radiant help please

[gretsch]

hi-
i am looking for a square cut radiant and am most worried about getting a good cut. i don''t understand how to read the aga chart! i know, i am a total novice. i have advice from nicrez that it would be optimal for the depth and table to be under 70%. am i correct in saying that it is personal preference whether or not the table is greater than the depth? nicrez also said the table and depth should be within 3% of each other. is there any other advice or things i should watch out for with this kind of stone? thanks so much!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/2/2004 2:52:37 AM gretsch wrote:



am i correct in saying that it is personal preference whether or not the table is greater than the depth?

----------------

No really... while there is no public statement that one cannot get a seriously brilliant square rad with 80% table, all stones listed with great light return (around here, at least) abide by this, and tables a tad smaller than depth is what I remember. Also, the cut guidelines of the branded radiant go this way too. Even if you do not end up buying a branded stone, those proportiosn might be of use - after all the radiant brand was developed for improved presence and optics, and it makes a good benchmark when one needs to shop by numbers first and see stones after...

With all the hunting Nicrez did and the result

, her advice is dead on!

About he AGA - you may want to use their interface AGA DIY Cut Grading and get the cut grade generated automatically.

The proportions of the branded rad are describe (HERE)

 

[Nicrez]

Gretsch, Every stone has it's unique angles that make it mud or magic. The main thing to me, was to find a stone that wasn't totally one way or the other. Some people cut the radiant really poorly with a MAJOR difference in depth or table. My suggetion was finding something with a SMALLER table for OPTIMAL sparkle, but just because it has a smaller table, doesn't make it a great stone. I also suggested a 1-3% difference.

Why? Because the table shouldn't technically be larger than the depth, they should be close, but they need to be complimentary. The only true way of seeing that is with the eyes. Turn it in every direction and look at it as much as you can. Also, me personally, I followed the AGA charts and stuck with 2B cuts or better. That means that Table and Depth will be under 70%. This is a guideline, not a rule.

What infuriated us into walking into Tiffany's for a price quote was all this cut uncertainty surrounding the Radiant. It's cut too deep, the crown angle is too shallow, etc... It's possible to find, and we just happened to find ours at The Radiant Cut, but there are nice radiants to be found. Patience and time to see them all is what is needed. Honestly, I have a larger table than depth for a specific reason. I like brilliance over fire, because I am a color snob, and like the whiteness of the brilliance. My stone has been confused as a D by 4 jewelers for that reason. I chose a shaped stone, since I wasn't as particular about losing the fiery sparkles of the round brilliant.

BUT, if you are unlike me, and like your fiery sparkles, and brilliance, then the best bet is to find a depth under 70% or so, and a table around 68% or so (give or take on up or down). Make sure the crown is nice and high, but even all these features won't guarantee a thing, because each angle and cut NEEDS to be complimentary, and that's the magic of cutting. You can only see the life of the stone by seeing it, unlike round stones with accurate numbers to look for...Sorry for the tough news, but I know you can find it!!!

Also, my stone is 1.06 and somewhat rectangularish. I suggest sticking to 1.04 (or less) length to width ratio for a squarer stone. Good luck!!!

 

[gretsch]

THANK YOU! you are all so wonderful and intelligent.

 

[gretsch]

I saw a square radiant today that had 80 table and 70 depth. is the problem with that big of table and difference in depth that there are a lot of "dead" or glassy looking areas? i'm terrible at knowing what to look for. it was beautiful color and sparkled but I THINK I saw glassy areas if I looked closely.

 

[moremoremore]

woof. That sounds like a horribly cut stone. It is going to be sooo deep, that it will look dark inside and be very small for its carat weight. There are simply no rules when it comes to fancy shapes I've decided. A stone's depth does not have to be more than the table to be attractive. But that said, I would look for a radiant a table of less than 70 and if you see one you might like- see it. That's when you'll be able to tell. There are several nice radiants on Good old Gold right now. I'd check them out. Also, I'd go to dirtcheapdiamonds and do a search for the carat, color and clarity you are looking for- they will make things easy and list the "ideal" cuts stones (e/t there are no set standards for ideals in fancies)....while those may be "ideal" by the numbers, you'd have to see them in person to see if they are ideal in your eyes...but at least you can see a pattern of what numbers may help you find a nice radiant!

 

[moremoremore]

woops- thought that was 80 depth. But still, that one is a dog I bet.

 

[gretsch]

I wish I could bring you guys along with me when I actually look at diamonds! The problem with the square radiant is they are so hard to come by, so I haven't even seen one yet with proper table and depth percentages. I can't really tell from pics on the internet what they should look like in person. Is there anything else you can tell me about what I should and shouldn't be seeing? For example, the one with the huge 80% table is a vvs2 and F color...so I look at it and see beautiful white sparkly diamond, but not blindingly sparkly. If I saw a square radiant that had a much lower table and proper depth, would it be SUPER sparkly/brilliant? Is it something I need to see to understand? I feel so diamond dumb! Nicrez, how long did it take you to find your radiant? Could the 80% table stone have a fisheye or is that only found in rounds?

Remember to set your clocks ahead

 

[cmcwill]

Hi,
I too am searching for a square radiant. The first one I ever saw was 79 table 72 depth and it looked sparkly to me!...then I came to Pricescope. I learned a lot from Ana and Nicrez and thanks to the help of my boyfriend (he found it) got to see a 67 table 69 depth and it really sparkled more! The Idealscope was also tons better on it, so that made me feel safer in my decision. I have since seen a lot of 80 tables out there and while theyre sparkly, they don't compare to the lower tables...and the IS proves it everytime! You should get one of those, at $30 not a bad investment at all!! (and its really fun)
I know the internet search is really hard because most of them don't give you the actualy pics unless you ask for them. I wish each site had actual pics like GOG does, and that they had some square ones!

Good luck, keep us posted.

Colleen

 

[valeria101]

Not sure if you would agree on this, but the new "Jubilee" cut (see Jonathan's post and the Good old Gold site, not sure where else it is advertised, if anywhere) looks mighty close to a square rad. And these stones are suposed to match the 'sparkle' of those top cut rounds.

 

[cmcwill]

I would also agree Ana, the pics are gone now, but I caught a glimpse of them yesterday morning. I can't wait to hear more! We havent bought a stone yet either, so who knows?! Gretsch, you might want to wait around to see what pops up this week on GOG. You might want to call a few local places, tell them the and measurements youre looking for. This way you'll get to see lots of stones without wasting your time!

Colleen

 

[valeria101]

There may be a faster way: call Jonathan!

Actually, it may work very well for you to order a couple of stones with the specs you want (agreed price interval included) from a seller who does work taking into consideration light return as a criteria of selection for his stones. It would be more costly and time consuming for you to review a bunch of radiants given that these stones are rarely available with light return analysis in place.

You may want to check the branded rads for price ref and looks also. Not sure how those stones compare in terms of 'sparkle' with the ideal rounds (as in ' same', 'dull' or just 'too different to compare'). This comment is also based on the promisse for 'ideal' light return from those illusive new squares. At this point I am curious enough to do the 'remote' shopping for you! Only it would be toooo weird

 

[gretsch]

So I finally got the chance to see a different square radiant from my jeweler. I don't have all the details on me, but the table was 71%, depth 73%. BIG difference. Rather than the stepped glass (but not crushed glass like nicrez) of the 80% table, the 71% table looked like a sunburst. I am horrible at describing diamonds, but that's what it looked like to me. It amazes me how many different looks the radiant has! Although the crushed glass look is gorgeous, the sunburst look was quite beautiful, just different. IMO the 80% just looked wrong and dull in comparison. Both stones are E color, but the 80 table looked whiter and the 71 table not as white but certainly more brilliant. The only bummer (and is this always the case?) is the 71 table looks smaller even though they are the same ct weight. Do tables under 70% look even smaller? That is something I don't understand completely. I'm actually kind of bummed it looks smaller (why must I care!), but the 80 table has to go!

 

[gretsch]

I'm hoping someone can tell me if it's always the case that a smaller table looks smaller. I would like to know because if I can get a radiant with a smaller table that looks as big as the 80 table I saw, I would look for one! I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I just don't know. Thanks!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

HI gretsch
I just read this entire post, and I hope you don't mind me introducing a different point of view.


I never use formulas when I consider diamonds- mainly because if I want to buy a 67% table/64% depth square radiant diamond and I want no less than H collor and no less than VS2 clarity, and on and on...


I'd NEVER find a diamond.


I look at the stones. I completely understand what you mean when you say "sunburst" effect.


That comes when the bottom of the diamond is cut more like a round- you can actually see th facets.


Here's a stone which, if we used a formula, is not a good stone- the depth is 62 and the table 68- someone in this thread said that this was "poorly" cut because there is more than 3% difference between the two- I disagree. The stone has a slight bit of "windowing" apparent in the photo- at the edge- but in real life that was not a bother.


I miss that stone......

Below is a radiant with 69% depth, and 65% table- closer to what was written as desirable- yet I prefer the stone where the table and depth are further apart

The point is- if you're looking for Square Radiant cut diamonds, you will not see a whole lot. Do NOT compromoise- if you don't love the stone, don't buy it.


But when you see a stone you love, from a trusted seller- let your heart make the decision- not the GIA report

 

[valeria101]

Wow ! Well, those two examples make a really great case! It might be worth looking at number on a database with 20000 round diamonds, but among 4-5 square radiants? That's another business altogether

Only if more sellers would go to a tad greater length to make shopping online not "sight unseen" so we can ditch that number guessig.


Not much remains to say, but I am still left wandering why bigger tables are said to make stones look bigger. So here goes...

At this point, I just suppose there is some optical illusion at play - but my knowledge of optics falls short of telling what gives

The conspiracy theory explanation would say that cutting bigger tables makes less waste and/or less light return (at least sometimes), and, on the other hand, it pays to tell buyers "this and that makes stones bigger!".

Undeniably, size is size so surface (length x width) describes size for a rectangular stone. Besides this, who knows? There definitely is something in the eye of the beholder - just not of this one here

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thanks AnA!


Here's all the particulars

And a few more shots

 

[diamondsbylauren]

oops- I keep forgetting to answer the table question-


I feel that a larger table gives the entire stone a bigger appearance in many cases- call it fire vs brilliance- I don't know what to call it, but the reason I prefer 60 to 56% in a round diamond is that the smaller table seems to hold too much light to me.


Of course, I realize I am wrong in this- the 56 returns more light in tests- but still, the 60% table stone- same diameter- looks a little larger.




In radiant cut diamonds, large tables are really part of the cut itself. Of course there are tables in the low 60's- but that's really not the "meat and potatoes" of Radiant Ct Diamonds. Generally speaking you need a larger table for the "bucket of crushed ice" look




BTW- my avitar is a 3.50 Fancy Vivid Yellow 62.7 depth 74% table- one of the more amazing diamonds I've ever held in my life- it had a big difference between the table and depth- but again, an amazing bucket of crushed ice.




The branded cuts like the Jubilee- they are awesome- but they are going after a H&A look- that's the antithesis ( opposite) of the stone shown here.




BTW- the GIA report shown above was a "potential" report.


If a diamond can be easily improved my a littel more polish time on the wheel, GIA includes plot showing where to grind away something and go for a VVS, or IF.


If the person that submitted the stone does not choose to improve the clarity ( I did not) GIA will print the report , less the potential? comment.


When I had the diamond I did not choose to improve the clarity- after all, how many VG/VG Radiant cut diamonds do you see?