Emerald Cut - 2 Choices, Help!!

[ndnyhagen]

Fellow PS''ers, I would appreciate your opinions on 2 diamond choices, both GIA cert''ed stones:

Stone #1 Stone #2
7.51x5.63x4.08mm 7.04x5.89x3.69mm
1.53 ct. 1.32 ct.
F VS2 F VS1
Depth: 72.5% Depth: 62.6%
Table: 67% Table: 73%
Polish: VG Polish: G
Symmetry: VG Symmetry: G
Fluorescence: Strong Blue Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Medium Key: Feather, Indented Natural, Extra Facet
Culet: None

Stone #1 was certed 10/4/2004, Stone # 2 certed 1/31/2006. Chosen stone to be set in a platinum basket setting with double claw prongs. I look very much forward to all of your feedback. Both stones are gorgeous. Really just validating these choices and feedback re: strong fluorescence in stone #1. Also, any opinions on the GIA grading dates would be appreciated. Thank you for all of your continued help!
Best regards,
Nancy

 

[progidy]

got pics? one has huge table, other is very deep, compare specs to the AGS ideal for emeralds might help?

 

[dani13]

Not crazy about either, but that is just based solely on the numbers alone. Have you seen these stones in person?

 

[ndnyhagen]

Sorry, no pics...yet. Stone #1 rates as a 2B according to Gem Appraisers AGA chart. Stone #2 is all over the map, 3A for Depth and 1A to 2A for Table. ??? I''m assuming that the Finish grades, VG on Stone #1, will account for alot, here. Help!

 

[ndnyhagen]

Both stones are gorgeous. Stone #2 is very translucent in natural daylight, Stone #1 is classically gorgeous as only an Emerlald Cut can be. The fluorescence, as I mentioned, intrigues me on Stone #1. I''m hopeful that this F color stone will actually face up to a higher grade of color with this strong blue fluorescence. More opinions, please!! Keep ''em coming....

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Hi ndnyhagen ~

How exciting ... an EC! They are beautiful when you have a great cut, and great clarity.

I have never seen an EC with strong blue flour, so I can''t personally say wheather that is a good attribute or not.

I wish you good luck and your search, and keep us posted with new developments!

Take care,

 

[ndnyhagen]

Thank you, MDJ. This is such a happy time for me and my soon to be Fiancee. This diamond shopping is maddening, though. Especially for a terrific EC. Please keep the opinions coming!

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Can you post pictures of them. ECs are one of those cuts that you need to go with your eyes over the numbers.

 

[belle]

we really need pics!

 

[ndnyhagen]

Sorry, All, no pics. (My jeweler brought these stones in-house for me to see today...) Was just kinda'' hoping that the numbers and cert notes might say something loudly and clearly to all of you experts. Both stones are beautiful. They both face up extremely white. They are, dimensionally, just about the same width. My BF is about worn out with the search, so I''m afraid that I''ll have to narrow it down to one of these 2 beauties. Anyone else care to weigh in. (Pretty please!!!)
Than k you!

 

[sanfranciscoellen]

I''m no expert, but I''d pick #1 between the two...

 

[belle]

the numbers don''t mean anything compared to your eyes and your personal preferences. having seen them both, you are in a far better position to judge than anyone here. go with the one that you like best!

 

[ndnyhagen]

Can anyone else weigh in? Is the depth on Stone #1 going to radically alter it''s appearance?

 

[Lorelei]

I am no expert on EC's but I love them! I agree with Belle that your eyes should tell you. I know it is a hard decision to make, but for what it's worth - you say number 1 is classically gorgeous as only an EC can be, then that is the one that has piqued my interest more.........what do your eyes and heart say? Sometimes this is the only way to tell with these cuts.....I also happen to love fluoresence, makes a diamond more interesting. Just make sure the diamond doesn't look milky or oily in sunlight, it can happen with strong blue but it is not all that common. I don't know about the depth on this diamond, I would go more by what my eyes tell me than the depth percentage.....

ETA - some diamonds are just full of " EYE APPEAL" regardless of the numbers and others might have better stats but not be as appealing....the numbers with fancies give you a starting point but don't tell the whole story - their beauty and magic is a thing that can't always be determined on paper. You use the head and the heart when buying a diamond, the head does the calculating, but the heart will let you know when you find the one!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/24/2006 4:42:42 AM
Author: ndnyhagen
Can anyone else weigh in? Is the depth on Stone #1 going to radically alter it's appearance?

I wouldn't call those numbers extreme in either direction. It isn't quite feasible to guess the appearance of these stones down to a tee - of the stats given shape (long versus short) and table size are the only ones I would know what they look like. How the depth and angles play out needs looking at to figure out.

The first probably sounds like a deal and I suspect that the strong fluorescence is what makes out for some discount relative to other 1.5cts contenders.

Between the two, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference of size.

This is about all that comes to mind.

Keeping fingers crossed that the fluorescence does not make the first one hazy, I'd call in #1 rather then #2, if there's no way to take a look at both: better finish, and the longer shape is what slightly tilted the balance. This isn't much better than flipping a coin though. As much as I can tell.

 

[dani13]

Agree with the others- pick the one that YOU feel is most appealing to YOUR eye, as you are the one that is going to look at it everyday...

Looking at numbers is a good place to start, but certainly is not the end-all-and-be-all. But, if you feel that NEITHER of these stones are speaking to you, then move on, and find the one that does!! I know it is exhausting, but it is simply too much $$$ to spend to not be completely happy with your decision. Deciding on a stone based on the fact that your bf is too exhausted to look anymore would be doing yourselves an injustice...

When we bought my EC we just happenned to be lucky, the numbers were great, and the stone was absolutely beautiful too! Like I said, the numbers should not lead you to your final decision, it is how the stone looks overall that should be the deciding facor. I am sure whatever you choose will be gorgeous- I love EC''S!!!

Good luck, and let us know what you decide!

 

[f0rbidden]

I''m a HUGE ec fan, have just purchased one recently,as a matter of fact.

I''d have to say you need to choose the one that is most appealing to YOU - or don''t take either of them and keep looking - don''t you hate it when people say that! LOL

Anyway, I know the depth of #1 is going to make it look a little smaller when set, because more of the diamond is IN the ring rather than what you''re going to see when you look at it. On the flip side, people here have said the table in the 70% range is a little high and can make the stone look glassy. I didn''t find that with the diamond I chose, but the table is slightly smaller than your #2. Again, it''s a matter of personal preference.

I can''t give you an opinion, what I like and what you like may be completely different, even though we both chose emerald as our shape of preference.

Good luck!

 

[f0rbidden]

Hey Nancy
I''m not sure what your budget is..but have you seen this one:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=9202601
it''s a 1.5c, F/VS2 with 65.5 depth and 62 table and from the picture isn''t stunning.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/24/2006 10:50:37 AM
Author: f0rbidden
Hey Nancy
I''m not sure what your budget is..but have you seen this one:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=9202601
it''s a 1.5c, F/VS2 with 65.5 depth and 62 table and from the picture isn''t stunning.

Is this the right link?

... there is no picture of the diamond (what shows is a random ''stock photo'').

 

[f0rbidden]

clearly I''m having one of those days!
I just read what I wrote and I said "from the picture it ISN''T stunning"
sorry WF.

and of course, I didnt'' realize it was a stock photo.

maybe I need to go back to bed. certainly I need to shut up before I say something that gets me in trouble.

 

[valeria101]

Speaking of pictures...


I have no reason to nedorse the seller in particular, but this bit of diamond looks like a cutie.

If anything, there''s certainly enough to look at online, so that it doesn''t feel like staring into a blank screen!

A video clip - LINK showing a reassuring high crown and nicely spaced steps on the pavilion,

picture, and lab report.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/24/2006 11:42:59 AM
Author: f0rbidden

clearly I''m having one of those days!

No... those ''stock pics'' are so frustrating... especially for a piece like that with ''tempting'' numbers and all.

I was so hoping to see it down that link!

 

[f0rbidden]

Sorry

seems that it would be a pretty one, too!!

I wonder if there''s any color to it, since it''s an "F"? I can''t honestly say there was much difference between the D and the F that I saw, but there was a big difference between the E and the G. strange.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/24/2006 11:55:10 AM
Author: f0rbidden


I wonder if there''s any color to it, since it''s an ''F''? I can''t honestly say there was much difference between the D and the F that I saw, but there was a big difference between the E and the G. strange.

Yeah.. the color grades are not ''even'' - from D to F there''s really not much of a distance, then G jumps away and then each grade becomes longer and longer (so there is allot more distance between I and H than between G and F etc.).

There''s a sophisticated story about this on the site of Marti Haske (Adamas Gem Lab).

Why things were done this way, no idea. Strange, as you say.

 

[ndnyhagen]

"Bump" I love Stone #1, but curious as to more opinions...
Thank you!

 

[f0rbidden]

i say, if you love the #1 stone, then what does it matter what anyone else says?
follow your heart!