Need expert advice on which radiant to pick

[berin]

I am trying to decide between the following radiants, based on the depth % and tables, which would you recommend?


cut/carat/color/clar/cert/depth/table/dimensions/girdle/cutlet/pol/sym/flour

Radiant 3.05 D VS2 GIA 67.9 65 9.11*7.61*5.17 tn-m no gd gd no
Radiant 3.05 D VS2 GIA 67.3 61 9.29x7.88x5.30 vt-m no gd vg no


so the depths on both are about equiv with the first one having a slightly larger table, based on the measurements are these good ratios? and which would have more sparkle, brilliance and fire, and crushed ice look based on measurements- thanks for opinions

 

[berin]

also what would be a reasonable price/expected price range to pay for one of these stones? Want to make sure that pricing on these is in line with the industry. Thanks

 

[berin]

actually I found a 3rd stone, now does that one seem better? do I want depth/table to be about the same or table slight larger or smaller?

cut/carat/color/clar/cert/depth/table/dimensions/girdle/cutlet/pol/sym/flour
Radiant 3.05 D VS2 GIA 67.9 65 9.11*7.61*5.17 tn-m no gd gd no
Radiant 3.05 D VS2 GIA 67.3 61 9.29x7.88x5.30 vt-m no gd vg no

Radiant 3.16 D SI1 GIA 65.4, 67, 9.50 x 7.83 x 5.12 mm, ratio 1.21, EX VG


ok any advise ASAP would be greatly appreciated, need to make a move by today if possible

 

[belle]

the limited information you have on these is so similar, there is really nothing here that would make one stand out from the others. if you can''t see these stones in person you should get at least pictures of them.

 

[coda72]

First of all, I am not an expert, but I will try to advise you on radiants. The numbers on all 3 are pretty close, so it''s hard to choose between them. This is when you really need to see the stones because stones with very similar numbers can look very different. Your eyes will be able to tell you which one is the best looking. If I had a gun to my head, I guess I would choose #1. It''s usually better if the table is a little smaller than the depth. As for prices, I did a Pricescope search and came up with about $45,000 for D, VS2 stones of this size. If you''re paying somewhere around there you''re doing pretty good.

 

[berin]

thanks for the responses,

you said it is better to have a table slightly smaller than the depth, why is that ( how does it affect sparkle and shattered glass look) , and is the table on #2 too small for the depth?

 

[berin]

bump

ok, I am having stone #2 and #3 brought in to look at, any thoughts or opinions?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/6/2006 12:26:37 PM
Author: berin
thanks for the responses,

you said it is better to have a table slightly smaller than the depth, why is that ( how does it affect sparkle and shattered glass look) , and is the table on #2 too small for the depth?

You have very specific questions about optical effects, but... the two numbers on lab reports are not meant to clarify that.

The ''crushed ice'' look may results from how the facets on the pavilion are proportioned - most radiants have some of that, but not all. There is no indication of such faceting details on the lab report.

Brilliance should depend on proportions - the main crown and pavilion angles: there should be six or eight for a radiant - dunno - the cut is allot more complex than rounds and I have not yet found a model made to determine what are optimal combinations of angles and proportions for radiants. To actually ''reconstruct'' what these diamonds look from numbers - you''d need a 3D scan, forget depth & table.

The mantra about table < depth comes from an observations about princess cut diamonds made by a seller posting here, who happens to be quite passionate about diamond cut technicals: Jonathan (aca ''Rhino'') from good Old Gold. You can find the complete explanation of what is that about on their tutorial on princess cuts at www.goodoldgold.com.

About the radiant cut.... hat off to whoever can handle the topic: of the traditional diamond cuts, this one is the most difficult to understand for me. I am not an expert, so... this doesn''t mean much. But still - rounds are a little joke by comparison

Someone sure does know them: the radiant cut started out as a branded cut, and the firm still churns out fine radiant cuts ''by the book''. You may find them at www.radaintcut.com Someone from the shop posts here on occasion, but I have not seen any trace of their posts for a long, long time.

There don''t seem to be many distributors of the ''original radiant'' online: one is Diamonds by Lauren (online at www.diamondsbylauren.com ). There are a few topics about these stones on pricescope - you may find some with a search.


About these stones... well, there si nothing extreme abut those numbers and I would not venture to guess how they look, knowing how different the alternatives fitting those broad terms are and how wild the guess.

For large and fine stones like that, I wouldn''t ream making a decision based on such scarce data.


As said, I am no expert, and this is my 2c worth.

Hope some helps...

 

[coda72]

Date: 3/6/2006 12:26:37 PM
Author: berin
thanks for the responses,

you said it is better to have a table slightly smaller than the depth, why is that ( how does it affect sparkle and shattered glass look) , and is the table on #2 too small for the depth?

The table on #2 isn''t too small, but it does have a very thin girdle, and I wouldn''t buy a stone with this unless it''s very thin in a very small area. If the table is smaller than the depth, that makes the crown height more likely to be over 10%, and this will usually make the stone more fiery. Really, I think you need to take a look at all three stones side by side and pick the best looking one. The numbers are just too close to call.