Please help me evaluate this Radiant cut stone

[milanrp]

Hello everyone,

I''m looking at a radiant cut from WF. Pics and specs below. I guess what I''m most concerned about is the crown height. And the fact that I don''t know what to look for in the angles. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

 

[milanrp]

jpg

 

[coda72]

The depth and table are fine, but the crown height does seem a little low. Do you have any pics of the stone itself?

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 2/20/2007 10:16:06 AM
Author: coda72
The depth and table are fine, but the crown height does seem a little low. Do you have any pics of the stone itself?

Ditto, do you prefer bright or firey stones? Overall, I think this stone would be fine, but the slightly low table percentage will reduce fire somewhat.

 

[SuzyQZ]

I''m agreeing. Table and depth look ok. But I''d want to see it and compare it to others.

The low crown height is supposed to cut down on fire. It doesn''t look like this stone has much crown height at all. If you like a lot of fire in your stone, this may not be the one. Don''t know how feasible this would be for you to actually see in person so second best would be to call WF and ask for their opinion on the amount of fire this stone shows. They see diamonds all day long and would be able to give you a good evaluation.

Good luck. Radiants are beautiful and definitely worth the trouble if you can find the right one for you!

Disclaimer: I''m no expert, just a radiant lovah!

 

[RADIANTMAN]

The diamond appears to be a classic example of a cutter trying to take advantage of ill informed consumers who try to select their radiants based on #''s that they don''t fully understand. The depth percentage of 65 is achieved by combining a top which is too flat with a bottom which is too deep. The table percentage is achieved by flattening the crown angles to the point where there is virtually no top (see the 21 degree crown - it should be about 35). It would actually have been a nicer diamond if the cutter had left a larger table with higher crown angles, but then all the "experts" would say the table is too big.

While radiants must be seen to be fully evaluated, the configuration of this diamond likely results in a strong concentration of black around the culet. I would be wary, unless you have the opportunity to see the diamond with your own eyes and decide that you love it.

 

[SuzyQZ]

Date: 2/20/2007 4:02:45 PM
Author: Radiantman
The diamond appears to be a classic example of a cutter trying to take advantage of ill informed consumers who try to select their radiants based on #''s that they don''t fully understand. The depth percentage of 65 is achieved by combining a top which is too flat with a bottom which is too deep. The table percentage is achieved by flattening the crown angles to the point where there is virtually no top (see the 21 degree crown - it should be about 35). It would actually have been a nicer diamond if the cutter had left a larger table with higher crown angles, but then all the ''experts'' would say the table is too big.

While radiants must be seen to be fully evaluated, the configuration of this diamond likely results in a strong concentration of black around the culet. I would be wary, unless you have the opportunity to see the diamond with your own eyes and decide that you love it.

Radiantman: You are the expert!!! You are the original!!!
Your post was so informative and insightful as to what the cutter was trying to do. I wish you would post more often on PS. I really enjoy your informative, educational and professional insights in evaluating a good radiant.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/20/2007 4:02:45 PM
Author: Radiantman
The diamond appears to be a classic example of a cutter trying to take advantage of ill informed consumers who try to select their radiants based on #'s that they don't fully understand. The depth percentage of 65 is achieved by combining a top which is too flat with a bottom which is too deep. The table percentage is achieved by flattening the crown angles to the point where there is virtually no top (see the 21 degree crown - it should be about 35). It would actually have been a nicer diamond if the cutter had left a larger table with higher crown angles, but then all the 'experts' would say the table is too big.

While radiants must be seen to be fully evaluated, the configuration of this diamond likely results in a strong concentration of black around the culet. I would be wary, unless you have the opportunity to see the diamond with your own eyes and decide that you love it.

Stan, with respect, I believe your condemnation of this diamond - especially in accusatory terms - is unfair without having inspected it yourself.

Our client asked us about the depth and we’ve represented it fairly to him.We told him, verbatim, that while the crown height is on the low side it is still a beautiful diamond with tremendous light return.It faces up white with great sparkle.It has wonderful character.We communicated this and sent him actual photos in addition to the ideal-scope.We also told him it is his choice as to whether he would like us to continue searching and we are here to help him.

In all cases we interface with customers to determine the best fit for their personal tastes and budget.You may not realize that our company offers both a 10-day no questions asked return period and a lifetime trade-up policy.This means we stand behind any diamond we offer in the long-term:If he were to select this radiant and decided a month or year from now to pursue a more expensive selection we would give him 100% of the purchase price back in credit toward another option.It would make no sense for us to offer this stone if we were not prepared to accept it back into our inventory at any time.

Your technical observations are appreciated, but there is no ‘strong concentration of black’ at the culet of this stone.Additionally I suggest your assessments as an expert will read more professionally if you’ll omit accusatory or inflammatory statements suggesting someone is “taking advantage of ill informed consumers.”

Respectfully,

 

[milanrp]

Thank you all for your input and perspectives. For the record, WF has been great so far in this process.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

John,

I apologize for any offense - I did not intend my tone to be accusatory. I certainly did not intend to imply that you misrepresented the diamond in any way. In fact, I had no idea who the diamond belonged to and, frankly, didn''t care. My point was that once consumers have been conditioned to look for certain depths and tables, cutters often find ways to "swindle" the diamond by achieving the "correct #''s in an incorrect way. Based on the Sarin measurements, it is clear that the 65/65 measurements on this particular diamond were not achieved in the most optimal way.

Based on this information, I pointed out what I considered to be a risk (not a fact), and advised that the diamond be examined to determine whether it is actually a problem. I''m confident that when asked by your customers about particular characteristics of a diamond, you provide your honest opinion.

Whenever I have posted here, I have consistently stressed that radiant cuts cannot be judged by the #''s alone - they need to be seen. Nevertheless, the #''s can present red flags requiring further examination. In expressing an opinion with regard to those red flags, I was simply providing the same service that the regular pricescope "experts" regularly provide. I hope that this input will be considered welcome, no matter who happens to be the vendor of the particular item.