Help choosing an emerald cut

[Agrippa]

Hi all. I''m looking for opinions on which of the following five stones is the best choice for an EC diamond. On paper, at least, they all look like really great diamonds, although there are slight variations in table/depth, polish/symmetry, color and clarity, and I''d like the get the best possible combination of these qualities. Unfortunately, I do not have the crown height percentages for the diamonds and probably won''t be able to see them, as it will be an Internet purchase. My preferred length to width ratio is 1.4, but I''m willing to depart from that by about .1 on either side for better quality. Many thanks!

1. Emerald Cut
8.39 x 6.49 x 4.27 (1.29 lxw)
2.12 carats
E
VVS1
65.8% depth
66% table
polish - Ex
symmetry - Ex
medium to slightly thick
No culet
No flourescence

2. Emerald Cut
8.73 x 5.83 x 3.79 (1.5 lxw)
1.83 carats
E
VVS2
65% depth
64% table
polish - VG
symmetry - VG
slightly thick to thick
No culet
No flourescence

3. Emerald Cut
8.65 x 6.24 x 4.22 (1.39 lxw)
D
VVS2
67.6% depth
67% table
polish - VG
symmetry - VG
slightly thick
Small culet
No flourescence

4. Emerald Cut
8.82 x 6.42 x 4.17 (1.37 lxw)
F
VVS1
65.0% depth
64% table
polish - VG
symmetry - VG
thin to medium
No culet
No flourescence

5. Emerald Cut
8.33 x 6.49 x 4.25 (1.28 lxw)
F
VVS1
65.5% depth
65% table
polish - Ex
symmetry - Ex
medium
No culet
No flourescence

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Just out of curiosity....is there a reason that you''re going for VVS diamonds??? You can find a nice VS1 and save yourself some money or invest it in a larger stone....

 

[windowshopper]

#4 hands down

 

[Tacori E-ring]

My EC is a VS1 and even the appraiser had a hard time finding any inclusions so I agree.

 

[f0rbidden]

I''d pick #2
the reason?
I like the 1.5 l-w ratio better than the others which would be more ''short and fat''
I love the classic rectangular shape EC''s can have.

but...you said you like 1.4
so if it were me, i''d have to pick #3, but that''s only because of the D color

They all look pretty nice, but the think is, you can''t see them in person! Does the seller from whom you are buying have a good return policy in case you don''t like the one you pick when you get it in your hands?

 

[Agrippa]

Thanks very much for the feedback everyone. To answer the questions, I will be able to return if I don''t like, but I don''t really trust my own uneducated eye to make a discerning judgment, so chance are pretty good that (barring a really noticable problem) I''ll end up keeping the one I buy first. I''m looking primarily at VV because I understand that inclusions are more readily visible in an emerald cut than in a brilliant. But maybe I should expand my search to include VS1.

Question for Window Shopper: I see that #4 is right in the sweet spot for table and depth. What are your thoughts about the F color, given that my other options are D and E? Is there a difference to the naked eye?

Also, nobody seemed impressed by #1 or #5, with the double Excellent on polish and symmetry. Should that not be a factor in my thinking when my other options are all VG/VG?

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Agrippa...I didn''t tell why I did/didn''t like these stones, so I''ll give you my opinions now...but I need to maintain that without seeing them, it''s next to impossible to tell!!

#1 - I don''t like that the depth table....also, the 1.29 l/w ratio....too fat and squatty for my taste.

#2 - based on the numbers solely (which doesn''t say much in itself), I like the numbers! Might be concerned about the thickness of the girdle, but at least it''s not EXTREMELY thick...

#3 - I don''t have an opinion of this one either way. You definitely want to make sure that 67% table isn''t too large when/if you see it.

#4 - I like the depth/table numbers here....the l/w ratio is a little boxy for me (I have to start at 1.4 for me, but this is completely based on preference!).

#5 - With the exception of the l/w ratio, I like the numbers....

You may still want to look into VS1 clarity...you can find ECs with VS1 (there are a ton of women here who have VS1s and they''re G

RGE

US!!!!!!!)

 

[windowshopper]

#4 looks to be right on the money in every way. First, an F is a good as a D or E in terms of appearnance and being truly white. There is really no discernible difference except price. Second, the numbers on #4 are so great that you are pretty darn sure to have a decent crown. Third, Excellent vs VG is meaningless in this scenario. VG is great and seldome seen in EC''s anyway.... Fouth, the ratio of 1.37 is really fantastic and has a sure to please classic rectangle. Most people woiuld not choose the 1.5--too skinny and less re-saleable (just in case). 1.20 is too clunky and fat................

 

[windowshopper]

PLUS why a VVS may be overkill -it never hurts in a step cut stone to be as crystal clear as possible. I bought a D VS2 and would have rather found an F VS1 or VVS stone but the specs were right and the inclusions werent detrimental

 

[Agrippa]

Thanks to everyone who gave me advice on this thread back in April. I ended up buying Ring #4, from Blue Nile. It looks wonderful and my new fiance loves it.

 

[Gypsy]

CONGRATS!!!

Pics??