Question about radiants, % and what not

[ianb]

Hello all! first post, glad to be here, names Ian. I am in the market for a stone, and don't know a whole lot about what I'm looking at. Specifially I would like obviously the nicest largest eye clean Radiant my money can buy. I also don't have tons of money, such is life. I've been told to stick mainly to James Allen, because of the price and the ability to judge eye clean from the pics. If this is the case then my money has me shooting around .9 carats as Id like H as a minimum colour and eye clean. This has me torn between 2 stones, one appears cleaner and has slightly larger outside dimensions (appealing), they both have similar depth and table %, give or take. But I just noticed a large difference in what I beielve is called the crown? The part from the girdle upwards? The one stone has smaller dimensions all around so I looked closer and thats when I noticed this. Makes the other stone look flat. Is this an important thing to look for? It also has a black inclusion althought VS2 but would it be noticable to the naked eye?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/?TabSelected=3&DiamondID=282301,245727

Please let me know your thoughts! Or suggestions of other stones around the 3000 mark

I am an avid hobby jewelery maker looking to get more into stones so I think I'll be sticking around here! looks like a good place


Thanks,
Ian

 

[Gypsy]

Numbers don't matter as much as Faceting and performance. Get an ASET and a gemologists evaluation of the stones.

Radiants are very hard.

 

[chrono]

Numbers don't matter as much as Faceting and performance. Get an ASET and a gemologists evaluation of the stones. Radiants are very hard.

Ditto. There's a discussion going on right now in RT about how to identify what makes for an attractive (or not) radiant. And you can bet that numbers have absolutely no bearing on this.

 

[marylongslot]

Numbers don't matter as much as Faceting and performance. Get an ASET and a gemologists evaluation of the stones. Radiants are very hard.

Ditto. There's a discussion going on right now in RT about how to identify what makes for an attractive (or not) radiant. And you can bet that numbers have absolutely no bearing on this.

I wouldn't say they have no bearing. Diamond is Diamond, same refractive index, why should one ignore the numbers in a Radiant cut when they are important for all other cuts?

Large table, flat crown, in all cuts is going to lead to a less lively diamond.

 

[chrono]

The only shape where one can purchase safely by the numbers are rounds. There is no formula or numbers i.e. specific table or depth % where one can be guaranteed a well cut or sparkly diamond for all other shapes (princess, oval, emerald, radiant, pear, etc).

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The only shape where one can purchase safely by the numbers are rounds. There is no formula or numbers i.e. specific table or depth % where one can be guaranteed a well cut or sparkly diamond for all other shapes (princess, oval, emerald, radiant, pear, etc).

I agree with this statement, except to say that even with rounds, there is more to selecting a top performer than just numbers. That is why additional diagnostics are used including ASET, IdealScope, and Hearts and Arrows images. These tools give us important information about faceting precision that is crucial to optimal light performance.

Fancy cuts are more complicated because there are more variables at play. So it is even more important to acquire additional information in order to assess cut quality in these different shapes and cutting styles.

 

[chrono]

The only shape where one can purchase safely by the numbers are rounds. There is no formula or numbers i.e. specific table or depth % where one can be guaranteed a well cut or sparkly diamond for all other shapes (princess, oval, emerald, radiant, pear, etc).

I agree with this statement, except to say that even with rounds, there is more to selecting a top performer than just numbers. That is why additional diagnostics are used including ASET, IdealScope, and Hearts and Arrows images. These tools give us important information about faceting precision that is crucial to optimal light performance.

Fancy cuts are more complicated because there are more variables at play. So it is even more important to acquire additional information in order to assess cut quality in these different shapes and cutting styles.

Bryan,
You are correct. I came back to edit but am too late. I wanted to change my wording such that I can eliminate duds by the numbers and increase my chances of selecting a high performing round, but as always, having diagnostic tools to confirm is a plus.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The only shape where one can purchase safely by the numbers are rounds. There is no formula or numbers i.e. specific table or depth % where one can be guaranteed a well cut or sparkly diamond for all other shapes (princess, oval, emerald, radiant, pear, etc).

I agree with this statement, except to say that even with rounds, there is more to selecting a top performer than just numbers. That is why additional diagnostics are used including ASET, IdealScope, and Hearts and Arrows images. These tools give us important information about faceting precision that is crucial to optimal light performance.

Fancy cuts are more complicated because there are more variables at play. So it is even more important to acquire additional information in order to assess cut quality in these different shapes and cutting styles.

Bryan,
You are correct. I came back to edit but am too late. I wanted to change my wording such that I can eliminate duds by the numbers and increase my chances of selecting a high performing round, but as always, having diagnostic tools to confirm is a plus.

True, and I was not criticizing your statement Chrono. In fact, in the vast majority of cases consumers do not have the extra diagnostic information available to them. So, in the case of rounds, one can make a safe purchase (in terms of cut quality) by knowing the numbers. Tools like HCA and GIA Facetware can be used easily to get into the upper echelon of rounds by simply plugging in the numbers. Unfortunately there are no such handy tools for fancies.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

The only shape where one can purchase safely by the numbers are rounds. There is no formula or numbers i.e. specific table or depth % where one can be guaranteed a well cut or sparkly diamond for all other shapes (princess, oval, emerald, radiant, pear, etc).

I agree with this statement, except to say that even with rounds, there is more to selecting a top performer than just numbers. That is why additional diagnostics are used including ASET, IdealScope, and Hearts and Arrows images. These tools give us important information about faceting precision that is crucial to optimal light performance.

Fancy cuts are more complicated because there are more variables at play. So it is even more important to acquire additional information in order to assess cut quality in these different shapes and cutting styles.

Bryan,
You are correct. I came back to edit but am too late. I wanted to change my wording such that I can eliminate duds by the numbers and increase my chances of selecting a high performing round, but as always, having diagnostic tools to confirm is a plus.

True, and I was not criticizing your statement Chrono. In fact, in the vast majority of cases consumers do not have the extra diagnostic information available to them. So, in the case of rounds, one can make a safe purchase (in terms of cut quality) by knowing the numbers. Tools like HCA and GIA Facetware can be used easily to get into the upper echelon of rounds by simply plugging in the numbers. Unfortunately there are no such handy tools for fancies.

Agree completely.