radiant opinion - ASET image inside

[fluorophore]

diamond link

Stats:

Shape: Radiant
Carat weight: 1.02
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VVS1
Certificate: GIA

Depth: 67.0%
Table: 64.0%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.69*5.60*3.75
Ratio: 1.02

[Link removed by Moderator] Per policies, no outside links allowed.

I'm looking for a very square stone, so this one fits the bill with the given aspect ratio. I also like that the table is less than 65% which is hard to find, and the table is less than the depth (both less than 70%). I believe the girdle is thick to very thick according to the GIA report.

I don't really know what to make of the ASET image. There seems to be a good amount of green and red, but my contact at JA seemed to think there was too much green. Any cause for concern here?

I should have a Sarin report soon for some of the missing dimensions. To me, the symmetry seems a bit off. It looks like the lower right cut is shallower than the other three.

On paper this looks like a fantastic diamond, but of course I want it to be just right. There seems to be a common sentiment that you have to see fancy cuts in person, but the prices are so much better online that I am willing to roll the dice here. I'm curious to hear any opinions.

 

[JulieN]

ehhhhh....

 

[fluorophore]

Well, the mod took down my link to imageshack (has to be a first in any forum I've posted in), and I can't edit my original post for some reason, so here is the ASET image uploaded directly:

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/15/2009 6:21:38 PM
Author: fluorophore
Well, the mod took down my link to imageshack (has to be a first in any forum I''ve posted in), and I can''t edit my original post for some reason, so here is the ASET image uploaded directly:

Radiants are hard to shop for as as most aren''t optimized for light return.
Some choices for you that seem to be a bit better a lot more red in the ASET.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2517/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4859/

Probably at E colour they are more expensive but better cut.

 

[fluorophore]

Saw those. GOG is a great site with tons of info, but limited inventory.

The first link you posted looks absolutely not symmetric. It''s almost a rhombus shape. The ASET image is superior I would say, but the asymmetry is really noticeable.

Seeing it in the video is terrific, though. You can really tell how well it returns light.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/15/2009 7:01:29 PM
Author: fluorophore
Saw those. GOG is a great site with tons of info, but limited inventory.

The first link you posted looks absolutely not symmetric. It's almost a rhombus shape. The ASET image is superior I would say, but the asymmetry is really noticeable.

Seeing it in the video is terrific, though. You can really tell how well it returns light.

I don't think would even be able to tell that in real life. Remember these images are magnified many times.
If in doubt ask Jon or Sarah at GOG they will give you an honest answer to whether you would even tell. My guess is you won't be able to.
If you are going to be that picky from a magnified image even the ASET you posted the length sides both tilt upwards at the top slightly.

 

[fluorophore]

Date: 12/15/2009 7:01:29 PM
If in doubt ask Jon or Sarah at GOG they will give you an honest answer to whether you would even tell. My guess is you won't be able to.

You're probably right. I felt like I could tell when he was showing the stone in the video, but I'm sure once it's mounted it would probably look completely symmetric. I guess I am being overly critical of shape based on a magnified image.

So based on the responses here, the ASET of the James Allen stone are probably pretty poor by comparison.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/15/2009 9:06:22 PM
Author: fluorophore

Date: 12/15/2009 7:01:29 PM
If in doubt ask Jon or Sarah at GOG they will give you an honest answer to whether you would even tell. My guess is you won''t be able to.

You''re probably right. I felt like I could tell when he was showing the stone in the video, but I''m sure once it''s mounted it would probably look completely symmetric. I guess I am being overly critical of shape based on a magnified image.

So based on the responses here, the ASET of the James Allen stone are probably pretty poor by comparison.

The thing with radiants is they are cut to save weight not to optimize light return. The JA stone you posted will likely perform well in office lighting but will not do well in low lighting or where light can''t get in from the sides. The green in the ASET indicates that the stone is not reflecting light from behind the viewer, also Black background ASET makes it difficult to tell how much leakage their is, I suspect that you would notice more leakake if it was done on a white background.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi fluoro

Radiants are a tricky shape to shop for due to various reasons, this one in particular isn''t one of the best I have seen. Just a suggestion, if you lowered both colour and clarity a bit this would give you more options? This is a personal choice and not something you have to do but it might make finding a well cut radiant easier if you would consider G or H colour and VS clarity.