been given in simplified terms in order to help them make their choice and thats fine for them, this group I would say is the largest. Few might want highly technical explanations, research to the tightest degree then purchase, it depends on the buyer.

A mediocre or poor cut will be like a dim lightbulb in comparison to its better cut counterparts which shine, sparkle and show life and beauty with very little encouragement. Also another unwanted effect of a poor cut can be that the diamond cannot make good use of its available light in anyway and as the light leaks out of the stone, its not lighting up throughout and from edge to edge which can make the stone look smaller that it actually is. With fancy shapes as you realize it can be difficult to find well cut examples, but its not impossible if you research and work with vendors that can provide images etc in order to make an informed choice. Often you will see fancy colour diamonds end up as radiants as these diamonds can hold more colour than other shapes - think Jlo''s pink radiant from Harry Winston.

AGS labs have some fancy shapes available which have been cut graded, possibly we will see more of these in the future. But generally the majority of diamonds cut for the best visual performance are branded h&a rounds, AGS0 rounds etc.

The key with fancy shapes is to research and compare as much as possible to learn exactly what you like then find a stone which best fits your requirements.

aw guys, i don''t want to get in the middle but i don''t want y''all to start arguing b/c of me. i appreciate any and all feedback, opinions, answers, etc. i am a total novice and trying to learn as much as i can. you guys are helping me so much.

for the few posts that i thought were mean or conscending, it was worth the sacrifice b/c i''ve learned so much.

i do have to say that some of the diamond pushers i''ve seen either don''t know about cut or choose not to inform me about cut. when i''ve asked some of them what they think of a particular radiant''s cut they''ve pointed to the "polish" or "symmetry" section on the GIA cert and said something like "see? excellent!" or "very good," depending on what the polish or symmetry grading was.

i fall into the class of consumer that wants some technical information, but not a whole lot b/c i''m not a gemologist, scientist or mathmetician! and i''m making myself crazy here! hahah

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2010 4:11:27 PM
Author: sruizaroo






aw guys, i don't want to get in the middle but i don't want y'all to start arguing b/c of me. i appreciate any and all feedback, opinions, answers, etc. i am a total novice and trying to learn as much as i can. you guys are helping me so much.

for the few posts that i thought were mean or conscending, it was worth the sacrifice b/c i've learned so much.

i do have to say that some of the diamond pushers i've seen either don't know about cut or choose not to inform me about cut. when i've asked some of them what they think of a particular radiant's cut they've pointed to the 'polish' or 'symmetry' section on the GIA cert and said something like 'see? excellent!' or 'very good,' depending on what the polish or symmetry grading was.

i fall into the class of consumer that wants some technical information, but not a whole lot b/c i'm not a gemologist, scientist or mathmetician! and i'm making myself crazy here! hahah

Sruiz, no need to worry, sorry that this happened in your thread.

I am glad if you are finding us helpful! All you or anyone else can do come to that is read the advice given and take from it what makes the best sense to you and take into account where the advice given is coming from. If you end up with a stone you love then we have succeeded. I also agree with one of David's earlier comments concerning the technical information given as you mention it, it can be offputting for some consumers to be overwhelmed with too much of it and we need to try to keep things relevant and simplified unless the OP makes it clear they want very technical and detailed advice and explanations, we must not lose sight of that as we are a consumer forum here to help other consumers.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Lorelei- I do admire much of the work you do here.
I also believe you have an open mind.

All I ask is that you read this with an open mind.
If we look at this very thread, we can see how the terms commonly used here cause people to draw incorrect conclusions.
I''ll bet you agree that there''s something very wrong if the advice given to someone looking for a radiant suggests that rounds are "better"

I honestly believe that advising people to go into a jewelry store, and ask for stones where the table is smaller than the depth is extremely counterproductive for consumers. I''ve seen too many stones that "broke that rule" yet looked amazing.
I can put myself in the place of a store owner confronted with well meaning advice that is just plain wrong. Not that I''m defending store owners- but if a consumer wants to shop in a store, giving them incorrect things to ask for muddles the situation. If the consumer believes it, than the store owner may be incorrectly identified as someone who sells badly cut diamonds. That helps no one.

I also believe you can understand the difficulty of being the one who stands up and says- Wait, that''s not correct- even though 50 people are saying it.
I can only ask that you forgive the fact that we are both somehow "on the front line".
I feel very strongly that some things that are commonly said here- and you repeating them- puts us on opposite sides....but that''s only an illusion because we likely agree on many things about diamonds.
We both have the same goal of assisting consumers.