Radiant depth and table proportions

[Radiance]

Hi. I''m a forum newbie. I''ve fallen in love with radiant diamonds, but I''m confused about what I should look out for proportions-wise. I''ve seen a radiant classed as a GIA ''good'' cut and it has a table of 75% and depth of 68.7%. I thought that table percentage was too big. Could someone please tell me what perecentages I should avoid?

Thanks!

 

[coda72]

Here''s a chart to use as a guide:

http://www.gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp

 

[Radiance]

Thanks, Coda72. I had previously located a chart at http://www.drostes.com/radiant-depth.html, however, the values listed on their site were rather broad. Eg. "Specifications for ideal to very fine cut. Select radiant cut diamonds within these ranges: Depth 65% - 80%."

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/9/2008 2:30:43 AM
Author: Radiance
Thanks, Coda72. I had previously located a chart at http://www.drostes.com/radiant-depth.html, however, the values listed on their site were rather broad. Eg. 'Specifications for ideal to very fine cut. Select radiant cut diamonds within these ranges: Depth 65% - 80%.'

Hi Radiance!

Coda has a special interest in radiants and can offer good advice - Hiya Coda!

Overall radiants need to be seen to be judged, if you are buying online then detailed photographs of the diamond and an ASET image is very useful to help evaluate the cut / personality of the stone. So I would ask your vendor for these, and also if the vendor does not have this diamond in house, look at some vendors who have in house diamonds, where the cut analysis has been done.

 

[coda72]

The AGA chart I posted has tighter guidelines, and I would probably use this over any other guide. And also, this is just my personal opinion, but I would stick to radiants that have a depth in the low to mid sixties. Radiants tend to look smaller for their carat weight than other shapes, and by keeping the depth lower you get a radiant that tends to look larger. The best cut radiants are mostly Original Cut radiants, but these have a price premium. Other than that, see what you visually like and go from there, using charts and numbers as a guide.

One more thing, I''m not sure if you''re looking at stones in stores or online, but either way neither tend to have much in the way of radiants in stock. You may have to have the vendor call additional stones in for you to see.

 

[Radiance]

Thanks very much for the advice, Lorelei and Coda! The radiant I''m looking at has a depth of 68.7% and table of 75%. The seller also just told me a large table can make a diamond appear bigger. I''ll do some more research to find out if that''s true.

 

[kcgunesq]

At 80% depth, you are 0.1 away from the bottom half of the below avg category on depth. As I believe Dave Atlas has pointed out, even if an 80% diamond has spectacular light performance (and it is much more likely to be a dud), it is very far from ideal if for no other reason than with so much depth, such a stone is going to face up much smaller than it should for its weight. At least I hope I''m properly attributing the reasoning and correctly restating it.

The stone you are looking at is nowhere near 80%. 68.7 isn''t great, but its decent and wouldn''t necessarily be a deal killer for me if you really liked the stone. I''d probably have more concern about the 75% table.

If you would give some rough idea of budget, perhaps some could help you with a few suggestions.

 

[Radiance]

Thanks, Kcgunesq. I was pretty concerned about the table percentage. I''m on a low budget of under $2,000.