Radiant Diamond as a Tiffany Legacy?

[lank]

Hi Everyone,
I"ve been lurking on this site for a few weeks, but now I''m finally in a position to purchase a ring.

So I was basically trying to copy the Tiffany Legacy ring ( I know it''s popular). Well after looking
at a few cushion cut diamonds, the jeweler (a family friend) showed me another one and asked
me what I thought. I said it looked good, then he told me it''s not a cushion cut, it''s a radiant.
After looking at the GIA, it''s technically called a Rectangular Modified Brilliant.

He said good cushion cut''s are hard to find, at least one''s that have a lot of brilliance.
With the radiant, he said it will sparkle more. I''m sure my girlfriend won''t know the difference, I think she just liked the overall
look of the legacy ring, we never looked at it under a microscope to see the actually cut.

Here are the stats on the ring:
Carat: 1.24
Clarity: VS1
Color: G
Measurements in mm: 6.62 x 6.04 x 3.95
Depth: 65.4%
Table: 76%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Finish
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: None

Anyone see any bad indicators or possible issues to duplicate the Tiffany Legacy Ring?
I showed him a few pics of the Tiffany Legacy ring (some from this site!)

I also had a chance to get a 1.27 carat, F, VS1, but it was about $1K more because
of the color difference. I stared at both of them in a color tray and couldn''t tell a difference. So I decided
to go with this diamond. Thanks for your time and help. Now if I could just come up with a creative proposal idea.

 

[valeria101]

IMO, why not... once set in the bezel, most of the difference between cushion and radiant would be gone anyway - depending on whether the shape of the bezel emphasizes or hides the straight corners of the radint - it can go either way.

Do you have the setting?

If not, Icestore has a nice version - LINK


Some cushions are indeed cut very much like radiants (example below), most do not. Considering how the 'borderline' examples between the two cuts look, the jeweler is right to offer a better cut radiant as an acceptable option against a no-so-brilliant cushion.

Just my 2c, as usual. Hope it helps

 

[jaz464]

I think that there is a huge difference between a radiant and a cushion. I really love the look of a beautiful cushion but would never want to own a radiant. That's just my opinion however, and of course, there is nothing wrong with using a radiant for your girlfriend's ring. I would just make sure that you examine both cuts to determine which you like the best and which you think she would like the best. In my eyes, there really is a marked difference.

The specs of the diamond you are considering show a table that is really, really big. Being a radiant, you cannot go by numbers alone so if it was beautiful to you, than go for it. But look at it with a critical eye.

 

[lank]

Valeria,
What cuts are those 2 diamonds?

 

[lank]

Furthermore, after doing some research on the table and depth, I found this from another post:

there should be a equal matching depth at a tight percentage to OPTIMIZE the brilliance and fire of that stone. A table that is larger than the depth is usually not a very well cut stone, because it optimizes the "look" of the stone to look larger than it''s carat weight, but will leak light, because the depth is not deep enough to support the reflection and refraction of the light entering.
Key: On both princess and radiants, look for a table % to be at least 1-4% smaller than the depth.


Well on this stone, the table is bigger than the depth by 10.6% (Table=76%, Depth=65.4%)
Does this mean this is a crappy cut and it will not shine?
Now I"m confused, I never paid attention to Table/Depth. Can someone shine some brilliant light on this issue.
Should I tell him I don''t want the diamond?
It will be in a platinum setting and it''s about $7K
Thanks

 

[diagem]

confusing he?

Relax, what does she want? The legacy is a Cushion shape which is not the lifelier most brilliant diamond out there!!!
One thing be certain on, A Cushion is NOT a Radiant, some have similar faceting arangements but are considered modified!!!

Dont try to become a gemologist overnight, most formulas you will hear or read are for profesionall purposes mainly, and depend on loads of different criterias.

Make sure you spent you hard earned $ wisely, and make sure you make your gf happy (dont under estimate women, they know exactly what they want)

 

[lank]

Which of these 2 rings would you buy? I plan on putting it in a Tiff. Legacy setting.

RING 1:
Carat: 1.24
Clarity: VS1
Color: G
Measurements in mm: 6.62 x 6.04 x 3.95
Depth: 65.4%
Table: 76%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Finish
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: None
Price: $7K with platinum setting

RING 2:
Carat: 1.27
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Measurements in mm: 6.16 x 6.13 x 4.09
Depth: 66.7%
Table: 70%
Girdle: Medium to Very Thick
Culet: None
Finish
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: None
Comments: Pinpoints are not shown, Surface Graining is not shown
Price: $8K with platinum setting

The jeweler said that Ring 2 is a better cut, (look at table/depth) plus it''s an F color.
I saw both and the color is not noticeable. My concern is the table and depth, but Ring 1
looked nice. I don''t think it''s worth the $1K difference. Am I correct?

 

[lank]

Bueller?....Bueller?
Anyone?

 

[blueroses]

*BUMP*

Lank, I know next to nothing about radiants, but what I DO know is that--like a lot of fancies--you can't go by the numbers alone, you have to trust your eyes. What did YOU think? Have you seen them both? Did one of them "sing" to you?



ETA: cusions and radiants ARE indeed different, though there's enough wiggle room in each category that you'll see one that looks closer to the other, if that makes sense. In terms of the legacy, that's NOT a typical cushion (neither the "modern" cushion brilliant or a more "old style" cushion/omc.) Tiffany has their own patented cut for that particular ring which is a step-cut cushion. I'm not making sense. Hold on.

So here's the top-down of the T&C legacy:

 

[blueroses]

And here''s a radiant in a JBStar halo:

 

[blueroses]

And here''s a DanielK radiant in a halo:

 

[blueroses]

....and a cushion in a Daniel K halo:

 

[lank]

Blue Roses, thanks for the pics. I guess the only thing that''s stopping me from pulling the trigger is the large table.
But I saw it in person, it looked nice. so I guess numbers are just numbers.

 

[blueroses]

Hopefully those w/ more radiant knowledge will weigh in too. Obviously if you liked it (and think your gf will like it too) that''s what matters! I personally find a lot of radiants to have an almost over-sparkly "messy" look, but I also tried one on that I thought was beautiful and it surprised me.

Apparently good cushions ARE hard to find (check out moremoremore and reena''s old threads) but not impossible!! Even some of the "older" style more antique-y ones can have a lot of sparkle in a different chunkier-faceted way.

What did your gut say when you looked at them both?

 

[Kaleigh]

The numbers are a guidline, but at some point you really need to trust your eyes. Especially with fancies. Good luck. I adore the Tiffany legacy setting. Yummm.

 

[blueroses]

''course, Kaleigh doesn''t have ANNNNY personal stake in that style of setting at all, huh

 

[blueroses]

Just for old''s time sake (since we''re talking halos).......



Kaleigh''s RHR Asscher Yumminess (lank, I''m so sorry to threadjack)

 

[Kaleigh]

Ok, the cats out of the bag, thanks blueroses.

Sorry lank.

 

[princessv]

Kaleigh you see how I feel about your asscher RHR? hehe

ETA: I think a radiant would look stunning in a Legacy setting too. Like Kaleigh I am biased.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

numbers are not all that useful with fancy shapes Lank.

I would prefer to see some ideal-scope photo''s - looking at the stone as you rotate it is also very useful.
www.ideal-scope.com has some info.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/17/2006 2:01:28 PM
Author: lank
Valeria,
What cuts are those 2 diamonds?

Left: radiant, right - cushion.

''Cushion'' cut refers to the outline only ( a square or rectangle with rounded corners, regardless of facet pattern) and many versions exist. Those two in the pictures were chooses for how close they are - the pavilion of the two is cut in the same manner, only the corners and some detail of the crown make the difference.

Usually bezels are made to match the shape of the diamond, but... the shape of the corners (rounded or cut) can be hidden by the setting. However, there should be enough well cut cushion diamonds for you out there. No need to compromise.

My 2c



PS: second Garry about the numbers. Not that 80% depth with great light return doesn''t have its faults, but no rule of thumb about depth and table will guarantee a brilliant stone off the bat (thinking of 50-50 ''matched'' table and depth numbers on a radiant cut, with a shudder).

 

[coda72]

I personally think a Legacy type setting would look better with a cushion cut diamond than a radiant. I think a radiant would look too busy in that type of setting. Cushions seem to have a more organized facet pattern than radiants, so I think they would look better. Probably an asscher would look even better yet since it has the step cut pattern. But it''s of course up to you, I''m just giving you my opinion. I have a radiant, so I know what they look like.

Also, I''m not crazy about the numbers on either of the radiants you posted. The tables seem to be too large. Does the jeweler have any stones with the table smaller than the depth? The second stone will appear more square than the first one. If I had to choose one by the numbers I''d go with #2. The jeweler is right, it seems to be the better cut one.

 

[AmberWaves]

I have to weigh in here, not because I know anything at all about numbers for the cushions and radiant, but this past weekend I did shop for a cushion, and ended up wanting a radiant. It all depends on the shape of radiant, I assume you want the square version, not the emerald cut type. For the information on radiant cuts, look under the tutorial for your good base numbers info on the radiant cut. That''s where I got all my information. And from what I saw on Saturday, the radiant will sparkle like no one''s business. I wanted the cushion, and now we''re looking for radiants. I say go radiant.

My .02

 

[Hest88]

Lank, are those the only two we have to choose from? If so, I''d choose #2, but there''s not enough info to make a decision and I''m really not crazy about either one.

 

[Nicrez]

Date: 1/18/2006 6:36:02 AM
Author: coda72
I personally think a Legacy type setting would look better with a cushion cut diamond than a radiant. I think a radiant would look too busy in that type of setting. Cushions seem to have a more organized facet pattern than radiants, so I think they would look better. Probably an asscher would look even better yet since it has the step cut pattern. But it''s of course up to you, I''m just giving you my opinion. I have a radiant, so I know what they look like.

Also, I''m not crazy about the numbers on either of the radiants you posted. The tables seem to be too large. Does the jeweler have any stones with the table smaller than the depth? The second stone will appear more square than the first one. If I had to choose one by the numbers I''d go with #2. The jeweler is right, it seems to be the better cut one.

I agree that as much as I love radiants, they might look a bit busy in the Legacy setting, since they have very small sparkles that would add to the pave sparkle. It''s a matter of preference. That is why the T&Co. center stone is neither a true brilliant cushion nor an emerald cut, but a step and brilliant mix. It uses the simplicity of an emerald cut with the outline and brilliance of a cushion. So finding an exact replica will be impossible, as I believe that stone is cut exclusively for T&Co.

Then again, it also comes down to the craftsmanship. So it''s an important consideration, if you want the quality to match, I don''t think it would be as easy to find a quality setting cheaply. Good pave setters are not as common as one would think, especially when you want the stones to stay in place for many many years.... Good luck, and I hope you find something you are very happy with.

 

[lank]

Just as an update, I went with the second radiant diamond.

Here are the specs:
Carat: 1.27
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Measurements in mm: 6.16 x 6.13 x 4.09
Depth: 66.7%
Table: 70%
Girdle: Medium to Very Thick
Culet: None
Finish
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: None
Comments: Pinpoints are not shown, Surface Graining is not shown

Price: $7,600 in a white gold Legacy style setting

I''ll post up pics when I get it, should be a few weeks.

 

[blueroses]

Congrats, lank! As long as it "spoke" and sparkled to you, then the numbers don''t matter and it has to be the right choice!

We can''t wait to see the pictures!!

 

[lank]

Well they both "spoke" to me, but this diamond was more square and a better cut overall.

 

[lank]

Pics as promised:




http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d92/lanklink/ST2312-5.jpg

 

[SoonIHope]

WOW that came out even better than I was imagining! It''s GORGEOUS!!!

Hope you don''t mind, but I thought I''d re-post the pics straight into the thread. I LOVE IT!!!