OK....an update from the shopaholic sister trying to help her big brother find a great radiant.....
So I live in Massapequa, NY......the logical thing seemed to be to swing by Good Old Gold, after all it''s only about 2 miles away. So I did. I loved this place! My husband probably wishes I never found it-boy is he in trouble now
So I knew before I went that Jonathan (Rhino) was booked up solid on Saturday, but I had the pleasure of meeting his brother-in-law (?) Charlie. Charlie showed me two radiants in the range that we wanted. I loved one of them, but need some expert interpretation. I have a PM out to Rhino but I guess he is enjoying his days off, so I need you guys!!
Here is the stone that interests me most.
www.goodoldgold.com/radiant_1_51ct_h_vs1.htm
I am somewhat confused at interpreting the information provided on the goldoldgold website. The Brilliance Scope analysis on this radiant looks great - all marks very high. But I am confused by the Gem Advisor virtual model. It seems to conflict with the Brilliance Scope. The virtual model’s ratings don’t look so hot…….light return mono – poor, light return stereo – good-poor, fisheye – poor. How can the light return be on the poor side when the Brilliance Scope says very high? Sorry if the question is ignorant, maybe they are not quite measuring the same things.
Also, on the sarin report, can someone comment on the crown height and pavilion depth. The crown height is 9.8….not the best from what I have learned. Also, the pavilion depth is 51%....I think this is well over the desired range.
I may be a bad judge of diamonds, but even with what I think would be a few aspects with not such great numbers, I liked this stone. Is this just a case of sometimes you can’t just rely on the pure numbers…..that a diamond with all the right ranges can just be a dud, and vice versa?
Another interesting thing was that I also saw the 1.58 F SI1, and I really couldn’t tell the color apart (from the F to the H). I have had the opportunity to compare and F and an H before and the difference was obvious to me, but not this time.
If anyone could chime in with their opinions I would really appreciate it.
So I live in Massapequa, NY......the logical thing seemed to be to swing by Good Old Gold, after all it''s only about 2 miles away. So I did. I loved this place! My husband probably wishes I never found it-boy is he in trouble now

So I knew before I went that Jonathan (Rhino) was booked up solid on Saturday, but I had the pleasure of meeting his brother-in-law (?) Charlie. Charlie showed me two radiants in the range that we wanted. I loved one of them, but need some expert interpretation. I have a PM out to Rhino but I guess he is enjoying his days off, so I need you guys!!
Here is the stone that interests me most.
www.goodoldgold.com/radiant_1_51ct_h_vs1.htm
I am somewhat confused at interpreting the information provided on the goldoldgold website. The Brilliance Scope analysis on this radiant looks great - all marks very high. But I am confused by the Gem Advisor virtual model. It seems to conflict with the Brilliance Scope. The virtual model’s ratings don’t look so hot…….light return mono – poor, light return stereo – good-poor, fisheye – poor. How can the light return be on the poor side when the Brilliance Scope says very high? Sorry if the question is ignorant, maybe they are not quite measuring the same things.
Also, on the sarin report, can someone comment on the crown height and pavilion depth. The crown height is 9.8….not the best from what I have learned. Also, the pavilion depth is 51%....I think this is well over the desired range.
I may be a bad judge of diamonds, but even with what I think would be a few aspects with not such great numbers, I liked this stone. Is this just a case of sometimes you can’t just rely on the pure numbers…..that a diamond with all the right ranges can just be a dud, and vice versa?
Another interesting thing was that I also saw the 1.58 F SI1, and I really couldn’t tell the color apart (from the F to the H). I have had the opportunity to compare and F and an H before and the difference was obvious to me, but not this time.
If anyone could chime in with their opinions I would really appreciate it.
