Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

"Radiants are one of the worst performing diamonds" - why??

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
D

diamondlove4

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
64
I was browsing some old threads and came across one where Garry Holloway states that "Radiants are one of the worst performing diamonds." (6th posting from the top) Why is that? I thought radiants were supposed to be one of the sparkliest diamonds (after rounds)?

Here''s the thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-sparkle-of-certain-cuts.3386/
 
btw I would not call them the worst, the worst as they usually are cut these days would be in my opinion baguettes.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 3:41:16 AM
Author: Karl_K
Very small virtual facets and long light paths.
They can be very sparky in direct lighting but arent the best in diffused and or soft lighting.

This article explains what virtual facets are:
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/61/1/Virtual-Facets-and-patterns%2c-a-Discussion-about-step-cuts-.aspx
Click to expand...
Ditto Karl, add to that many are poorly cut and they can be tricky shapes in the first place, so it can take a while to find a good one. There is a branded radiant available " The Original Radiant Cut" which would be worth considering should you want to buy one, that could narrow the field.
 
It''s so surprising considering I read a number of articles talking about radiants vs. princess cuts and it seemed that most said that the radiant cut has more sparkle... here''s one article as an example: http://engagementrings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Princess_Cut_Diamond_Versus_Radiant_Cut

If radiants are one of the worst performers, then it seems that this sort of information isn''t true?
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:21:28 AM
Author: diamondlove4
It''s so surprising considering I read a number of articles talking about radiants vs. princess cuts and it seemed that most said that the radiant cut has more sparkle... here''s one article as an example: http://engagementrings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Princess_Cut_Diamond_Versus_Radiant_Cut


If radiants are one of the worst performers, then it seems that this sort of information isn''t true?
Click to expand...

there''s not really a good standard for radiants, plus so much is personal preference. Some people really prefer all of that glittery pinfire. But karl is right - that stuff really only happens in strong light.
 
O.P.I.N.I.O.N.

That's what it all truly boils down to. Granted, we at Pricescope are privileged to have access to very experienced and professional perspectives, but they still are opinions.

I respect Garry very much, but I personally like my rounds slightly steeper and deeper than what he advocates. In fact, since he designed the HCA, my stone falls slightly outside his <2.0 guidelines. That's okay. I purchased this one after becoming educated, seeing many different measurements, and choosing what is most pleasing to MY eye.

Take in all the info you can, and use it to create your OWN opinion!!
28.gif
 
Also - radiants can be a good cut for fancy colors... All of that virtual faceting can intensify the color (if I recall how it works correctly) and I''ve seen some yellow radiants that were okay, but often with clear diamonds you can get so much more, why settle? All of that virtual faceting can make it look white like crushed ice but you don''t get big flashes of color ever really. Color intensity tends to be what people go for in the colored stones - you don''t see many ideal cut colored stones in the deep fancy colors.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:36:13 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
Also - radiants can be a good cut for fancy colors... All of that virtual faceting can intensify the color (if I recall how it works correctly) and I''ve seen some yellow radiants that were okay, but often with clear diamonds you can get so much more, why settle? All of that virtual faceting can make it look white like crushed ice but you don''t get big flashes of color ever really. Color intensity tends to be what people go for in the colored stones - you don''t see many ideal cut colored stones in the deep fancy colors.
Click to expand...

What about princess? Do they get big flashes of color?
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:30:30 AM
Author: Upgradable
O.P.I.N.I.O.N.


That''s what it all truly boils down to. Granted, we at Pricescope are privileged to have access to very experienced and professional perspectives, but they still are opinions.


I respect Garry very much, but I personally like my rounds slightly steeper and deeper than what he advocates. In fact, since he designed the HCA, my stone falls slightly outside his <2.0 guidelines. That''s okay. I purchased this one after becoming educated, seeing many different measurements, and choosing what is most pleasing to MY eye.


Take in all the info you can, and use it to create your OWN opinion!!
28.gif
Click to expand...

I don''t really think it''s a matter of opinion. It is pretty much accepted across the board that rounds are the sparkliest. You don''t have to like the round shape diamond and prefer something else but you don''t refute that they''re the best performers. Why can''t this same determination be made for other cuts? Radiants are either sparkly or bad performers... you can still like them for their other characteristics but this fact should remain the same.

And this is what I''m trying to figure out... articles I''ve read stated that radiants are better performers than princesses in terms of sparkle... is this not true? And if it is true and radiants are one of the worst performers as Garry said... does that make princesses if worse??
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:51:05 AM
Author: diamondlove4

Date: 11/13/2009 10:30:30 AM
Author: Upgradable
O.P.I.N.I.O.N.


That''s what it all truly boils down to. Granted, we at Pricescope are privileged to have access to very experienced and professional perspectives, but they still are opinions.


I respect Garry very much, but I personally like my rounds slightly steeper and deeper than what he advocates. In fact, since he designed the HCA, my stone falls slightly outside his <2.0 guidelines. That''s okay. I purchased this one after becoming educated, seeing many different measurements, and choosing what is most pleasing to MY eye.


Take in all the info you can, and use it to create your OWN opinion!!
28.gif
Click to expand...

I don''t really think it''s a matter of opinion. It is pretty much accepted across the board that rounds are the sparkliest. You don''t have to like the round shape diamond and prefer something else but you don''t refute that they''re the best performers. Why can''t this same determination be made for other cuts? Radiants are either sparkly or bad performers... you can still like them for their other characteristics but this fact should remain the same.

And this is what I''m trying to figure out... articles I''ve read stated that radiants are better performers than princesses in terms of sparkle... is this not true? And if it is true and radiants are one of the worst performers as Garry said... does that make princesses if worse??
Click to expand...
In the highlighted portion, you have paradoxically affirmed my point for me. At what point did Garry''s opinion become fact?
 
AGS0 grades princess on cut performance, and princess is the 2nd most popular shape currently, so there are alot more princess cut for performance.

Radiant is another matter altogether.
 
There are good radiants and bad radiants...good princesses and bad princesses...good RBs and bad RBs. Like SC said, there are a lot more good princesses out there than good radiants. And I think there are also more good RBs than good princesses.

But a good princess will give a good RB a run for its money in terms of sparkle. I know this because I own both an AGS0 princess and an AGS0 RB, and I think the princess sparkles just as much as the RB. I can''t say the same for radiants just because I haven''t seen enough examples, but I''m sure you could find an example of a radiant that performs just as well. Like princesses, radiants are cut with a huge amount of variation such that it''s hard to make generalizations about them.
 
It is incorrect to be so dogmatic about radiants being "the worst performing diamonds". It should be said that on average radiants don''t perform as well as rounds, but no other cut does. A fair cut round still looks pretty good, but a fair cut fancy (radiant, cushion, princess, etc) looks like hell.

Radiants are so tricky and there is no blueprint for cutting them. Most of the radiants I''ve seen are just plain ugly, but I have seen radiants that are possilby the most jaw dropping diamonds I''ve ever laid eyes on. If you are interested in radiants, or any fancy shape for that matter, I would recommend you shop many stones or buy at a high end jeweler (harry winston, graff) who has already selected out the beauties.

My experience is that shallow cut radiants (55-60%) with larger tables are much better performers than deeper cuts. The previous post regarding The Origianl Cut Radiant is just that. If you browse the site you will see that The Original Cut is much more shallow than most on the market.

example of radiant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyzRRuY4oFI
 
The radiant cut was developed to concentrate color, not enhance brilliance (two opposing goals). That is why we see so many colored diamonds cut in the this style.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:58:05 AM
Author: Upgradable
Date: 11/13/2009 10:51:05 AM

Author: diamondlove4


Date: 11/13/2009 10:30:30 AM

Author: Upgradable

O.P.I.N.I.O.N.



That''s what it all truly boils down to. Granted, we at Pricescope are privileged to have access to very experienced and professional perspectives, but they still are opinions.



I respect Garry very much, but I personally like my rounds slightly steeper and deeper than what he advocates. In fact, since he designed the HCA, my stone falls slightly outside his <2.0 guidelines. That''s okay. I purchased this one after becoming educated, seeing many different measurements, and choosing what is most pleasing to MY eye.



Take in all the info you can, and use it to create your OWN opinion!!
28.gif
Click to expand...


I don''t really think it''s a matter of opinion. It is pretty much accepted across the board that rounds are the sparkliest. You don''t have to like the round shape diamond and prefer something else but you don''t refute that they''re the best performers. Why can''t this same determination be made for other cuts? Radiants are either sparkly or bad performers... you can still like them for their other characteristics but this fact should remain the same.


And this is what I''m trying to figure out... articles I''ve read stated that radiants are better performers than princesses in terms of sparkle... is this not true? And if it is true and radiants are one of the worst performers as Garry said... does that make princesses if worse??
Click to expand...

In the highlighted portion, you have paradoxically affirmed my point for me. At what point did Garry''s opinion become fact?
Click to expand...

The whole point of my post is to try to find out if Garry''s opinion is in fact the general consensus. I know there are bad cuts and good cuts and lots of variables but if everyone unequivocally agrees that good rounds are best performers. What is 2nd best? Seems like there should be some general consensus on that too.

It is also widely agreed that emerald cuts are not known for its sparkles, they have other great qualities, but if someone wants a very sparkly diamond, they won''t get an emerald. So since Garry''s statement caries a lot of weight due to his background and extensive experience, and he says that radiants are one of the worst performers, I am trying to understand what that means and why it contradicts other articles I''ve read (one of which I posted). And how do good radiants compare to good princesses in terms sparkle?
 
I am not sure if radiants are the worst performing diamonds. They do not sparkle as much as an AGS0 round. I own a radiant and an AGS0 round, and definitely under all lighting conditions the round sparkles more. With that being said, my radiant is not dead in all types of lights. I consider it to be a well-cut stone, and I get plenty of flashes of color even in low light settings. But, as was already said, it''s more pinpoints than large flashes of color. No matter which stone I''m wearing, I get plenty of compliments. If you like radiants, don''t dismiss them. But the search for a well-cut one will most likely take much longer than the search for the perfect round brilliant. You will have to go through a lot of bad radiants to find a good one. (As far as how they compare to princess cuts, I can''t help you there never having owned a princess.)
 
diamondlove4- great question!

To me the problem is the use of the word "performance"
Personally I love radiant cuts.
The people that buy them certainly know round diamonds exist- and have likely compared the two.
Yet still they buy the radiant.

That calls a phrase like "performance" into question.
Whoever said it was OPINION is totally correct.

Maybe it''s the "politician" in me, but somehow I think that insulting an entire group of opinions ( that being folks who love Radiant cuts) is rather arbitrary.

To anyone reading this that owns a radiant cut: MANY people love the way they "perform"

As usual Lorelei has a good point- there are branded radiant cuts.
It''s worth noting however, that the creator of the Radiant cut, Mr Henry Grossbard, shared his branded design.
There are other cutters who produce stones very similar or even indistinguishable for the branded ones.
Because of this, the branded stones are not necessarily higher priced than other well cut radiant diamonds. This is unusual as most branded stones cost more than non branded ones.

Therefore many shoppers find the comfort offered by "The original Radiant" well worth it.
 
In fancy color diamonds one finds radiant cuts to be among the very best performing diamonds. In colorless diamonds I find radiants to be one of the weker performing stones, but that does not mean they are orphan stones which no one decides they will adopt and love.

Right now, I have a 10ct+ radiant being cut to make its current fancy yellow color into a fancy intense yellow color. By working the angles and facet shapes the very expert cutter, not me, can make the face-up color change and improve the amount of bright yellow which the diamond may show. If the diamond were colorless, such an exercise would be a waste of diamond material and not improving performance, but with a yellow diamond the parameters of what constitutes performance chance greatly.

Performance is a hot potato becuase we don''t use it in specific enough ways most of the time. If you want more light back from a diamond it may come to the pint where less sparkle happens. If you maximize sparkle, you may get less overall light back or alter the perception of fire or contrast. There are four or five terms which define light behavior and they tend to balance off of one another. More of one or two results in less of the others. It is an infinite combination of possible outcomes.

Within this infinite set of outcomes lies thousands of beautiful possible choices for diamonds. We can pre-screen for a fraction of these along the center zones of safe bets, but you can miss many others with screening which you might like very much, too. How you decide to shop may broaden your overall choices. If you shop in total blindness you must choose with only screening tools. If you add in excellent images, you have added an important additional dimension. If you have the time, will and energy for shopping in person, you may see a far larger variety of stones. Sellers may be more inclined to exaggerate when they have you in person and the sales pitch is all verbal. Dealing at a distance makes the sales pitch more written and potentially more reliable. You need to balance out the risks and rewards of different shopping modes. It is not a simple equation and there is no one answer for performance, either.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 10:30:30 AM
Author: Upgradable
That''s okay. I purchased this one after becoming educated, seeing many different measurements, and choosing what is most pleasing to MY eye.
Click to expand...
i agree with you. as long as you know what you are buying and for what price.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 3:43:44 AM
Author: Karl_K
btw I would not call them the worst, the worst as they usually are cut these days would be in my opinion baguettes.
Click to expand...
Slight threadjack... sorry!
2.gif


Hey Storm (or anyone)... which vendor(s) have well cut baguettes, do you know? I saw a men''s ring that I just ADORED, and if I thought I could find a beautiful baguette, that might just be my DH''s next anniversary present!

(ETA: does anyone have any opinion on the carat weight of this baguette?) THANKS!

16RR18aaa.jpg
 
Lynne do you know how many millimeters the band is?

In terms of baguettes: For a ring design such as the one you picked, you need to go with a straight baguette..
In such a case, the way that diamond performs, in some ways, is opposite how you''d want other diamonds to perform
So I would not judge it on the same parameters.

In other applications, I recommend Tapered Baguettes as they tend to give more of an interesting facet pattern with a bit more sparkle.

I loved Dave Atlas'' post- it really summed up a lot of how I feel too.
Such a good point that in Fancy Colors, Radiant is the best- or equal to the best "performing" cuts. Cushions and modified Pears are also a great choice for extracting color)

Part of the reason I love Radiant cuts- colorless and fancy colored, is the "bucket of crushed Ice" look.
This is an issue of taste, as others specifically don''t like that look.
 
Date: 11/13/2009 4:12:17 PM
Author: oldminer
In fancy color diamonds one finds radiant cuts to be among the very best performing diamonds. In colorless diamonds I find radiants to be one of the weker performing stones, but that does not mean they are orphan stones which no one decides they will adopt and love.


Right now, I have a 10ct+ radiant being cut to make its current fancy yellow color into a fancy intense yellow color. By working the angles and facet shapes the very expert cutter, not me, can make the face-up color change and improve the amount of bright yellow which the diamond may show. If the diamond were colorless, such an exercise would be a waste of diamond material and not improving performance, but with a yellow diamond the parameters of what constitutes performance chance greatly.


Performance is a hot potato becuase we don''t use it in specific enough ways most of the time. If you want more light back from a diamond it may come to the pint where less sparkle happens. If you maximize sparkle, you may get less overall light back or alter the perception of fire or contrast. There are four or five terms which define light behavior and they tend to balance off of one another. More of one or two results in less of the others. It is an infinite combination of possible outcomes.


Within this infinite set of outcomes lies thousands of beautiful possible choices for diamonds. We can pre-screen for a fraction of these along the center zones of safe bets, but you can miss many others with screening which you might like very much, too. How you decide to shop may broaden your overall choices. If you shop in total blindness you must choose with only screening tools. If you add in excellent images, you have added an important additional dimension. If you have the time, will and energy for shopping in person, you may see a far larger variety of stones. Sellers may be more inclined to exaggerate when they have you in person and the sales pitch is all verbal. Dealing at a distance makes the sales pitch more written and potentially more reliable. You need to balance out the risks and rewards of different shopping modes. It is not a simple equation and there is no one answer for performance, either.
Click to expand...

In colorless diamonds, if you find radiants one of the weaker performers, how do you feel about princess?

Also, since well cut radiants are not easy to find, let''s assume I would be getting it from a high end store (e.g. Harry Winston), which presumes that it''s been pre-screened and should not be disappointing as far as good radiants go. Unfortunately, HW doesn''t sell princess cuts, which means I wouldn''t be able to compare them side by side to truly know which one like better.
7.gif
 
Damondlove4- There''s more differences between a square Radiant, and a Princess besides the corners.
The entire facet pattern is different.

There are certain inherent possible problem areas with princess cuts.
The 90 degree corners, for example, are more difficult to set.
It can be done, for sure.
Sometimes a "V" corner is used- which i very tough to get just right IMO.
Or you can put a "ball, or even claw prong on it, but I;m still more comfortable giving our guys a "cut cornered" stone to set. Then they have a straight edge on to put on the prong.

If someone judged a Radiant a poor performer, they;d probably feel the same about a princess, unless it was one of the ones cut for optical symmetry and maximum light return.

While you''d probably get a great looking stone at Winston, it might still do poorly on ASET or other tests used here.
If you shop carefully on the web you can get just as nice looking a stone for a lot less.
Not to say that those who choose to purchase at Harry Winston are are not getting a good deal - they''re buying a different service..
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top