Opinion on Some Radiants

[yourock]

Hi everyone

Can I get your opinion on these radiant stones?

Stone #1
Carat weight: 1.35
Cut: Premium
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Dimensions: 6.53 X 6.26 X 4.03
L/W ratio: 1.04
Depth: 64.4%
Table: 69%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick
Pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=991914

Stone #2
Carat weight: 1.32
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Dimensions: 6.39 X 5.90 X 4.04
L/W ratio: 1.08
Depth: 68.5%
Table: 64%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Faint
Girdle: Thick
Pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=991877

Stone #3
Carat weight: 1.50
Cut: Premium
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Dimensions: 6.60 X 6.13 X 4.29
L/W ratio: 1.08
Depth: 70%
Table: 65%
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Very Thick

Stone #4
Carat weight: 1.51
Cut: Premium
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Dimensions: 6.36 X 6.27 X 4.43
L/W ratio: 1.01
Depth: 70.7%
Table: 65%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Very Thick

Please keep in mind that it is very difficult to find a radiant with Table and Depth to fall within 60-65% AND having square dimensions.

Any help is much appreciated.

 

[JulieN]

Hi, welcome to PS!

I think the 1.35 looks very nice; get an Ideal Scope picture.

The 1.5 has no picture posted, so no comment.

 

[yourock]

Thanks for replying JulieN

Question though, I didnt post a picture for any of the diamonds. Which picture were you referring to for the first one?

Also how do I obtain an Ideal Scope picture?

 

[JulieN]

picture is here: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131&item=991914
James Allen will be able to give you more information on the stone, such as Ideal Scope picture and Sarin. It may cost 30 dollars, since it is not in-house.

Any other retailer who can get the stone and has Ideal Scope can do it for you.

 

[yourock]

Thanks JulieN

Yes I found both diamonds at JamesAllen.com
However to my understanding, Stone #1 is an "in house" diamond because they have the picture posted. Unless I was misinformed.

 

[JulieN]

Not all the stones with pictures are in-house.

FIre alarm, gotta go. ):

 

[yourock]

Thanks Julie, I''ll keep that in mind.

I also added 2 more diamonds if anyone cares to post their thoughts regarding them. Thanks in advance.

 

[kcoursolle]

I understand how hard it is to find a radiant with nice proportions, it took me several months to find a good one. Before picking one you might want to call up jim schultz direction and see what he can find for you or make any recommendations. Since inventory changes regularly this isn''t a bad idea.

Like JulieN, of the ones posted I like number 1 the best. The table is a little large for my taste, but it has potential. However, it will have little colored light reflected back and more white light reflected back since the table is large and I would guess that the crown angle is small. This is fine as long as it is what you have a preference for. I would see if Jim has the crown information for this stone. If the crown % is 8-15%, then the stone should be fine, if the crown percentage is below 8% you might want to keep looking. I would also really like to see an ideal scope image.

 

[kcoursolle]

Have you considered this stone?? I think this one has some potential as well even though it''s a tad deep.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=863055

You''d have to ask Jim whether it''s eye-clean. This stone will have a little more fire than the 1.35 you are considering. Although polish and symmetry are only secondary in important, I like to see at least VG/VG because it shows attention to detail from the cutter. I also like that this stone has a lenth/width ratio of 1.00.

 

[yourock]

Thanks kcoursolle

Regarding your suggested diamond, I like everything about it but the inclusions looking at the picture and maybe the color grade might be a bit of a minus. But it is a potential.

Also is it beneficial to talk to Jim directly or anybody at the company?

 

[JulieN]

The 1.35 is the biggest face up out of the 4. Is it the cheapest, too?

69% table is on the large side of AGA charts, but 69% on a princess is pretty normal.

I'd pursue that one first, get it in the office, and see how things go from there.

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 1/17/2007 2:10:09 AM
Author: yourock
Thanks kcoursolle

Regarding your suggested diamond, I like everything about it but the inclusions looking at the picture and maybe the color grade might be a bit of a minus. But it is a potential.

Also is it beneficial to talk to Jim directly or anybody at the company?

The color grade is fine on that one (should be very white), but you would have to ask Jim if it is eye-clean...SI2's are a little more tricky to buy. It might be eye clean, or it might not be. You can save a little money by considering a SI2 and radiants tend to hide inclusions well, you'd be surprised how bad things look blown up at X16 lense...and how nice they look in person. Again, you'd have to ask Jim if it's eye clean though.

Everyone over at jamesallen.com is great to work with, Josh was very helpful for my sale a while back. However, when considering specific stones, I personally think it's nice to talk to Jim...but everyone there is really nice and it would probably be fine. It might be helpful to see what he has available that he recommends and if he would recommend the 1.35 on your list.