Radiant cut

[jackaroe]

I''m considering a radiant cut stone for the center. I wanted to know how people feel this sort of cut matches against a princess, and at the end of the day is there really much difference besides the corners? Personally, I would have gone with a round, but based on friends inside knowledge - square is the look she''s into. So, after looking at the radiant I felt it was a great compromise and a very fine looking cut. Longevity of style is a real concern.

 

[valeria101]

I would say that both the princess and the radiant cuts have well passed the test for "stayin gpower": these are already classic cuts. Also, square and round otlines seem to be the most poplar regardless of details (faceting style).

About the difference between princesses and radinants there are a few words to say, but not all that much. A princess with clipped corners may be called "radiant" and many radinants have facet diagrams hardly distinguishable from the princess cut. This being said, the radiant cut is not a uniform model, but rather a generic name for various types of faceting, roughly similar. Some can be quite different from a princess cut. There is not further standardization or names for these versions of radiant, unfortunately.

I wish I could describe the different looks better: for me these two cuts are light years apart on my scale of preferences (rads on top) since I would go for those radiants least like princess cuts.

Both cuts have their detraction: the tips of the princess cut are often prone to chipping, and finding radiants with good light return is a rather hopeless enterprise. Princess cuts are much more terndy now, so many more are available than radiants, some with full reports on cut quality (light return) and such, if this is what you are after.

Hope this helps a bit...

 

[Robyn12]

I think princess is a more "popular" cut than radiant right now, so if you heard she is into square stones, my guess would be that she has the princess cut in mind. There are differences between these two cuts, other than the corners. I think princess cuts are more brilliant and more similar to round (though I could be mistaken). Another thing to note is that radiants tend to be more rectangular in shape (although there are square cut radiants out there).

My preference would be princess.

There are other square cut stones out there too. Have you considered cushion or assher cuts? If she likes an antique look, she may like one of these older square cuts.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[jackaroe]

Both replies are very helpful, thank you both so much. I have looked at asscher cuts, but it seems very difficult to see what I keep hearing is a " true royal asscher". I have not looked at cushions very much though and will give it another look. The asscher look, although the pond effect is very interesting, is not as brilliant as I might of expected after hearing such good things. I thought that a ratio of 1:1 was ideal for a radiant? I'm trying to stay away from the rectangular cuts for this group

I would also agree the princess is the most popular right now as well. My problem is the table being so big or the top being so flat. (Hope I'm saying this right?)

 

[diane5006]

Hi if you are looking for a more squarish look you may want to take a look at some of the other modified squares...as well as princess

As far as they go they all have positive aspects...

Here are some you may want to consider

Regent (only modified square with Hearts and Arrows)
Queen of Hearts
Flanders
Lucere
Radiant
Square Radiant
Asscher (square emerald)
Royal asscher

I have made a thread in the "how me the ring"forum wiht pics of Regents set...I can try to post pics of the others if you want

 

[jackaroe]

That would be great if its not a problem!!

 

[Hest88]

When I look at a princess, I see more angular facets. It's gives a distinctive X shape at it's heart. A radiant gives me a more "circular" effect. I know the facets are just as precise, but when I look into it I see what looks like more random swirly things.

 

[Robyn12]

What kind of setting ar you thinking of? If you are thinking of doing a solitaire, IMO, princess cuts look better in this type of setting. From what I've seen, most people tend to set radiants with sidestones...

Try looking at some set stones and see what is more appealing to you...

You can see lots of set stone by scrolling through here.

 

[Nicrez]

A Radiant stone (which I am currently going nuts to find) is so hard to find properly cut and just find in general. Radiants are brilliantized step cut. Originally it was designed by Henry Grossbard with emerald facets on top and the shape, and the pavillion cut in a brilliant diamond pattern. The Joy of square with the brilliance of a round... check out www.radiantcut.com

Princess... go with princess...it's SO MUCH EASIER!!! It's also more likely to have better guidelines ragarding good proportions. Do a search for Radiant, and see all the discussions on it so far... Good luck and God Bless...

 

[jackaroe]

For the radiant the best side stone setting I’ve seen thus far is emeralds. As far as setting; I have no idea.

Diane5006 - took a look at the regent - very nice indeed. Have you seen the octagonal diamond that Jan from Diamond brokers of Fl. had? That cut looked interesting. How hard is it to see a branded cut and have it appraised?

 

[Nicrez]

I thin the radiant center stone looks fabulous with side radiants as well. Although I don't have a clear picture of this a good example has princess stones, and you can basically get the idea...
If you go to whiteflash.com, under three stone diamond rings, it;s the 3 stone truffle by Vatche, if this link doesn't work...
3 stone Princess Truffle By Vatche

 

[icelady]

jackaroe,

I just purchased a Radiant diamond before Christmas, and I could not be happier with the cut. However, I had to be very patient to find just the right one! AnA is so right when she said there are variations on the cuts for Radiant. I found similar issues with the Princess. It is much easier to find Princess cut branded stones because they do seem to be the trend right now.

I did not go with the Princess in part because of the pointed corners, both for safety of the stone and the look. I will say that the branded (and more recently cut) Princess stones that I have seen are more brilliant than the ones that were available when the cut first came about. The same can be said for the Radiant as well.

As for the setting, I would agree with nicrez if you are going with a three stone look. Radiant side stones would be beautiful!

Bottom line, you can eliminate some of the stones that may be way off by looking at their certs and sarin info. However, if I would have only looked at my stone on paper, I would not have had the jeweler call it in to look at it in person. Of all the Radiant stones I looked at, there were none that looked as beautiful to me as the one I purchased! So, be patient, your stone is out there!

 

[Rand_alThor]

Do you guys think this setting would allow a radiant/lucere cut? Or is it for pure round diamonds only.

 

[jackaroe]

Thanks alot icelady! I appreciate that

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/27/2004 2:11:41 PM jackaroe wrote:



I thought that a ratio of 1:1 was ideal for a radiant? I'm trying to stay away from the rectangular cuts for this group

I would also agree the princess is the most popular right now as well. My problem is the table being so big or the top being so flat. (Hope I'm saying this right?)
----------------

Hm... The LxW ratio is really a matter of choice. Usualy a 2X1 is considered best for a rectangular stone, but square shapes seem to have gained some fame lately. This is not a characteristic taken into acount by any definition of an "ideal" cut I know of. Some freedom of choice left... after all...

Well, as for the flat top, that is only the mark of a so-so cut and not too many would be crazy about it. What you want is a stone with a small-er table and high crown. These are characteristics considered desirable both for proncess and radiant cuts but seldom found in "nature". For example, if you go for the AGA charts for cut quality, you may want to go for the largest crown hight % in the acceptable range, say 13% at most for a princess and 15% at most for an EC. However, large tables and shallow crowns are the most common features in both cuts... so you will need some luck.

Just a note: among all square cuts, Tiffany's Lucida is the one I know to have been specifically designed to have a high crown. No idea how consistent the actual diamonds are with this stated concept (the one and only I handled was), but if you care to look on Tiffany's site for the Lucida ring, the profile picture of the ring would undoubtly show what a "high" crown looks like (and what I am talkig about).

 

[valeria101]

Always forgetting... to go to the right source for a great cut ! (Joke, but not quite). Below is the profile of a princess cut with a 9% high crown. This does not really qualfy for a "high crown" to e, but THIS baby has a 16% high one - just about as high as they might get. AGA standards or not, the optics, color and clarity of this stone have little flaws to talk about.

Oh, and the respective site can provide quite a few detailed quality diagnostics of princess cut diamonds... a not so common encounter.