Radiant Experts - Need help with Evaluation

[dmetzger]

Hi,

I think I have read through every post regarding Radiants and how they are very difficult (if not impossible) to judge by the numbers. But that the numbers can serve as a decent guide. Using the guides I was drawn to this stone.

I am hoping you radiant experts out there could offer any advice as to how you think this stone will look or if you see any obvious concerns.

Stats:
GIA
1.02
F
VS2
P/S Very Good
Flor/Cul N/N
Girdle Med - S THK

Below is the SARIN, 40x Pic and Idealscope

I appreciate your help.

Thanks,
Dennis

 

[dmetzger]

..

 

[dmetzger]

..

 

[JulieN]

I think it's attractive. A little bit longer than I am used to seeing, and table is a little bigger (from looking, only, not from a performance standpoint) but one gets used to a certain look.

 

[dmetzger]

Julie and RockDoc - Thanks for your feedback. I actually did look at the X-factors, however, the rectangular shape is a prerequisite. And, in looking at the X-Factor stones, most of them appeared to be square. Have you seen them look more rectangular in the past?

 

[rjdodd]

X-factors are modified pricness cuts, so I think they are all square.

 

[coda72]

This looks like it is a nice stone. There seems to be a bit of a bowtie, but I think that''s pretty much unavoidable with rectangular stones. The crown height is very good, it should be a fiery stone. I like the F, VS2 combo for radiants, but then maybe I''m just biased because that''s what mine is. Actually you could probably go down to SI2 and still be good. F is definitely a good color for radiants though. I would definitely check this one out in person if I were you.

 

[Nicrez]

You can check numbers all you want but the only test is to see the stone under different types of lighting and not just the standard photography lighting of the vendor. Take it to the shade, outside, near incandescent... Again, a radiant is not a equation to solve, so how a stone actually reacts to you and your likes.

According to the Original Radiant cut there are two distinct types of cuts, where the pavillion depth that varies gives the stone either a more cracked glass look (shallower pavillion), or a halo in the center effect (where the pavillio is a bit deeper). It''s all a matter of opinion. I personally like the shallower pavillion, but with a decent crown height, which your stone clearly has. It''s actually got a chunkier crown than most on the market, and depth in the 60''s seems quite nice.

The interaction between the pavilion angle and the crown angle really can''t be measured or calucated (mostly because no one has created a solution for it, as well as shaped stones have varying factors, not including girdle thickness). The eyes will always have it. I know everyone loves "numbers" but nothing can beat seeing something to make a final determination. Numbers can pare down the choices, but you need to see stones to see if they "speak to you".

Good luck as this one is lovely from what I see of the photos. I hope it''s just as lovely on the hand!

 

[dmetzger]

Great, Thanks for the comments and advice Nicrez and Coda. I will probably go ahead and have it sent to me so I can visually inspect and also compare it to a few others that I have seen in some local stores.

Before I go ahead with it, are there any other radiant experts that could chime in?

I appreciate all your help so far.

 

[kcoursolle]

Ditto a lot of what coda said. This stone is nice, but it does have a slight bowtie. However, this is common in cuts that are longer/rectangular. The numbers look fine, crown height is fine. IS images for radiants always look a little leaky, so nothing to worry about there.