- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,216
Is this a good radiant? - Radiant Cut Help- PLLEEAASSEEE
- Thread starter sruizaroo
- Start date
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
David,
The pattern with you is the same and lets not forget threads that date back to 2005 like this one about radiants where your posts were not exactly appreciated.
1) Customer comes into a thread and posts numbers and specs from a certificate.
2) Various posters ask for images and give selection and rejection criteria
3) Some posters show some personal examples of what they believe to be a well cut stone or parameters that worked for them. These observations come from varying levels of experience and background.
4) You then come in and say throw all selection rules out the window just "Trust Your Eyes" or "Trust The Vendor's Eyes" because you just might reject something I find beautiful before seeing it.
5) An argument follows, and more recently often ends with you apologizing for starting it.
Given this pattern and that your advice seems to be argumentative and self serving, it is no surprise why an argument ensues and experienced posters think you are just trying to promote your website and support the kind of stones you like and sell.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-there-a-radiant-cut-advisor.36357/ (Its pretty clear you like the crushed ice "less organized" look, reading your posts in that thread its obvious).
The Sad Reality For The Original Poster
1) RD is not an expert on the cut of colorless diamonds and likely will never venture down this path. He may infer he has a higher standing being a trademember with experience, as he runs a site but he is very similar to the vendor's you have already experienced. He can't tell you how one stone compares to another vendor's stones or give you selection criteria, or educate you on how to find a radiant with a particular look different from what he sells.
2) Most retailors in the trade are quite similar to RD (probably 99%), they have not invested the time into understanding the fine technical details of diamond optics. They don't focus on it because its bad for their business and requires dedicated study and a steep learning curve. They sell whatever Fancy shape they have in their inventory, they may call in more if a customer isn't satisfied but usually most have only a basic understanding about selection for cut (they have to trust their suppliers), its more based on what is available and most profitable for them to sell. It is bad for those retailers if you decide a fancy shape selected particularly for its light performance looks better, or if you decide you want a radiant with larger virtual facets(flashes), because then they would lose a customer, they likely don't carry such stones or know how to find them.
In the next post I'll summarize some of the posts over the years made by Radiantman (Stan Grossbard the son of the creator of the Radiant Cut) which will help you in your selection process. Your thread has been helpful to me as it encouraged going back through the PS archives to look more closely at Radiants and what the most efficient way to prescreen virtual stones might be. More on this to follow.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,216
Thanks for posting that link ccl- brought back some nice memories.
Stan and I are good friends- and have worked together extensively over the years. It''s clear from your link that Stan and I agree on many aspects of cut.
Personally I don''t feel that it''s necessary to insult one another.
If there is only one viewpoint expressed, it does not enrich readers in general.
AS I mentioned earlier in this thread- and on many occasions before- there are many different ways experts judge cut- and many different opinions on which cut is "best"
Stan and I are good friends- and have worked together extensively over the years. It''s clear from your link that Stan and I agree on many aspects of cut.
Personally I don''t feel that it''s necessary to insult one another.
If there is only one viewpoint expressed, it does not enrich readers in general.
AS I mentioned earlier in this thread- and on many occasions before- there are many different ways experts judge cut- and many different opinions on which cut is "best"
Mrs Mitchell
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,071
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
Okay so first its worth mentioning that we have already established you want a rectangular stone and you want a cut cornered rectangular brilliant (radiant). However you haven't made it clear what type of appearance you prefer as there are several different pavillion cut designs available for a radiant.
In this video there are four different radiants ;
Far Left #1 very square blocky facets and large virtual facets compared to most radiants
Left #2 the second one has the four mains are shown with a pronounced X pattern in the middle simliar in appearance to a princess
Right #3 the third one is your typical classical radiant with small and medium flashes
Far Right #4 the same as #3 but with bigger flashes and more light return from the edges
Which one do you prefer assuming you can probably get a radiant with the appearances of 2 - 4 in rectangular shapes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of some of Radiantman's past posts:
1) "As long as the table is within the appropriate range, which we consider to be 55% - 69%, the "best" choice is a matter of personal taste. "
"If you were buying a generic radiant sight unseen, it might be wise to choose one with the table smaller than the depth, because this would make it a bit less likely that the crown (top) of the diamond was too flat (a common problem). But if the crown is not too flat, then the size of the table relative to the depth is completely irrelevent."
2) "... Note that the proportions must be adjusted to reflect the shape (square or rectangular) to be meaningful. While it's a bit of an oversimplification, depths and tables dancing around 65% are probably your best bet if you can't see the diamond yourself. "
3) "The adjustments made to depth%, crownheight% are necessary because radiants vary in shape from square to long rectangles. The adjustments are necessary to make those numbers meaningfull across the full spectrum of radiant cut shapes. Squares and rectangles are geometrically different [...] applying the same proportion standards to the different shapes, without the necessary adjustments, gives you information which is just plain wrong (IMHO). As the diamond gets longer, the %'s adjust downward. " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Radiantman refers to Adjusted depth he is taking the average of width and legth.
For example a perfectly square radiant (L/W ratio = 1.00) with proportions length 6mm X width 6mm X 4mm depth would have a depth percentage of 66.7% and would be in a promising range.
If instead the stone had a length of 8mm instead of 6 mm(L/W ratio = 1.33) then it would still have a reported depth % of 66.7% on the grading report (as this is always calculated always using width only) but now it would have an adjusted depth % (the number you should really use) of only 57% on the shallow side.
The adjusted depth percentage reflects the changing of angles, as you change the shape to more rectangular and is used to explain in simple terms that you need a deeper stone if you want a more rectangular outline.
Referenced Threads:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-about-rcdc-diamonds-and-table-depth.96154/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/radiant-by-the-numbers.83637/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/requesting-advice-on-radiants.82731/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-there-a-radiant-cut-advisor.36357/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To simplify Radiantman's comments into a range:
I would choose the following for prescreening:
Table 55 - 69% (Your preference comes in here but I would prefer tables 55 - 65% as they will likely have taller crowns)
Depth 60 - 75% (Target an adjusted depth of around 62 - 69%)
LW Ratio = 1 - 1.25 (prefer 1 - 1.15 otherwise you require much greater depths than above)
All of these are rough guides for rejection critiera. You may find stones outside of these ranges that have odd proportions that are still beautiful, but I want to focus on finding one top performing stone not find every stone someone might find beautiful.
All potential candidates should be viewed in person or by video for selection. Posting an ASET or video in a Pricescope thread will be helpful and if you can get a sarin report with the crown height % this will help even more. A vendor's eyes and comments are particularly valuable if they can tell you how a candidate compares to others radiants in appearance, but a vendor just telling you its beautiful (very subjective) holds very little weight in my mind.
In this video there are four different radiants ;
Far Left #1 very square blocky facets and large virtual facets compared to most radiants
Left #2 the second one has the four mains are shown with a pronounced X pattern in the middle simliar in appearance to a princess
Right #3 the third one is your typical classical radiant with small and medium flashes
Far Right #4 the same as #3 but with bigger flashes and more light return from the edges
Which one do you prefer assuming you can probably get a radiant with the appearances of 2 - 4 in rectangular shapes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of some of Radiantman's past posts:
1) "As long as the table is within the appropriate range, which we consider to be 55% - 69%, the "best" choice is a matter of personal taste. "
"If you were buying a generic radiant sight unseen, it might be wise to choose one with the table smaller than the depth, because this would make it a bit less likely that the crown (top) of the diamond was too flat (a common problem). But if the crown is not too flat, then the size of the table relative to the depth is completely irrelevent."
2) "... Note that the proportions must be adjusted to reflect the shape (square or rectangular) to be meaningful. While it's a bit of an oversimplification, depths and tables dancing around 65% are probably your best bet if you can't see the diamond yourself. "
3) "The adjustments made to depth%, crownheight% are necessary because radiants vary in shape from square to long rectangles. The adjustments are necessary to make those numbers meaningfull across the full spectrum of radiant cut shapes. Squares and rectangles are geometrically different [...] applying the same proportion standards to the different shapes, without the necessary adjustments, gives you information which is just plain wrong (IMHO). As the diamond gets longer, the %'s adjust downward. " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Radiantman refers to Adjusted depth he is taking the average of width and legth.
For example a perfectly square radiant (L/W ratio = 1.00) with proportions length 6mm X width 6mm X 4mm depth would have a depth percentage of 66.7% and would be in a promising range.
If instead the stone had a length of 8mm instead of 6 mm(L/W ratio = 1.33) then it would still have a reported depth % of 66.7% on the grading report (as this is always calculated always using width only) but now it would have an adjusted depth % (the number you should really use) of only 57% on the shallow side.
The adjusted depth percentage reflects the changing of angles, as you change the shape to more rectangular and is used to explain in simple terms that you need a deeper stone if you want a more rectangular outline.
Referenced Threads:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-about-rcdc-diamonds-and-table-depth.96154/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/radiant-by-the-numbers.83637/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/requesting-advice-on-radiants.82731/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-there-a-radiant-cut-advisor.36357/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To simplify Radiantman's comments into a range:
I would choose the following for prescreening:
Table 55 - 69% (Your preference comes in here but I would prefer tables 55 - 65% as they will likely have taller crowns)
Depth 60 - 75% (Target an adjusted depth of around 62 - 69%)
LW Ratio = 1 - 1.25 (prefer 1 - 1.15 otherwise you require much greater depths than above)
All of these are rough guides for rejection critiera. You may find stones outside of these ranges that have odd proportions that are still beautiful, but I want to focus on finding one top performing stone not find every stone someone might find beautiful.
All potential candidates should be viewed in person or by video for selection. Posting an ASET or video in a Pricescope thread will be helpful and if you can get a sarin report with the crown height % this will help even more. A vendor's eyes and comments are particularly valuable if they can tell you how a candidate compares to others radiants in appearance, but a vendor just telling you its beautiful (very subjective) holds very little weight in my mind.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,216
I'm reminded of a vice presidential debate.
Do you remember the name Lloyd Bentson?
To paraphrase
CCL- you're no Stan Grossbard
Seriously- if you talk to Stan, he does has a lot to say about the cut of radiants- from what's got to be, one of the more informed perspectives.
I honestly think taking quotes and implying a meaning to them is not a service to anyone.
Do you remember the name Lloyd Bentson?
To paraphrase
CCL- you're no Stan Grossbard
Seriously- if you talk to Stan, he does has a lot to say about the cut of radiants- from what's got to be, one of the more informed perspectives.
I honestly think taking quotes and implying a meaning to them is not a service to anyone.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,216
sruizaroo- to sum up what you might look for:
Sometimes a radiant cut has what is referred to as a "bucket of crushed ice" look to it.
This is scorned by some- yet adored by others.
It's really a personal preference.
I like many stones that exhibit that look.
There are stones that exhibit "Chunky Flashes"
Since you'll be looking at actual stones, see which look you prefer.
Part of the reason I - and most other professionals- don't judge by the numbers is that the visual aspects trump all others.
Look at stones with an open mind.
I believe you're doing due diligence on sellers, so it's highly likely you're going to get well advised by the salespeople you will be dealing with.
If you wanted to become an expert so that you would be able to identify which characteristics that you see can be translated the angles responsible for why it looks that way, you can do that.
But you don't have to become an expert on every angle to successfully buy a great diamond that is extremely well cut.
Sometimes a radiant cut has what is referred to as a "bucket of crushed ice" look to it.
This is scorned by some- yet adored by others.
It's really a personal preference.
I like many stones that exhibit that look.
There are stones that exhibit "Chunky Flashes"
Since you'll be looking at actual stones, see which look you prefer.
Part of the reason I - and most other professionals- don't judge by the numbers is that the visual aspects trump all others.
Look at stones with an open mind.
I believe you're doing due diligence on sellers, so it's highly likely you're going to get well advised by the salespeople you will be dealing with.
If you wanted to become an expert so that you would be able to identify which characteristics that you see can be translated the angles responsible for why it looks that way, you can do that.
But you don't have to become an expert on every angle to successfully buy a great diamond that is extremely well cut.
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
RD feel free to email this thread to Stan your friend or supplier and he can post any objection or clarification to the summary of his posts.Date: 4/23/2010 4:33:22 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I'm reminded of a vice presidential debate.
Do you remember the name Lloyd Bentson?
To paraphrase
CCL- you're no Stan Grossbard
Seriously- if you talk to Stan, he does has a lot to say about the cut of radiants- from what's got to be, one of the more informed perspectives.
I honestly think taking quotes and implying a meaning to them is not a service to anyone.
You might just need a a little more faith in the carefully posted words your friend Stan has used on this board over several years, they are consistantly the same message over a long time period.
For anyone in doubt about the quotes or their context they can click on the actual thread links.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would prefer to leave diamond selection up to the "experts" namely you.
That fits extremely well with your internet sales model.
I should also point out that despite your simplification virtually all Original Radiant Cuts (sold by Stan Grossbard) have this "Bucket Of Ice" appearance (small virtual facets when compared to other cuts) but the above ranges allow one to avoid the watery "Bucket of Ice" and instead focus on the brighter "Bucket of Ice" with sometimes larger chunks of ice(medium sized virtual facets).
I feel it could be to many consumers detriment that you are not able to point out this distinction. Some people like the "Bright Bucket of Ice" and small virtual facets with strong scintillation but I am also quite certain they prefer the brighter look to the watery dead look often found in poorly cut radiants.
CharmyPoo
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Messages
- 7,007
I hope this helps you see and compare the various square cuts. I tried to select top quality examples for each of these shapes in a close to 1.0 ratio. I took most of the photos from GOG to keep it consistent. The exceptions are the 8 main cushion and the modified cushion (bad example but I couldn't find a good one).
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
I think it is important to post this quote from Stan Grossbard himself, https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-there-a-radiant-cut-advisor.36357/
"Unfortunately for internet shopping, though, the measurements do not tell the whole story. I've seen as many radiants as anyone, and still I can only make educated guesses as to what a radiant may look like, sight unseen, based on measurements."
Suggested proportions can give a place to start if one wishes to work that way but it bears repeating they are no guarantee of any level of beauty and cut performance as a world renowned expert and radiant cutter has frequently stressed.
"Unfortunately for internet shopping, though, the measurements do not tell the whole story. I've seen as many radiants as anyone, and still I can only make educated guesses as to what a radiant may look like, sight unseen, based on measurements."
Suggested proportions can give a place to start if one wishes to work that way but it bears repeating they are no guarantee of any level of beauty and cut performance as a world renowned expert and radiant cutter has frequently stressed.
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
Ditto on that as well. Even the brand 'Original Radiant Cut' search here has a very wide range of LW ratio, depth, and tables, leading to the conclusion that they have a wide standard for proportions and resultant light return profiles that they deem acceptable.
I would argue some are likely to be more attractive than others within the brand, and thus radiants are not nearly as consistant or uniform as others branded cuts we often compare here and the standards are quite a bit wider for what is passes as acceptable.
Wow, thank you all for that! Esp. CCL for summarizing all that information. I printed it out, read through it, and highlighted the important things. I feel so much better about shopping now. I feel more informed, but not overwhelmed. I''m going to use that info as basic guidelines, but remember to also trust my eyes ... and the ASET images 
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
I''d love to see pictures of what you end up choosing and any info about your selection you would like to share with us.Date: 4/24/2010 5:26:11 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Wow, thank you all for that! Esp. CCL for summarizing all that information. I printed it out, read through it, and highlighted the important things. I feel so much better about shopping now. I feel more informed, but not overwhelmed. I''m going to use that info as basic guidelines, but remember to also trust my eyes ... and the ASET images
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Please do use that info as CCL cautions as a rough rejection criteria, as it is no guarantee that will give you a well cut radiant, it might narrow the field slightly but above all go with what your eyes tell you. Remember that depth and table percentages and L/W ratio only give a chalk outline of the stone and as such only really tell you how deep the stone is and table size and the basic shape, this info doesn't tell you anything about the faceting, appearance, performance and overall cut quality.Date: 4/24/2010 5:26:11 PM
Author: sruizaroo
Wow, thank you all for that! Esp. CCL for summarizing all that information. I printed it out, read through it, and highlighted the important things. I feel so much better about shopping now. I feel more informed, but not overwhelmed. I'm going to use that info as basic guidelines, but remember to also trust my eyes ... and the ASET images
There are pics on the James Allen website of the 3 diamonds I will be seeing this week. They aren''t the greatest quality pics, but I''ll post anyways. I will also post the ASET images once I get them. (Hopefully tomorrow.) Here they are:
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VVS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1269740.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1241866.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1260604.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VVS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1269740.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1241866.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1260604.asp
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
I just wanted to show you this one, could be worth getting an ASET image, its more of a square shape than rectangular but might be worth a look.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VVS2-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1083412.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VS1-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1154679.asp
This one is still a square but it is large and a G colour if you would consider that,
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1293404.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VVS2-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1083412.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VS1-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1154679.asp
This one is still a square but it is large and a G colour if you would consider that,
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Premium-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1293404.asp
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
CharmyPoo
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Messages
- 7,007
thanks, I am considering other vendors. I got in touch with GOG and I should be going there this week. To throw a monkey wrench into things, he sent me videos of the AVC and I kinda like it . . . . Gonna see it and radiants and other shapes in person to see what I would want him to look for for me. Also, I am going to visit Leon tomorrow to see some cushions. And another vendor is showing me radiants on Wednesday.
CharmyPoo
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Messages
- 7,007
CCL, in your super helpful summary of some basic principles of radiant cuts, you said that rectangular shaped radiants should be on the deeper side. Can they get too deep? Is there a cut off? Again, I know you solely can''t go by the numbers, but I do like to use them as a basic guideline (and ultimately trust my eyes and keep an open mind).
BTW, I saw some cushions at Leon Mege yesterday. The antique style was beautiful. However, it was square and I''m sooo not into the square shape. Perry at Mege is working on getting me more rectangular antique cushions to look at. Also gonna see some at GOG later on this week.
BTW, I saw some cushions at Leon Mege yesterday. The antique style was beautiful. However, it was square and I''m sooo not into the square shape. Perry at Mege is working on getting me more rectangular antique cushions to look at. Also gonna see some at GOG later on this week.
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
If you are staying within 1 - 1.15 LW ratio there is no reason to consider anything much more than depth 75% a few % points more could be okay.
In cushions I would never see the need to go beyond 70% depth(except in Square Cushion HA) which has a deep pavillion by design, in general the deeper the stone the smaller its faceup size.
Really if you aren''t looking too rectangular than you don''t have to worry about too much depth. You have spoken to some great vendors see what they can come up with particularly Jon at GOG.
Good-Luck,
CCL
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
You get to see the diamonds in person right which means that this is only for asking the vendors what to call in afterwards it all up to the one you like most with your eyes. I would have thought at this point you have asked several expert vendors and described the appearance you like, more prescreening is unecessary, how do you know you llike 1.2 - 1.3 LW ratio stones?
To get the adjusted depth just do this Depth/ (1 + (LW Ratio - 1)/2)
For example a stone with a 70% traditional depth and LW ratio of 1.3 would have an adjusted depth of (70%/(1.15) or 61%.
A 75% traditional depth and LW ratio of 1.3 would have an adjusted depth of (75/1.15) or 65%.
If LW = 1.2 and Depth 70% than 70/1.1 = 65%
If LW = 1.2 and Depth 75% than 75/1.1 = 68%.
Yup, I''m seeing them in person. The one I liked the most so far had the following stats:
F, VS1 1.04 carat
pol vg
symm g
slightly thick to thick girdle
6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
table 72%
depth : 56.4
ratio 1.22
And as you said previously, stones with table less than depth are
sooooo I''m still looking. James Allen hasn''t sent me ASET pics yet and the two other appointments I had this week to see radiants have been rescheduled. Hopefully GOG will pan out for me.
F, VS1 1.04 carat
pol vg
symm g
slightly thick to thick girdle
6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
table 72%
depth : 56.4
ratio 1.22
And as you said previously, stones with table less than depth are
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
You liked this one despite the table percentage was greater than the depth? Having a table size being less than the depth is a suggestion not an absolute rule, not all look bad as a result of having a larger table.Date: 4/28/2010 11:50:15 AM
Author: sruizaroo
Yup, I'm seeing them in person. The one I liked the most so far had the following stats:
F, VS1 1.04 carat
pol vg
symm g
slightly thick to thick girdle
6.81 x 5.55 x 3.13
table 72%
depth : 56.4
ratio 1.22
And as you said previously, stones with table less than depth aresooooo I'm still looking. James Allen hasn't sent me ASET pics yet and the two other appointments I had this week to see radiants have been rescheduled. Hopefully GOG will pan out for me.
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)