Radiant help- which is more important? Size or cut?

[kristawagner]

My boyfriend and I are working on custom designing a ring with a local jeweler. We have decided on a square (or nearly square) radaint diamond for the center stone. I have researching radiant diamonds for a few months now, but I am still confused.
I purchased a radiant from JA that looked amazing in the picture and had all the right numbers.

1.04, E, VS1, 65.4% depth, 66% table, Medium to Slightly Thick girdle. Measurements of 5.59 x 6.16. $4,430

The jeweler called and said they had a stone.

.91, E, VS2, 71% depth, 74% table, Medium to Thick girdle. Measurements of 5.42 x 5.43. $4,449

From everything that I have read, I thought for sure that the diamond I purchased would be better. Went in to compare the stones, and noticed that the stone I bought had two triangular dark spots near the center. The stone the jeweler brought in appeared much more brilliant (which didn''t make sense to me) as well as having absolutely no angle in which the brilliance (or fire?) faded.

The only problem is, my diamond appears MUCH larger. I am not overly concerned with the numbers, however, I do not want my band to overshadow the center stone. I am having a cathedral setting with micro pave stones. The band will only be 1.8mm thick.

My quesion is, will a .91 diamond with those measurements look too small? Which diamond is the better buy? In the end, which is more important- that the diamond is perfect or that the diamond looks large?

Any advice would be appreciated! Thank you in advance.

 

[Lorelei]

Radiants are tricky and their beauty cannot be defined by numbers, these will give you a chalk outline of the diamond but that is really all. The ultimate test is your own eyes and what they find beautiful. If you prefer the jeweller diamond and have compared both away from the store lighting which is a better test than jewellery store lights, then thats fine. What you could do is keep looking a bit longer and if you are open to SI clarity, take a look at those if working with a trusted vendor or jeweller. Radiants can show more colour than rounds for example but you could still consider F or G and have a very white diamond. The jeweller stone has a table which is larger than the depth, usually the reverse is preferred but maybe that combo worked well in that particular diamond.

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 5/18/2009 11:09:06 AM
Author:kristawagner
My boyfriend and I are working on custom designing a ring with a local jeweler. We have decided on a square (or nearly square) radaint diamond for the center stone. I have researching radiant diamonds for a few months now, but I am still confused.
I purchased a radiant from JA that looked amazing in the picture and had all the right numbers.

1.04, E, VS1, 65.4% depth, 66% table, Medium to Slightly Thick girdle. Measurements of 5.59 x 6.16. $4,430

The jeweler called and said they had a stone.

.91, E, VS2, 71% depth, 74% table, Medium to Thick girdle. Measurements of 5.42 x 5.43. $4,449

From everything that I have read, I thought for sure that the diamond I purchased would be better. Went in to compare the stones, and noticed that the stone I bought had two triangular dark spots near the center. The stone the jeweler brought in appeared much more brilliant (which didn''t make sense to me) as well as having absolutely no angle in which the brilliance (or fire?) faded.

The only problem is, my diamond appears MUCH larger. I am not overly concerned with the numbers, however, I do not want my band to overshadow the center stone. I am having a cathedral setting with micro pave stones. The band will only be 1.8mm thick.

My quesion is, will a .91 diamond with those measurements look too small? Which diamond is the better buy? In the end, which is more important- that the diamond is perfect or that the diamond looks large?

Any advice would be appreciated! Thank you in advance.

Only you can determine which is more important for YOU.

I love radiants, have one myself, but they are a bit trickier to pick out. As Lorelei said, they cannot be picked by numbers alone unfortunately. Have you looked at many radiants in person other than these two? I would look at as many as you can with differing depth and table combinations. You''ll notice slight differences and hopefully will be able to pick what is most pleasing to YOUR eye.

Good luck!

 

[kristawagner]

Thanks for the help. We have been looking for over two months and have not been able to find a good-looking radiant within our price range (under $4800). I do like how the .91 looks better than the 1.04. I guess I''m just concerned that, even though the band will only be 1.8mm thick, the .91 will look small in proportion...

 

[tigian]

Date: 5/18/2009 2:07:55 PM
Author: kristawagner
Thanks for the help. We have been looking for over two months and have not been able to find a good-looking radiant within our price range (under $4800). I do like how the .91 looks better than the 1.04. I guess I''m just concerned that, even though the band will only be 1.8mm thick, the .91 will look small in proportion...

I don''t think the .91 would small, but it also depends on how big your finger is. I would prefer a well cut .91 over a larger stone that didn''t have the brilliance.

 

[kristawagner]

I wear a size 5 ring. I think that may be on the small end (?)

 

[coda72]

I would prefer to have the best of both worlds. A great looking stone that also looks large. Sometimes you can''t find that, but often you can. The stone your jeweler brought in is a bit deep, and thus looks smaller. You can''t always pick a stone by the numbers as evidenced by the stone you bought online. Here''s what I would do, send back the stone you aren''t happy with and pick another stone. There are more stones out there in your price range if you''re open to G color and VS2 clarity. I found a couple of F, VS2''s that could be nice, and one G colored stone that could also be nice. Nothing is stopping you from buying stones, and returning them until you find the right one.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1203665.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

http://www.solomonbrothers.com/DiamondDetail.aspx?sku=85689F4&affiliate=9318613A-AD0C-4530-A456-0409DFEFB8DE

http://www.bluenile.com/radiant-diamond-1-carat-or-less-very-good-cut-g-color-vs1-clarity_LD01149850

 

[kristawagner]

Thank you very much for looking into that for me. However, after buying three stones "by the numbers" and having to send them all back (even after seeing digital photos of them before purchase), along with seeing three beautiful stones that my jeweler brought in that did not have the "ideal" specifications, like below 65% depth, I am very, very hesitant to buy anymore diamonds online.

From what I''ve seen so far, the ratio of ugly to decent radiant cut diamonds in my price range is about 75:1. If I had an unlimited amount of time and money to find the perfect stone, I would buy numerous stones online. However, I am leaning towards buying the nice but smaller stone from the jeweler and taking them up on their lifetime 100% trade-in value and possibly upgrading a year or two from now if I decide I need a bigger stone.

For now, I just hope that a .91 stone with 5.42 x 5.43 measurements doesn''t look too small on a 1.8mm band and a size 5 finger