Radiant Diamond Ratio ( depth vs table)

[asforhim]

From my experience in purchasig a radiant stone, those that are a bit on the shallow side perform much better. The one I purchased actually has more of the modified cushion appearance and performs unbelievably in all lighting conditions (55.2% depth, 61% table, ration 1.07). It is a HW so clearly they are selecting out the best stones. I suggest you ignore the numbers and get images, see in person, etc.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Oh wow!
What a stunning, beautiful ring.

I agree with the need to see a fancy shape in person - look for a vendor with a good return policy too.

Jen

 

[flyhigh123]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I do agree that the stone is really nice. I myself love the blue tint in it. However, my GF, if very specific in what she wants. I dont know why, but she wants radiant 1:1.

Lol

I''m gonna keep looking!

I do agree that the cushion looks really nice!

 

[flyhigh123]

Here is a picture of the ASET on the james allen diamond. It is a G, VS2. What do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1281401.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/23/2010 3:41:54 AM
Author: iota15
Flyhigh - I''ve been looking for Radiants for over a year now. (Crazy, I know). With your requirements and your budget, I''d take a serious look at this entirely drool-worthy diamond: http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/loose-diamond-252ct-esi1-premier-med-blue-radiant-cut-diamond--great-cut

I oogle it every so often... if only I had your budget (sigh. If you get it, please post LOTS of pictures).

It''s E, SI1... now I know you want a VS but honestly, if you can''t see ANY inclusions or ANYTHING WRONG in these super-mega sized pictures, you are never going to see anything in person. As a radiant-lover, this is as beautiful as it gets... plus, it actually looks like a 3 carat stone with 63 sq mm''s of face up beauty! 3 carats! Most 2.5''s are about 57 sq. mm. Your girlfriend is going to flip out.

The thing about many photographs on DBL''s website is that they are very strongly backlit, you can tell this by how dark the front of the tweezers are and how you can see a bit of light around the edges of the tweezers from the back.

This photograph lighting is WONDERFUL for seeing facet structure. In fact I have to pay a compliment to David (which I rarely do as we are often on far opposite ends of arguments) the crispness, focus, and facet detail of the first photograph is SPECTACULAR far better than most othe vendor photos I have ever seen. That photograph is truly a work of art for showcasing this gem and if I were a vendor I would strive to be able to show this level of photographic quality in all of my magnified images.

However, the series of photographs illustrate very little to me about the light performance of the diamond or how it will look when you wear it, which in my opinion is the most important beauty factor.
Unless you plan on viewing the diamond in diffusely lit room with a flashlight underneath the diamond pointing upwards you will never see a diamond this way.

What I can judge is that unlike the facet plot on the GIA diagram, this is not an Original Radiant Cut facet structure there are more facets on the pavillion than shown in the GIA plot, I would think this would be a 70 facet variety. RD please correct me if I am wrong as you have seen the actual stone.

Stones of this type have very small virtual facets or flashes of light and especially in radiants the frequency of events can vary from very high to not so active. In addition stones with this facet structure can have darker watery areas (often called negatively as "Crushed Ice" ) while others can be bright and full of life. I can''t tell any of this from the photographs.

Before I would covet a stone or use it as an example of a nice looking radiant I would want more optical tests, a video in different lighting conditions and/or an ASET image. Without these things I feel the judgement would be on the quality of the photograph and lighting setup much more than the actual diamond.

As evidenced from this thread there is a demand for radiant cuts with mostly small virtual facets and flash, however to differentiate between a lively one and a watery one I would need more than what has been provided by only the photographs and the subjective commentary.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/24/2010 1:38:57 PM
Author: flyhigh123
Here is a picture of the ASET on the james allen diamond. It is a G, VS2. What do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1281401.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

You mentioned previously you wanted a square radiant, this one looks definitely rectangular to me. Is that ok with you? The ASET is better than the photograph of this stone suggests in my opinion, is your priority to get the best cut radiant you can find?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/24/2010 1:38:57 PM
Author: flyhigh123
Here is a picture of the ASET on the james allen diamond. It is a G, VS2. What do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1281401.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

I must say it will be difficult to choose a cut cornered modified square brilliant or a cut cornered square brilliiant on the basis of light performance standards.
The reason being few of these are cut with light performance in mind, and even fewer of the ones that are have actual available online ASET images.

I would be worried about this stone as it shows a seriously large area of what I think is leakage underneath the table. This area will likely give little light return and may show a watery appearance. If you really like the stone I would get an Idealscope image to confirm the presence or absence of leakage, as black background ASET often makes it very difficult to differentiate areas of leakage(black) from the areas that receive their light from the horizon (green areas).

I''ve seen better Cut Cornered Square Brilliants and Modified Square Brilliants see here http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamondResults.php?shape=2048&resultsColumns=276529167 but in your size you''d have to call and inquire whether more were available. If you like the distinct X pattern in the centre I''d suggest looking for a non modified version, as they tend to have larger less broken up virtual facets.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/24/2010 3:29:05 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/24/2010 1:38:57 PM
Author: flyhigh123
Here is a picture of the ASET on the james allen diamond. It is a G, VS2. What do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1281401.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

You mentioned previously you wanted a square radiant, this one looks definitely rectangular to me. Is that ok with you? The ASET is better than the photograph of this stone suggests in my opinion, is your priority to get the best cut radiant you can find?

The LW ratio is 1.01 what do you mean by rectangular

? Its almost a perfect square.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/24/2010 3:41:53 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/24/2010 3:29:05 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/24/2010 1:38:57 PM
Author: flyhigh123
Here is a picture of the ASET on the james allen diamond. It is a G, VS2. What do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Radiant-Diamond-1281401.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

You mentioned previously you wanted a square radiant, this one looks definitely rectangular to me. Is that ok with you? The ASET is better than the photograph of this stone suggests in my opinion, is your priority to get the best cut radiant you can find?

The LW ratio is 1.01 what do you mean by rectangular

? Its almost a perfect square.

I know what the LW ratio is, but the diamond looks definitely rectangular on my screen in both images, that is why I mentioned it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Never thought I''d hear myself saying this...Thank you for the kind words CCL ( until you started to go where we strongly disagree).
In terms of photography, the key word here is "compromise"

Each photographer needs to decide what to sacrifice in order to get a good balance.
The most simple example of this is macro photography.
I mean, when a diamond looks 16 inches tall ( like on my large monitor) you can really see minute details- but unless it''s a 10,000 carat stones, the size could be called deceptive.
But if you posted actual size photos, no details would be visible

I have stated on countless occasions- I take the photos freehand, no trick lighting- or lights behind the diamond. Where is the light behind the diamond in this photo? Did we build it into the ring?
I feel that the compromises we accept produce photos better than ANY other site on the web.
For my money, these photos, along with Videos are far more descriptive to consumers, as compared to ASET.

The 2.52, which was recently sold ( thanks for bringing it up, I corrected the site) was not an Original Radiant.


CCL- you have associated the "crushed ice look" with "dark watery areas" which is an extremely inaccurate description.
IN well cut stones, the bucket of crushed ice is incredibly lively, and remarkably bright- neither dark, nor watery.
The E/SI1 was a phenomenal example.


Flyinging- when you are looking at stones first hand, you''ll be able to see what is being referred to here as crushed ice, or larger flashes.
Neither is "better"- it''s really a question of taste.

CCL is a big proponent of "light performance" as a manner of judging a diamond.
Personally I feel the term is abused because what we''re talking about is the way a person perceives beauty.
For the best light performance, get a spotlight.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

; HEIGHT: 229px" class="ibbquote">
Date: 3/24/2010 5:00:09 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I have stated on countless occasions- I take the photos freehand, no trick lighting- or lights behind the diamond. Where is the light behind the diamond in this photo? Did we build it into the ring?

A few may have made comments to that affect but I''ve never called your setup trick lighting, what I mean is that significant light is getting into the diamond from from the pavillion and girdle. Much more light is getting in from the side than from directly paralell to the table and from the top of the crown. I can tell this because the tweezers are dark, meaning the light has to come from the side and back otherwise the front part of the tweezers would also be lit up.

So I don''t want to guess, just ask you politely, please take a picture of your light source. This will make it clear to many interested parties how in your setup the light arrives at the diamond from the side and not overhead from the table and top of the crown.

CCL- you have associated the ''crushed ice look'' with ''dark watery areas'' which is an extremely inaccurate description.
David what is your precise definition of ''Crushed Ice Look'' and does it apply equally to poorly cut and well cut radiants?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

As for the bottom picture that is not close to the lighting method you used for the magnified shots. In this picture the light is primarily hitting the diamond from the crown, hand and ring block light from entering the girdle and pavillion a lot more. Now instead of seeing the physical facets like in your usual magnified view I now see now only the broken up virtual facets and this is much more representative of what the wearer and viewers will see.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/22/2010 5:09:02 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one Lorelei

The chart is of no help at all to the OP IMO.
I honestly believe that suggesting it''s use can actually hamper the OP''s efforts.

RD...w/o looking at the stone
where do you draw the line and say this Radiant is too shallow? 58%? 57%?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 3/24/2010 7:33:32 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/22/2010 5:09:02 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one Lorelei


The chart is of no help at all to the OP IMO.

I honestly believe that suggesting it's use can actually hamper the OP's efforts.

RD...w/o looking at the stone

where do you draw the line and say this Radiant is too shallow? 58%? 57%?

df, let me ask you this: If there were actual stones to look at, in a wide variety of depths, and it cost nothing to look, wouldn't you look at a wide variety of depths?
Sometimes the extremes are the ones you are most curious to see.
This has lead to my strong conviction that trying to choose ( or eliminate) stones based on measurements is not productive.
The shallowest radiant cut we have in our records is from about 4 years ago:

WEIGHT: 2.01ct
SHAPE: Radiant Cut
COLOR: W-X, Natural Light Yellow
CLARITY: I1
MEASUREMENTS: 9.70 x 6.91 x 3.40 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 49.2%
FLUORESCENCE: FAINT

By no means would we call this a stone "well cut" if we were judging it by traditional standards.
It was pretty large for a two carat stone.
It had all sorts of things "wrong" with it.
Huge eye visible boogers, totally wonko symmetry, massive facets placed so you could see thru it s bit when tilted. All of this was clearly pointed out to, and identified by the buyer, who loved the stone for their own reasons.
One of which is that it was priced like a 1.00 J/Si1.

Deepest was 88.5%. That one was light blue.
The average of all that we have on file is 64.9%- which suits the charts just fine.
But using the average rules out some extremely nice stones- which is my point.

Flyinghigh123- although I don't have similar methods as others advising you- I can't fault the advice given one bit.
Just pointing out that some very capable and trustworthy sellers may not subscribe to some of the tools used here, or the formulas.
Some of the nicest stones I've seen were not "1A" by all definitions.
Depending on exactly what one wants, there's a lot of great choices.
I think just about everyone agrees it's best if you can have a look at some actual diamonds, and relate it to what you learn here, it will be of the greatest value to you.


CCL- I am glad for open friendly dialog, and I would love to continue a discussion on diamond photography- I just don't want to thread-jack here.....