Radiant,Emerald,Princess,which has the better eye popping bling?

[Hughrock]

Date: 2/19/2010 2:26:23 PM
Author: canuk-gal

Date: 2/19/2010 7:36:32 AM
Author: Hughrock
Please,tell me what you think of these radiant diamonds.Are they any where near ideal cuts? Thank you

1) 4.40cts,F color,VVS2 clarity,Premium cut,Depth 67.7,Table 66.0,Girdle medium to slightly thick,Cutlet very small,Polish very good,Fluore faint,Measurements 9.62 x 9.14 x 6.19,length/width 1.05. $131K

2) 3.00cts,F color,Clarity VVS1,Premium cut,,Depth 69.4,Table 65.0,Girdle thick,Cutlet none,Polish Ex,Symmetry Ex,Fluoren none,Measurements 8.21 x 8.08 x 5.61,Length/Width 1.02. $65K

3)3.81cts E color,VVS2 Clarity,Premium cut,Depth 69.3,Table 66.0,Girdle medium, Cutlet none, polish Ex, Symmetry very good, Fluoren strong,Measurements 9.10 x 8.82 x 6.11, Length/Width 1.03, $72K.

HI:

If you choose a radiant, I would suggest sticking to a ''higher'' color as above, since they have a propensity to hold body color. I have a 5 carat radiant stone is an H color and I can see, in certain lighting, hints of color.

cheers--Sharon

Thank you Sharon .What a great tip about the color retension of certain stones,it is something I did not know regarding the color retension with Radiants.Do you think a F color is good enough or should I play it safe and go no lower than a E color?

 

[Hughrock]

Date: 2/19/2010 3:20:14 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 2/19/2010 12:02:01 AM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
I like the asscher better than an emerald for a man''s ring. Something about the square shape seems more masculine to me than the rectangle and it is a less common/recognizable cut so people would not be as familiar with it and associate with as much with a woman''s enagagement ring.

Not EBree but thought i''d answer anyways

I completely agree with dreamer_dachsie. I also like a princess cut for a man''s ring because the sharp corners can look masculine, and the square shape looks great and works well in a tension setting.

Do you know what kind of a setting you''d like to put the diamond(s) in? I really like the idea of two different rings with different cuts.

Hi EBree

I don''t know exactly the kind of setting but will find out which kind was in the ring I witness earlier today.The stone was set low only the top of the stone was showing.It is an amazing heavy platinum ring that would do even King Henry Viii very proud. But some how it is not over the top if you know what I mean.Best looking men''s ring I''ve ever seen by far!! That is the style I want for my main purchase. Why do high end jewelers always have the best looking goods? Now I just have to think of ideas for my every day ring. I think if I go with a radiant it should be a square stone instead of rectangular.What do you think? I like the look of a Princess stone but I hear they sometime can suffer damage to the sharp edges.

 

[Hughrock]

Date: 2/19/2010 3:32:22 PM
Author: kenny
A lot of men will be put off wearing a diamond called ''Princess''.

They shouldn''t.
It''s just a name - but there it is.

To many, a man wearing any diamond is a bit of a stretch.
Even many PSers have said as much.

I agree princess is just name.In 2010 when we see men wearing ear,tongue,eyebrow piercings and many enjoy wearing pink shirts and slacks lol,I doubt if many guys are that put off by a hot looking diamond ring. Most guys would prefer a great looking watch with a bit of bling but I think opinions are fluid and changes are based on trends of the moment.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/19/2010 9:33:26 PM
Author: Hughrock

Hi EBree

I don't know exactly the kind of setting but will find out which kind was in the ring I witness earlier today.The stone was set low only the top of the stone was showing.It is an amazing heavy platinum ring that would do even King Henry Viii very proud. But some how it is not over the top if you know what I mean.Best looking men's ring I've ever seen by far!! That is the style I want for my main purchase. Why do high end jewelers always have the best looking goods? Now I just have to think of ideas for my every day ring. I think if I go with a radiant it should be a square stone instead of rectangular.What do you think? I like the look of a Princess stone but I hear they sometime can suffer damage to the sharp edges.

I'd much prefer a square radiant over a rectangular one for a man's ring, depending on setting. And if you find one, I'd really like to see photos of the setting you're describing!

 

[Hughrock]

" 4.40cts,F color,VVS2 clarity,Premium cut,Depth 67.7,Table 66.0,Girdle medium to slightly thick,Cutlet very small,Polish very good,Fluore faint,Measurements 9.62 x 9.14 x 6.19,length/width 1.05. $131K"

The specs above are for a Radiant cut stone.As you see, the cut stats don''t seem to be ideal.I have read the pricescope tutorial and seen what range a well cut Radiant should fall in. Ideal depth between 60-65%,Table 60-65.5%. But that 5% gap is what I''m not sure about.Should I seek a Radiant( will be around 4cts) that has even numbers ,example ,table 61% & depth 61%? And does looking for a ideal cut with exact depth and table numbers matter as long as the table and depth stay with in the idea cut range?Example, table 62% & depth 65%? Thank you

P.S. I think finding a idea cut stone with a online vendor might take months

 

[Hughrock]

So far its been difficult finding online, a ideal cut, 4 ct radiant or Asscher diamond with VVS clarity,E color specs. This one so far has been the cloest one to date.

An Asscher cut 4.30ct,measurements 9.63 x 9.36 x 5.87, G color, VS1,Depth 62.7,Table 63, Girdle Medium to thick,Cutlet none,Polish Ex,Symmetry Ex, Fluorence Faint,length to width ratio 1.03.

Would you say this stone is close to being an ideal cut?

If so, I must say finding this stone is some what encouraging.I feel like the right stone is right around the corner.

 

[Hest88]

It''s hard to tell how nice it is with just those specs along. For one, I''d prefer the table to be smaller than the depth.

I know this isn''t the most popular option for many here, but unless you''re really wedded to the hunt, with a fancy shape it can be easier to first choose your jeweler. Personally, I''d be tempted just to read enough of the reviews here, choose one of the great Pricescope jewelers who "feels right" (and who is used to handling asschers and the like), and just hand over your specs. Let the pros do the legwork!

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 2/18/2010 5:49:24 PM
Author: Hughrock

Date: 2/18/2010 3:19:33 PM

Author: Hest88

If you''re looking for sheer bling, an equally well-cut EC or many cushions (thought it depends on what kind) will have a more subdued look than a radiant or princess. However, I also agree that--in part due to the lack of major sparkle--a step-cut like an EC or asscher is more masculine. This is even more so with a larger stone. However, if you are a guy who can pull off, like a major cockail-sized ring, that may not be a concern.

Hi Hest88


I do like both the subdued apperence of an Emerald & asscher cut and that of the Radiants & Cushions with their sparkle performance. If I go with a sparkler size will have to be kept a bit smaller in order to keep it from looking like ''a cocktail-size ring''. Btw,you made me laugh when you commented on that lol.The ring design it self is going to play a big role in making a great over all impression.


I''m thinking a 3 ct should be ok.You did give me something to consider(sparkle in relation to size) and that was helpful. Maybe what I could do is buy a sparkler and also a step-up cut which would give me two different looking great rings.There is something about the Radiant cut that is quite appealing and it does not appear to be as flashy as a Round Brilliant or Cushion.


P.S. I''m a hugh history buff and a fan of the Showtime series The Tudors.As you may know back in the 1500''s in Europe, it was colored stones that were considered far more popular and prized.Rubys were worn by nobility and those with wealth.Men actually wore large Rubys in rings and pendants.


Don''t laugh but for a minute I have thought of buying a smaller(2 1/2 ct) Burmee''s ruby stone(my birth stone).But in 2010 I''m not sure how that would look in a men''s ring.I''ve seen many guys wear diamond rings ,but other than class rings never have seen a guy with a blood red ruby ring.

Yes, me too.

 

[Hughrock]

Date: 2/22/2010 11:20:07 PM
Author: Hest88
It''s hard to tell how nice it is with just those specs along. For one, I''d prefer the table to be smaller than the depth.

I know this isn''t the most popular option for many here, but unless you''re really wedded to the hunt, with a fancy shape it can be easier to first choose your jeweler. Personally, I''d be tempted just to read enough of the reviews here, choose one of the great Pricescope jewelers who ''feels right'' (and who is used to handling asschers and the like), and just hand over your specs. Let the pros do the legwork!

Hest88

Thanks for responding and for your opinion as well as your advice.I am going to count on a professional to guide me in selecting a great stone but at some point I must give final approval.Just making sure I know all that I must.

Guaging from what you said,I think the table and depth would have been pretty good had the table been about 62 and the depth slightly more maybe around 63? What do you think?

 

[Hughrock]

Date: 2/23/2010 12:48:06 AM
Author: Imdanny

Date: 2/18/2010 5:49:24 PM
Author: Hughrock

Date: 2/18/2010 3:19:33 PM

Author: Hest88

If you''re looking for sheer bling, an equally well-cut EC or many cushions (thought it depends on what kind) will have a more subdued look than a radiant or princess. However, I also agree that--in part due to the lack of major sparkle--a step-cut like an EC or asscher is more masculine. This is even more so with a larger stone. However, if you are a guy who can pull off, like a major cockail-sized ring, that may not be a concern.

Hi Hest88


I do like both the subdued apperence of an Emerald & asscher cut and that of the Radiants & Cushions with their sparkle performance. If I go with a sparkler size will have to be kept a bit smaller in order to keep it from looking like ''a cocktail-size ring''. Btw,you made me laugh when you commented on that lol.The ring design it self is going to play a big role in making a great over all impression.


I''m thinking a 3 ct should be ok.You did give me something to consider(sparkle in relation to size) and that was helpful. Maybe what I could do is buy a sparkler and also a step-up cut which would give me two different looking great rings.There is something about the Radiant cut that is quite appealing and it does not appear to be as flashy as a Round Brilliant or Cushion.


P.S. I''m a hugh history buff and a fan of the Showtime series The Tudors.As you may know back in the 1500''s in Europe, it was colored stones that were considered far more popular and prized.Rubys were worn by nobility and those with wealth.Men actually wore large Rubys in rings and pendants.


Don''t laugh but for a minute I have thought of buying a smaller(2 1/2 ct) Burmee''s ruby stone(my birth stone).But in 2010 I''m not sure how that would look in a men''s ring.I''ve seen many guys wear diamond rings ,but other than class rings never have seen a guy with a blood red ruby ring.

Yes, me too.

Yes I see,very cool!