Radiant Confusion!!!

[Stone Hunter]

I have read every thread here with Radiant in it and now I am confused. The chart says 60-65% for depth and table is the best. Very few stones out there like that. People here say you have to see the stone. I want to order from DCD or WF. Both vendors have good reps and many stones. How do I choose?

I want alot of sparkle and I like the cut glass look. Several stones with depths of 59% or tables of 59% look good to me but I don''t know what that''ll do to the stones! Oh yes I''d like a 1.5 to 2ct rectangular stone.

Is it time for me to contact a vendor or can someone point me in the right direction?I live in FL and maybe Richard Sherwood could pick a stone for me? I''m only half joking!

Thanks

 

[kcoursolle]

Hi there! I''m sorry you are confused. Not a lot of people have radiants on this site, so it''s not as easy to obtain information on them. I own a radiant with what I think is a very good cut. They are much harder to find in good cuts than round diamonds, but I will try to clear up some of the confusion for you.

You are correct about the depths, 60-65% is usually preferred...and yes, you are also correct that this is not very common in radiants. I''m not sure exactly why, but radiants are often cut excessively deep. A deeper radiant can also look good, but you are decreasing surface area which will make the diamond appear smaller than its carat weight.

If possible, I would prefer a radiant with a depth of 60-65%, and a table slightly larger than the depth. Also, a thin to slightly thick girdle is good. I would try to have a combination of VG/VG or better for polish and symmetry. In general, radiants are not cut very well...especially rectangular ones unfortunately. There are really some uglies out there! Although these are not important in themselves, a VG/VG combination is a symbol of greater attention to detail by the cutter.

I also agree that you need to see the diamond in order to tell if it''s good, the numbers just don''t cut it for radiants. Get out there and start checking some out side by side and see what you prefer. If possible, take them into sunlight, normal light, whatever you can.

As far as vendors, both DCD and whiteflash are really good. My radiant is from DCD and I am very happy with it and with their service. I''m biased, but I think I have one of the better cut radiants out there. You should also try James Allen, which is basically the same company as DCD, they merged a while back. In addition, I would check out diamonds by lauren. They specialize in radiants and have a few in the size you are looking for. They also have a very good reputation. As far as "seeing" the diamond, you can ask any of these vendors for pictures and their honest opinions about their stones. They will be honest with you and try to help you pick out a good radiant. All of them also have reasonable return policies, so if you get it home and don''t like it, you can return it. My suggestion would be to call all of them up and see what they have for you. I think all of their prices are also quite reasonable, but be sure to ask for the pricescope discount.

Hope this helps!

 

[kcoursolle]

I forgot to add a couple of things...

For color, radiants show color a little more than other diamond shapes. You might want to keep this in mind. I think you could safely go down to an H and not have it bother you, whereas you might be able to go down to an I or J in a well cut round.

However, for clarity I would suggest the opposite. The cut glass look of the stone often masks some of the inclusions better than other stone shapes and you could go down to a SI1 or maybe SI2 and probably be fine. These are both subjective however, as everyone has their own color/clarity preferences. I ended up not listening to my own advice and went with a VVS2, because it had a good cut and it had everything else I was looking for...but it definitely sucked up a little money for the extra clarity I don''t need.

 

[Stone Hunter]

Thank you. That''s helpful.

I guess I will call them. I really want to buy a Radiant soon.

 

[kcoursolle]

I''m glad it helped!

Here is a possibility, but I would ask about the SI2 clarity, and see if it is eye-clean or something that is not surface reaching and can be hidden with a prong. The cut is pretty good, but the table might be a tad too large. Not bad for a start. This diamond will face up pretty large and is a pretty good value with the H/SI combination. I would ask about the larger table. If you like white brilliant light than this is fine, but if you prefer more colored light or fire, you would want to find out how the larger table impacts this particular stone. Lauren would be able to give you a fair judgement on this stone. Also, the polish/symmetry combination is only GD/GD, which may or may not be a visible issue. I have noticed visual differences between good and very good.

http://rockdiamond.com/index.php?crn=207&rn=509&action=show_detail

This is another possibility, but you would have to contact JA to get some pictures and an assessment of the stone. It''s only slightly rectangular though, it might not be rectangular enough for you. There are a few more on JA website that might be possibilities, but I would talk to Jim Schultz (spelling?) to get a better idea of these stones because many of them don''t have pictures.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=576402

Let me know what you come up with, this sounds like a fun project! Do you know what kind of setting you will want for the diamond?

 

[Stone Hunter]

Now both of those have Tables above 65% so wouldn't that rule them out?

I do like the picture of the one at DBL that is more rectangular.

I looked up the photos of your Radiant and it is VERY VERY nice, love it's look. What is it's table size?

 

[radiantgirl]

Stone Hunter - I, too, had a hard time trying to find a well cut radiant. After weeks and weeks of looking at radiants at the B & M stores, we ended up getting ours at DCD. I recommend them too. Most of the stones the jeweler showed us were tables that were bigger than the depth by a lot (like 8% - 10% more), which we figured out later that's why we didn't like the stones. It didn't have the sparkle we wanted. We have been told that it's better to have the table a little bit smaller than the depth by 3% or so.

It depends on what kind of look you like in radiants. Each radiant varies so much. We were looking for a square radiant, but I see you are looking for a rectangular one? After doing some research on the internet, I found one I liked by the numbers from DCD and bought it blindly just by seeing a copy of the GIA cert. We got lucky because when the stone came in, we both loved it. I will post pictures of it once my bf officially proposes and gives me the ring. You can read my thread here:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/radiant-cuts-with-michael-b-setting.43530/=

Also remember that most of the online vendors out there have access to the same database of stones. The stone we bought at DCD was also offered at WF and a couple of other online vendors as well, but we ended up going with DCD because I liked their service better, and their price was a bit better plus no sales tax, since we are in Houston (WF is based in Houston, which meant if we bought from them, we would have to pay sales tax on the diamond).

Let me know if I can help you in any way. Maybe Coda72 can chime in because she seems to know a lot about radiants.

 

[Stone Hunter]

Radiant Girl - Thanks for the info on the table size. And DCD.

Can''t wait to see photos of your ring.

 

[kcoursolle]

I posted the one from diamonds by lauren because it was a possibility, but definitely not perfect! It will be difficult to find a radiant that is rectangular that fits all of the specs. I agree that the table was slightly too large and I mentioned that above. However, each stone can vary in appearance. Often you have to see it to at least have the vendor give it a look to consider purchasing it or to rule it out.

Table size is partially personal preference. I agree that tables that are too big are not preferred. However, some like larger tables because they usually have more brilliant white light, whereas others prefer smaller tables with more fire. I personally prefer a stone with depth around 60-64% and the table *slightly larger than the depth (2-4% larger), but others prefer a table that might be slightly smaller than the depth as suggested by Radiant Girl. Radiants are tough and personal opinions vary on what makes a good one! What''s important is what you like in a radiant and what you think looks good. I would get out there and start looking to see what you like and bug all of the vendors for their input.

Good luck!

 

[SuzyQZ]

Stone Hunter:

You''ve been given some excellent information, suggestions and advice here!

This is a great thread for anyone considering purchasing a radiant diamond. It is one of the more challenging cuts to discern as personal preference plays a big part as to what the "perfect" radiant really is. I find the mezmerizingly hypnotic effect that a well cut radiant has to offer to be well worth the hunt. I love looking "into" them and getting lost in the sparkle.

Good luck to you!

 

[radiantgirl]

I'm not sure what your budget is, but I found this stone on DCD. It is in their ideal radiant tab. You said you are looking between 1.5 - 2.0 ct. This one is 1.98 G VS1. It looks like a promising stone. If you like it, I would suggest calling them about it and they can email you a copy of the cert for you to see the details:

http://dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=8034891

Laboratory: GIA
Carat Weight: 1.98
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Shape: Radiant
Depth: 64.9%
Table: 62%
Polish: VG
Symmetry: GD
Culet: N
Girdle: M-STK
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.25x6.72x4.36

It's pretty rectangular with a L/W ratio of 1.23

Oh yeah, I checked and WF also has this same stone listed, but a little bit cheaper:

http://www.whiteflash.com/radiant/Radiant-cut-diamond-1941063.htm

Let me know what you think.

 

[Stone Hunter]

Kcoursolle, Radiant Girl, SuzyQZ -- Thanks for all of your replies. You all have made the purchase and I appreciate your input.

So the bottom line is the guidelines are guides and the best Table size depends on what I'm looking for sparkle or fire. Tables LARGER than depth = more sparkle. Tables smaller than depth = more fire.

DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

Now my mission is to go out and look at as many Radiants as I can and see what I like? Only a couple or none at each store I've been to. I guess I'll go again with this information.

As I mentioned in my initial post I want alot of sparkle.

Thanks again

 

[SuzyQZ]

I''ve pasted here what i just posted on another radiant thread, the same info may be helpful to you too:

Here are three sites to start your radiant education. The Original Radiant Cut website show the radiant cuts originator''s ideal specs
Original Radiant Cut Link:
http://www.radiantcut.com/index.html
Gem Appraisers/Dave Atlas has a chart with radiant ideal specs. Just type in radiant in the "chart" field. Here''s the link.
http://gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp
See more radiant cuts and beautiful ring on this site than probably anywhere.
Here''s the Diamonds by Lauren link.
http://diamondsbylauren.com/

Remember the numbers are just a starting point. Nothing can replace your eye and what looks good. The more radiants you see, the more you will know what you like and what is "ideal" for YOU.

Good Luck!