Price / Quality - Box Radiant VVS1 G

[gstructure]

Hi everyone,

I didn't find any obvious warnings about not asking for opinions on a stone right off the bat, so I hope this doesn't irk anyone.

I'm considering a Box Radiant VVS1 G(1) stone and here are the GIA and Megascope report data on it:

Weight : 0.99 ct
Width : 5.61 mm
Length : 5.70 mm
Depth : 3.59 mm
L/W : 1.02

Crown Angle : 33.5 `
Crown Height : 11.8 %
Pavil Angle : 44.6 `
Pavil Depth : 50.5 %
Table Size : 66.0 %
Total Depth : 64.0 % (3.59 mm)

Clarity : VVS1
Color : G (1)
Polish : Good
Symm : Good
Fluor : None
Girdle : Slightly Thick to Very Thick

The GIA and Megascope agree except Megascope also lists Proportion: Excellent. Megascope was done by the seller, so I guess it doesn't mean all that much since it could've been rigged.

Price: $7,797

My thoughts, let me know if I'm on the right track:
The stone is pretty much square. The spread 5.61x5.70 = 31.98 sq mm, and from radiantcut.com a 1ct stone should be a minimum of 31.0 sq mm, so that seems good. The total depth of 64% is good, the table of 66% is 1% too much - I don't know what to think of it. Girdle should be ok; 11.8 + 50.5 = 62.3% and 64 - 62.3 = 1.7 % which seems like it is Very Thick and not the other listed extreme - is it too thick? Angles are within tolerances for a Class II and so are the Pav. Depth and Crown Depth. I don't however know if the price is a good deal. Let me know your opinions oh wise gemological gurus!

And of course let me know your thought of the stone itself.


Secondary question:
Your opinion on using a two-tone setting where most of the surface will be white gold, for a high clarity and color stone.


Sincerly,
GStructure

 

[Lorelei]

You are fine don't worry! Welcome to PS

Radiants are tricky and not many of us have much knowledge on them apart from Coda, she is good with them. She should log in soon and see this and be able to help you. Have you actually seen this diamond? Radiants can give quite different effects, it is always best if you can see it in person, or maybe the vendor could send you a picture. I take it you want a VVS clarity? Expanding your clarity could give you more options if needed...Also there is a wide variation of the girdle thickness, how significant this is in a Radiant I don't know, but I would imagine that could be improved on.

 

[coda72]

By the numbers there''s nothing to rule out this radiant. I like the table to be a bit smaller than the depth, but it''s not absolutely necessary. The girdle could also be thinner, but that''s not a huge concern either. Well-cut square radiants are hard to come by, so don''t pass up any that look decent. I don''t know how many radiants you''ve seen in person, but if you have a vendor nearby that sells the Original Radiant Cut, you might want to check out some radiants there for comparison sake.

 

[pinkflamingo]

Hi there!

I also would suggest going beyond VVS1... you are paying for something you can''t see. VS range is safe for radiants.

 

[shippinguy]

gstructure

I''m far from an expert, but I recently purchased a box radiant slightly less than 1ct.

.903ct VVS2, F (AGS)
5.41x5.38x3.83
depth 71.33
table 67.25
girdle Medium to slightly thick
Polish -Excellent
Symmetry-Excellent
Crown dept 13.40
Pav. depth 53.65

It was set into a Ritani setting and my fiancee loves it, and loves the compliments she recieves on it.

As a point of reference it cost $4500. I got it from Good Old Gold. If you haven''t checked them out it''s well worth it, and if you don''t see a Radiant listed in their current stock send them an email or give them a call. I worked with Tim there and he was fantastic in bringing in stone and sending pictures/lab data.

Just my two cents. I hope it helps.

 

[marriahlyn]

I can''t judge by the specs but I think the price is a bit high. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Hi Marriah,

As Coda said, the #'s look fine, but radiants cannot be evaluated by #'s alone, and the #'s can often mislead you. It's always best to see radiants live.

Just one clarification: the minimum "spread" on radiantcut.com is not calculated simply by multiplying length x width. It is a length x width minus the area lost due to the cut corners. Depending on their size, the cut corners lose 4% - 10% of the surface area, average being about 6%. Assuming 6% cut corners, The diamond you're considering spreads 30 - just fine for something in the high 0.90's (which it is). It will, however, look slightly smaller than a full spread 1 carat.

 

[Jas12]

Is this stone from DCI by any chance?? If so, do a search on them and the owner.

 

[gstructure]

Thank you for the welcome and thank you everyone for the replies, boy are you guys quick!

To answer some of the questions you''ve raised:

- I have not seen the stone.
- I''m not after VVS in particular, VS1 was actually my goal.
- I have not seen any radiants in person, just pictures and video clips.
- There''s a an Original Radiant Cut dealer in NYC and I live in Brooklyn, so I''ll make it a point to visit them.
- I''m definitely going to get in touch with Good Old Gold, and they''re only about a 40 minute drive from me.
- I guess I spaced out with the spread calculation!

How did I neglect to account for the cut corners?! Thanks for the reminder.

- The stone is from DCI, and I''m well aware of the majority sentiment about them on Pricescope - I''ve already read up on them here and other sources.

Thanks again for all your help!

Sincerely,
GStructure

 

[coda72]

Just a couple of more comments, I''m not sure if you''re set on this stone or not, but the price does seem a bit high. I guess that could be accounted for by the VVS1 clarity. Also, for radiants, I have seen some beautiful SI2''s that were totally eyeclean. The crushed ice look seems to hide inclusions pretty well. So, you may not have to have VS1 clarity to get an eyeclean stone. I have a VS2, and if I were to do it all over again, I would buy an SI stone for sure.

Good luck, and let us know what you buy!

 

[Jas12]

I purchased from them...be very careful with the setting (you have no choice but to get it set by them b/c of the bond), i had to send my ring back twice, and still did not get the proper setting with good craftmanship. I am returning it now. Also, price is high. My advice: search elsewhere and avoid the trouble and stress I have endured.

 

[gstructure]

Hello again everyone,

I visited an Original Cut Diamonds dealer and looked at some stones, although they didn''t have one that was as square as I''d like. I looked at a couple of them through my Ideal-Scope and suprisingly saw lots of white. I hope Radiantman (Stan Grossbard) can address this.

I also visited DCI and looked at the stone that I''ve asked you guys about in the beginning of this thread. I must say that I was impressed with the way it looked. Also in comparison to the slightly bigger stone at the Original Cut dealer (1.06ct) it looked bigger - but that might have had a lot to do with the 1.06ct stone being more rectangular than the DCI 0.99ct stone. Through the Ideal-Scope the DCI stone was almost entirely pink/dark pink.

What do you guys think about this Ideal-Scope stuff - is it even still as valid for radiants? And if so, wouldn''t the almost all pink mean that the DCI stone is more brilliant?

Any thoughts?

GStructure

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Hi Gstructure,

With all due respect to the idealscope fans out there, it''s not a particularly useful tool for evaluating radiants. Trust yout eyes, they''re the best tool out there Look at each stone in a variety of light conditions both straight on and tilted at a 20 degree angle, then use your judgment as to which you like better. Look for even life and be wary of concentrations of black around the culet.

Try placing the diamond right side up in a folded white card. If there''s a black circle around the culet, that will make it more apparent.

Given the measurements, the diamond from DCI should not look larger than an Original Radiant - geometrically, it''s a wee bit smaller than our smallest carat stone. Did you have the opportunity to see them side by side? If it''s possible, that''s always the best way to judge.

 

[JulieN]

Once upon a time, Ideal Scope was not really all that great to use on princesses, either. After being so used to rounds, looking at a princess IS didn''t really do anything for me. Is it a good stone? Is it a bad stone? Is IS image A better than image B? It was really hard to tell.

Then, one day, the AGS princesses came out. Now, you could see organized leakage, organized contrast, and lots of red. Now, it''s easier to tell if one princesses IS is better than another''s, because examples of the best exist.