MEASUREMENT QUESTION !!!

[YMA]

Does the measurements determine how big the diamond will look?


3 ct princes cut
measurements: 8.28 x 7.11 x 5.57

2.68 ct radiant cut
measurements: 9.18 x 7.39 x 4.98

Even though the Radiant is smaller carat weight will it look bigger then the 3C princess cut?


Thanks

 

[belle]

Date: 11/20/2006 11:36:12 AM
Author:YMA

Does the measurements determine how big the diamond will look?

YES!!!

you finally got it yma!

 

[YMA]

Thank you Belle, you are consisting replying to my post and giving it to me straight

So in that case I think I have found my upgrade! Why pay for a 3c when I can get a 2.68ct that will look(face-up) bigger yipeeeee!!

Yup I GOT it!

Thanks

Belle

I will let you know how it went when I go see it in person.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/20/2006 12:09:09 PM
Author: YMA
Thank you Belle, you are consisting replying to my post and giving it to me straight

So in that case I think I have found my upgrade! Why pay for a 3c when I can get a 2.68ct that will look(face-up) bigger yipeeeee!!

Yup I GOT it!

Thanks

Belle

I will let you know how it went when I go see it in person.

yay!! you have hit the nail on the head....don''t pay for carat weight you can''t see. the truth is in the measurements NOT just the carat weight. i am so happy that you might have finally found your upgrade. i know you have been researching and looking for a long time. your patience and time spent learning will pay off.

can''t wait to hear about it!

 

[4themrs]

interesting point, I never knew that. I guess it goes to show you that you learn something new every day.
I will have to keep that in mind for future pictures.

 

[YMA]

I''ve been checking around and it seems these measurement are "facing up" like a 3 or 3.5ct Radiant, could that be true??????

 

[justjulia]

Radiants look larger, for sure. They also sparkle differently and are usually rectangular. One of those personal pref things. To me, I think the radiant has a really pleasant side view--the rectangular lines give it the larger than life look. Also, I like the beveling on the top.

 

[JohnQuixote]

I thought you''d enjoy seeing visual simulations. These are broad examples only (we''d need many more details for exact configs) but they are radiant and princess shapes at the given height, width, depth & carat weight - and they are in scale with each other.

 

[YMA]

WOW, that is totally amazing.

I would be a fool to spend the extra money on the 3ct princess just b/c it''s "3" carats when the 2.68 radiant is just as big looking.

As Belle stated I have been searching to upgrade for awhile now and puts it all in total prespective for me.

I am(was) a complete diamond dummy but now I am armed and dangerous! I am getting totally excited now to see the stone in person

Thanks for all everyone''s help!

 

[JohnQuixote]

I don't know if you'd be a fool, but if you're looking for spread the radiant is notably bigger for less carat weight. Bear in mind that other princess configurations may compare differently, but in general radiants will spread bigger.

Visually it's a bit apples and oranges since the shapes have different looks. Taking it farther; from a straight weight standpoint ovals, pears and marquise shapes face up even larger. At a 61% depth a 3.0 ct marquise could be 7.40 x 16.20 mm... But now we're talking apples, oranges and bananas.

 

[YMA]

Isn''t everyone looking for the biggest best cut diamond they can buy at a reasonable price??

As soon as you jump to "3ct" anything there is a nice price difference, but if the average person couldn''t tell the radiant I am looking at is not 3 ct who cares. IMO!

I know I want the biggest best cut diamond I can buy for my price point!

 

[YMA]

Oh, I forgot to add right know I have a 2.02 ct Radiant at 7.86 x 6.30 x 4.64 and the upgrade one is the measurements I mentioned below.

2.68ct 9.18 x 7.39 x 4.98

It''s only a .84 difference, do you think it will be a noticably difference in size?

They are both nearly the same L to W ratio 1.24(???) or 1.25(????)

 

[JulieN]

that''s a huge difference in size.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/20/2006 6:33:00 PM
Author: YMA

Isn't everyone looking for the biggest best cut diamond they can buy at a reasonable price??

Some people like anything shiny so, yes. Others don't even mind a poorly cut diamond as long as it's big. Taste varies though. Some people prefer the traditional round for its performance qualities. Others are drawn to the princess, which has a different look but still embodies some of the brilliant's qualities.

The radiant was introduced in 1977 (after the princess and barion cuts). It was designed to have the best qualities of both round/princess and emerald cut diamonds. It has the outer lines and cut corners of the emerald while enjoying the brilliant style of pavilion cutting. This causes it to be an emerald shape with more pin flash sparkle than the traditional step-cut emerald.

The emerald and square emerald (Asscher) look completely different than any of the above and are far removed from round brilliants. The same can be said of antique cuts. There are other shapes with their own appeal; pear, marquise, oval (much like rounds) trillion, heart-shapes, proprietary cuts, etc.

People may be drawn to one specific shape, a family of shapes - or to all of them. It's much like choosing a wardrobe or your favorite music: Different strokes for different folks...or in this case...different blingers for different fingers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There is another factor too - brightness - especially edge of diamond brightness.

e.g a princess with the same surface area as a round will look about 10% smaler.

eg a 5.75mm square princess will not look as big as a 6.5mm round

AND the same surface area princess would = about 15% more weight.

So to get a princess that "looks" the same size as a round can mean buying a 30% biggere stone.

And this is when they are clean

A princess or radiant will usually show more loss in brillaince than a round when dirty.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/20/2006 7:02:15 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

or in this case...different blingers for different fingers.

Good one.

And a great description on the radiant, I''d never heard the history on the cut!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/20/2006 6:44:57 PM
Author: JulieN
that''s a huge difference in size.

My thoughts too. Here are visual sims of spread differences between your current 2.02 and the 2.68 upgrade (same disclaimers involving broad examples apply).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/20/2006 7:41:14 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/20/2006 7:02:15 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

or in this case...different blingers for different fingers.

Good one.

And a great description on the radiant, I''d never heard the history on the cut!

LOL. I''m glad someone liked it.

The radiant was a cool innovation in the decade following the introduction of the princess. The trimmed corners make it a versatile shape for diamond jewelry since it looks equally appealing set with square or round side-stones. Side by side clipped corner diamonds have a distinctive geometric look, as the edges meet creating ‘Vs’ where those cut corners occur. Of course in an eternity application length-to-width ratios must be precisely matched.

 

[Stone Hunter]

John, Thanks for the graphics. That really shows people that a different cuts will face up as different sizes.

 

[Stone Hunter]

Date: 11/20/2006 6:38:14 PM
Author: YMA
Oh, I forgot to add right know I have a 2.02 ct Radiant at 7.86 x 6.30 x 4.64 and the upgrade one is the measurements I mentioned below.

2.68ct 9.18 x 7.39 x 4.98

It''s only a .84 difference, do you think it will be a noticably difference in size?

They are both nearly the same L to W ratio 1.24(???) or 1.25(????)

YES!

In another PS post we decided that .25mm difference is very visible to the naked eye!

Your choice looks good. Any photos? Hope it looks great to you in person.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/20/2006 8:23:13 PM
Author: Stone Hunter
John, Thanks for the graphics. That really shows people that a different cuts will face up as different sizes.

Happy to do it. Thanks for the thanks.

I do want to stress that these examples are not absolute. Fancy shapes appear in many configurations and the best way to determine face up spread will be on the grading report where you get length x width. Remember that more spread doesn't always mean well cut.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Garry''s point about well-cut rounds looking larger thanks to edge-to-edge light return is also salient in these cases.

It even applies when comparing rounds to rounds. This is Garry''s CZ set (below). The stones are of the same spread, but one is cut nicely while the other barks at you.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 11/20/2006 7:02:15 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 11/20/2006 6:33:00 PM
Author:

The radiant was introduced in 1977 (after the princess and barion cuts). It was designed to have the best qualities of both princess and emerald cut diamonds. It has the outer lines and cut corners of the emerald while enjoying the brilliant pavilion cutting and triangular faceting of the princess. This causes it to be an emerald shape with more pin flash sparkle than the traditional step-cut emerald.

HI:

Such a nice explanation begs the question why, then, does a radiant have a greater propensity to "hold" its body color; when I have never heard this spoken of princess and/or emerald cuts.....sorry if I am hijacking the thread.....

cheers--Sharon

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 11/20/2006 8:36:53 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Garry''s point about well-cut rounds looking larger thanks to edge-to-edge light return is also salient in these cases.

It even applies when comparing rounds to rounds. This is Garry''s CZ set (below). The stones are of the same spread, but one is cut nicely while the other barks at you.

What a cool picture John, and a great example!! Buying the well-cut stone is certainly worth it even if it''s smaller in size.

 

[YMA]

I put all the number in the AGA DIY cut grader and it scored 1B it''s not a 1A premium cut but I believe it''s better then the one I currently have which was purchased pre-pricescope.

It''s also one color improvement and clarity improvement over what I currently have and it will look HUGE according to those pictures John posted THANKS!!!

I can''t wait for it to come in so I can see it in person. Hopefully this Friday!!!!

There is a blurry picture of my current ring in Show me the Ring.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/20/2006 8:37:40 PM
Author: canuk-gal
HI:

Such a nice explanation begs the question why, then, does a radiant have a greater propensity to 'hold' its body color; when I have never heard this spoken of princess and/or emerald cuts.....sorry if I am hijacking the thread.....

cheers--Sharon

It's a good question Sharon. Different aspects of a diamond may cause it to face up more colorless than the grade it was given at the lab, where it was graded for color from the side (D-Z).

The most influential factor is CUT which can entrap less body color, increase light return and bring out the most brilliance, dispersion and scintillation possible in a stone. This is most observable in rounds where the brilliant style of cutting optimizes light return and maximizes performance qualities. As many will testify, well-cut rounds can appear more colorless face-up than their lab-assigned grade.

The princess is a mixed cut incorporating aspects of a brilliant, so the face up appearance can be dramatically influenced by cut as well.

An element which causes less face-up color in step cuts like the emerald is longer facets. Their face-up appearance will also depend on the cut of the diamond; they typically face up whiter if shallower.

As for the radiant, and your question: This faceting style lends itself to entrapping body color more readily than those other shapes. Of course this statement is not absolute; you can cut a radiant so that it doesn’t entrap color, but the style in general lends itself to doing this. It's why some fancy colored stones are cut as radiants, and why experts may not be as quick to say a radiant can face-up more colorless than it’s lab grade like some other shapes.

Having said that, please remember that any shape other than a round brilliant must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For any who didn't know it, diamonds on the D-Z scale are graded for color viewed from the side while colored stones are graded face-up. Many colored stones are cut in square shapes and proportions sets which are intended to entrap body color. This goes against the cut philosophies for diamonds where colorless face-up appearance is the goal. To that end, fancy colored round diamonds will have proportions sets much steeper or shallower the D-Z rounds discussed on Pricescope. It’s a whole different world.

All of this is why cut particulars are very important, and the reason some cutters caution against steep/deep combinations in some shapes: In addition to appearing smaller for their weight, such proportions sets entrap body color more readily.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 11/21/2006 5:47:05 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 11/20/2006 8:37:40 PM
Author: canuk-gal
HI:

Such a nice explanation begs the question why, then, does a radiant have a greater propensity to ''hold'' its body color; when I have never heard this spoken of princess and/or emerald cuts.....sorry if I am hijacking the thread.....

cheers--Sharon

It''s a good question Sharon. Different aspects of a diamond may cause it to face up more colorless than the grade it was given at the lab, where it was graded for color from the side (D-Z).

The most influential factor is CUT which can entrap less body color, increase light return and bring out the most brilliance, dispersion and scintillation possible in a stone. This is most observable in rounds where the brilliant style of cutting optimizes light return and maximizes performance qualities. As many will testify, well-cut rounds can appear more colorless face-up than their lab-assigned grade.

The princess is a mixed cut incorporating aspects of a brilliant, so the face up appearance can be dramatically influenced by cut as well.

An element which causes less face-up color in step cuts like the emerald is longer facets. Their face-up appearance will also depend on the cut of the diamond; they typically face up whiter if shallower.

As for the radiant, and your question: This faceting style lends itself to entrapping body color more readily than those other shapes. Of course this statement is not absolute; you can cut a radiant so that it doesn’t entrap color, but the style in general lends itself to doing this. It''s why some fancy colored stones are cut as radiants, and why experts may not be as quick to say a radiant can face-up more colorless than it’s lab grade like some other shapes.

Having said that, please remember that any shape other than a round brilliant must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For any who didn''t know it, diamonds on the D-Z scale are graded for color viewed from the side while colored stones are graded face-up. Many colored stones are cut in square shapes and proportions sets which are intended to entrap body color. This goes against the cut philosophies for diamonds where colorless face-up appearance is the goal. To that end, fancy colored round diamonds will have proportions sets much steeper or shallower the D-Z rounds discussed on Pricescope. It’s a whole different world.

All of this is why cut particulars are very important, and the reason some cutters caution against steep/deep combinations in some shapes: In addition to appearing smaller for their weight, such proportions sets entrap body color more readily.

I hope this is helpful.

HI JOhn:

Thank you very much for your reply; altho in truth it may take me a lifetime to ever correctly understand all the relationships between all the variables you describe. Two things to my benefit, however, is that there have been some PS discussions--dating back to 2002 about these issues--so that I may further inform myself, and acknowledging that I am not SO old (yet) in that I still have some time in which to do so.

cheers--Sharon