Need help Asap

[bluehens66]

I am deciding on two radiant cut diamonds.

Specs:
General Specifications
Price:$2,664
Carat : 0.96
Clarity : SI1
Color : F

GIA Specifications
Measurements : 5.35 x 5.31 x 4.05
Depth : 76.3
Table : 75%
Polish : Excellent
Symmetry : Good
Fluorescence : None

VERSUSES

General Specifications
Price: $2,478
Carat : 0.93
Clarity : SI1
Color : F

GIA Specifications
Measurements : 5.35 x 5.19 x 3.96
Depth : 76.3
Table : 73%
Polish : Good
Symmetry : Good
Fluorescence : None

The prices are pretty much a wash as are the carats. The only thing I am concerned about are the table and depth measurements. Every site I look at tells you something different about the "optimal radiant diamond depth and table". Should I be looking for a radiant with "better" depth and table measurements than the two listed above? Also, how much "better" is it that the 0.96 carat diamond has polish of "excellent" versus the 0.93 carat ''s "good". Any other advice on radiant diamonds would be great!!

 

[Ellen]

Hi blue,

Not a Radiant expert, but I''ll give you a bump.

Also, have you seen this chart?


http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fnc2.asp

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks Ellen!

I have found some diamonds in the same price range with more ideal depth and tables (64-70%). However, this means going to an SI2 instead of an SI1. What makes more sense for buying a radiant?

 

[kcoursolle]

Depths are too deep and tables are too big on booth. The depths are making the stones face up smaller than their carat weight. I prefer stones in the 60-67% depth and tables 60-65%, crown height over 15%, and preferably at least VG/VG polish symmetry, but this isn''t as important. You really need images for radiant though...numbers don''t mean as much for radiants.

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks K! I plan on getting some pictures sent to me. How about this diamond:

General Specifications
Price: $2,754
Carat : 0.93
Clarity : SI2
Color : E

GIA Specifications
Measurements : 5.6 x 5.24 x 3.65
Depth : 69.7
Table : 64%
Polish : Very good
Symmetry : Good
Fluorescence : None

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2008 7:57:05 AM
Author: bluehens66
Thanks K! I plan on getting some pictures sent to me. How about this diamond:

General Specifications
Price: $2,754
Carat : 0.93
Clarity : SI2
Color : E

GIA Specifications
Measurements : 5.6 x 5.24 x 3.65
Depth : 69.7
Table : 64%
Polish : Very good
Symmetry : Good
Fluorescence : None

Ask for an ASET image, these are the most useful aid along with magnified and non magnified photos of a radiant.

See this thread for ASET info - https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-we-prefer-aset-to-ideal-scope-with-fancy-shapes.73949/

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/28/2008 9:46:12 PM
Author: bluehens66
Thanks Ellen!

I have found some diamonds in the same price range with more ideal depth and tables (64-70%). However, this means going to an SI2 instead of an SI1. What makes more sense for buying a radiant?

For most people (around here), what "makes sense" (on any stone) is going as low on color and clarity as you're comfortable with, as long as it's eyeclean, while never compromising on cut. So if you can get a great cut stone, that's eyeclean at SI2, there's nothing wrong with that imo.

Could you get an ASET, or at least an IS on that last stone by chance?

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I am awaiting my inquiry from excel diamonds. I guess my only concern is the drop to the SI2 on that particular diamond. As long as the diamond appears clean to the naked eye I will be very happy. Also, I am hoping that by upgrading the table/depth I will get that extra sparkle from a better cut. I really hope I can get the info from excel soon. I plan on proposing Feb. 15! Luckily, I have a setting planned already.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2008 9:41:08 AM
Author: bluehens66
Thanks for all the advice everyone. I am awaiting my inquiry from excel diamonds. I guess my only concern is the drop to the SI2 on that particular diamond. As long as the diamond appears clean to the naked eye I will be very happy. Also, I am hoping that by upgrading the table/depth I will get that extra sparkle from a better cut. I really hope I can get the info from excel soon. I plan on proposing Feb. 15! Luckily, I have a setting planned already.

Let us know how you get on, if this SI2 is eyeclean, then that is great. Do see if you can get some photos of the diamond as they will be very helpful and an ASET image too if possible.

 

[chrono]

Date: 1/28/2008 10:56:32 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Depths are too deep and tables are too big on booth. The depths are making the stones face up smaller than their carat weight. I prefer stones in the 60-67% depth and tables 60-65%, crown height over 15%, and preferably at least VG/VG polish symmetry, but this isn''t as important. You really need images for radiant though...numbers don''t mean as much for radiants.

I second Kcoursolle''s advice. With SI2''s, you are taking a risk that it may not be eye clean so do check with the vendor to verify that particular stone.

 

[bluehens66]

Thank you Chrono! Switching from SI1 to SI2 was my biggest concern with that diamond. However, the table and depth specs. appear to be ideal or near ideal. I just talked to excel diamonds and they will send me the report in ~24hours. The man I spoke to said that depth and table settings for radiants are not as important. However, I am hearing from many of you that depth and table are important in judging cut and radiance. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion but I guess I will have to wait until excel sends me the reports. I will be sure to post the specs. and pictures.

Oh, and excel uses SI and not ASET becasue they believe "the ASET reports are too confusing to the average customer".

 

[Lorelei]

Make sure you know what your definition of eyeclean is, and let the vendors know your comfort level. The industry goes by something like this;

no inclusions visible face up in normal light - with normal vision at arm's length, to describe an eyeclean diamond. This means that if you want a diamond which is eyeclean at very close scrutiny from all angles, that you say so to the vendor you are working with. SI clarities are not created equal, but it is possible to find a SI2 which is eyeclean, even in this shape. Also if you can't get an ASET image, then a photograph will give you some idea of how the diamond looks, so see if they can send you one, both magnified and non mag. Depth and table are important to be considered, especially so that the diamond looks it's weight face up- but don't tell the whole story, particularly with Radiant cuts, according to some of the experts here. If you find a diamond you love, but the numbers fall short of what is suggested by charts, then that is the main thing, especially with fancy shapes and Radiants in particular.

This thread may be useful regarding eyeclean standards.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-eye-clean-definition-interpretation-and-taste.30483/

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks Lorelei! I will be sure to inquire for an "eye clean" inspection and to use the standard of ''no inclusions visible face-up at a distance of 8-10 inches in natural lighting to a person with 20/20 vision.'' Everyone is teaching me so much! I can''t wait to get the specs and pics to use this knowledge. I will be sure to share with everyone once excel sends me everything.

Anyone have an experience with excel diamonds? I have good things about them from a few people.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2008 1:40:30 PM
Author: bluehens66
Thanks Lorelei! I will be sure to inquire for an 'eye clean' inspection and to use the standard of 'no inclusions visible face-up at a distance of 8-10 inches in natural lighting to a person with 20/20 vision.' Everyone is teaching me so much! I can't wait to get the specs and pics to use this knowledge. I will be sure to share with everyone once excel sends me everything.

Anyone have an experience with excel diamonds? I have good things about them from a few people.

Just make sure that definition is fine with you for 'eyecleanliness' bluehen. If you would rather not see anything at all from any angle or at close scrutiny, then make sure you let your vendor know that. Some SI clarities may pass very close examination but some may not, so it depends on your own comfort level - just be sure to let the vendor know what your expectations are. I look forward to seeing what info you get from Excel!

And you are most welcome

 

[bluehens66]

I just found this diamond on Adiamor:

Price: $2,989
Shape: Radiant
Carat Weight: 1.02
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Graded By: GIA
Cut Grade: Ideal

Depth: 66.7%
Table: 67%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 5.89 x 5.50 x 3.67
Length / Width Ratio: 1.07

It''s $200-300 more than the 0.93 carat. One downside to buying from Adiamor is that they drop ship the diamond and never inspect it. They do give you 30 days to return the diamond but I think I would feel safer buying from excel since they inspect the diamond, send you reports and pics, and give you 10 days to return it. I''ll have to see how the excel diamonds looks when I get the report and then decide if buying the above diamond is worth the venture.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/29/2008 1:11:24 PM
Author: bluehens66

...The man I spoke to said that depth and table settings for radiants are not as important. However, I am hearing from many of you that depth and table are important in judging cut and radiance. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion but I guess I will have to wait until excel sends me the reports. I will be sure to post the specs. and pictures...

Over time the AGA and other “proportions” guidelines have been useful (as others have suggested here) but ultimately such charts for fancy shapes are limited at best, and in some cases reflect taste factors - since many variables determine overall performance.

I strongly suggest that you work with seasoned professionals who will listen to your desires, get potential candidates in-hand and personally conduct both gemological analysis (durability, eye-clean, etc) and performance/taste analysis on your behalf. In that sense you are in good hands as you have chosen to work with a trustworthy seller.

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks for the advice John! The guy I talked with at Excel was very attentive, and I have heard great things. I will keep everyone posted.

 

[bluehens66]

Ok guys, here is what I received from Excel Diamonds . Tell me what you think.

General Specifications
Price:$2,737.00
Carat : 0.93
Clarity : SI2
Color : E
Ships Within : Ships Immediately

GIA Specifications
Certificate Number : 14266324
Measurements : 5.6 x 5.24 x 3.65
Depth : 69.7
Table : 64%
Polish : Very good
Symmetry : Good
Fluorescence : None

We have worked up this diamond for you and you should have the data by now.

This stone faces up totally eye-clean and displays a very attractive "crushed-ice" look which is scintillating and sparkly.

Let us know if you have any questions which we will be most happy to answer.

Best Regards,
Barry

Diamond at 10X

GIA Report

IS Photo

Ok, so what do you guys think? Honest opinions please! Thank you all!

 

[Ellen]

Well, the eyeclean part is good! As for the IS, it looks a bit leaky in the middle, however, the few Radiant IS''s I''ve scanned in the past never looked that great either. So I''m not sure if it''s really that bad. An ASET would be better, but I know you can''t get one.

Sorry I can''t be more help, but hopefully bumping your thread may help. Also, it''s much quieter here at night, it may be mid morning tomorrow before others who''ve posted see it. So be patient.

 

[bluehens66]

Thanks for your input! I am trying to find a radiant IS to compare it too but the ones that I have found appear to look different. The middle of the stone is very dark in this particular IS.

 

[bluehens66]

Bump for tomorrow

 

[Lorelei]

http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_fancy.asp

The above thread may give a little more input on fancy shapes and IS, but as Ellen says, an ASET would be better, but no worries as you can't get one.

I think the diamond looks nice in the photo, with IS on fancy shapes it is really hard to tell, I can see what appear to be dark inclusions on both the photo and IS image...When the vendors said it is eyeclean, do they mean at close scrutiny, or the general definition? Also do Excel have a return policy in case you ordered this diamond and decided it wasn't for you? It may be completely fine, but it is nice to have this reassurance.