Square Radiant 1.5 carat

[rbfloat81]

Wondering if anyone has a Square Radiant stone.

I''m considering:
1.51 carat, H, SI2
Sym. Excellent
Polish Ideal
Flor. neg.
Depth 72.9%
Table 67.3%
Measurement 6.24X6.30X4.55
$7050

 

[kcoursolle]

It''s a tad deep, and it will face up a little smaller than it''s carat weight. Also, pictures really really help with radiants if you could get the vendor to provide one.

 

[coda72]

I have a "squarish" radiant. Like Kcoursolle, I think this stone seems a bit deep. I would look for stones in the 60-65% depth range to get the largest appearing stone.

 

[justjulia]

I would want the vendor to be holding it describing it to me. I would also want a good return policy. What kind of inclusions are these and where are they? A picture would be nice. Good luck!

 

[rbfloat81]

Please take a look and give me your feedback!
Thank you.

http://www.goodoldgold.com.diamond/2426/

 

[Dee*Jay]

Can you double check the link? It doesn''t seem to be working.

 

[sdunlap10]

the .diamond should be /diamond.

New link: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2426/

 

[coda72]

I''m not in love with this stone. It''s just too deep. I know some people don''t like to go by numbers, but in order to get a stone that faces up the size it should, you should really keep the depth 60-65%.

Here''s one that could be a good candidate:

http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=32823145&flag=ps

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Rb- depth% by itself doesn''t mean much on a radiant. As paul has often pointed out for princesses, a 73% depth can actually spread bigger than a 65% depth (though the odds are against it).

In this case, however, coda is right. To look its size, A 1.5 carat radiant should be at least 6.5 x 6.5 (ideal would be 6.7 x 6.7). A small looking radiant can still be quite lively (depending on where the extra weight is), but you would need to see it in person to judge.