Is this a good emerald cut diamond

[lovelylulu]

Can anyone tell me what they think about these specs. I''m not sure how to analyze these numbers.

Thanks so much!

6.47 x 4.71 x 3.63mm
.94 carats
Depth 71.3
Table 63
Girdle Thin-Medium
Cutlet none
Polish VG
Symmetry G
VVS1
Color G
Faint Flourescence

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Unfortunately, specs are only a guideline when it comes to ECs. Have you actually SEEN the stone?? Do you have any more information about it?? Based on these numbers alone, the depth seems a little deep, but the rest of the specs seem pretty good. Also, the L X W ratio...are you looking for more boxy or more rectangular? Your ratio is a 1.37, which is still rectangular, but people like their ECs at a 1.5+ ratio...I personally, prefer 1.35 - 1.5, but this is entirely preference of shape..

It''ll be interesting to see what others say...

Good luck!

 

[lovelylulu]

unfortuntely, right now that is the only information that i have. it came from the GIA report.

what, particularly, is the consequence of the depth that is a bit of a concern?

 

[AChiOAlumna]

From my own research when I was getting my EC, I found that the more depth, the more the EC may tend to look smaller than it''s stated size because much of the stone falls in the bottom portion of the stone.

However...again...seeing the stone is your best measure as bottom-heavy stones may have tremendous cut and steps that make you fall in love with it anyway...

 

[windowshopper]

i think its far too deep............your stone will look small for its carat weight. look for stones with a depth no greater than 66. check the aga cut grade guidelines available through the links up at the top of the pricescope page

table 60 to 66
depth 60 to66
girdle thin to medium
crown 10 to 16% etc etc

 

[diamondsbylauren]

There is no way that 71.3 should be called categorically "too deep".
There are many amazing looking Emerald cuts in the low "70''s depth.
True, a 71.3 may look smaller than a 65%, yet it''s not a reason to "throw it out of bed".
If one restricts thier shopping based on the numbers WS put up they may miss the perfect stone for them

Many Emerald Cut lovers see the depth as part and parcel of the cut, and also responsible for the look they love

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/30/2005 11:02:50 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

True, a 71.3 may look smaller than a 65%, yet it''s not a reason to ''throw it out of bed''.

... or not. The relation holds well for brilliant cuts, but not EC. So.... second what David says

If there is a ton to choose from, than for better or worse you could guess some numbers first. If not, it may be worth remembering that table & depth are not enough for ''cut grading'' and that only having that mistakes are probable either way (''good numbers'' & ''bad stone'' and the other way around, that is).

Windowshopper has a wonder of an EC and found it after a long hunt.

For a great looking piece, sure I''d rather have it larger rather than smaller etc. but... the other way around is what needs to be guessed from those silly, incomplete listings and that is allot less predictable. IMO at least.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 8/30/2005 11:02:50 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
There is no way that 71.3 should be called categorically ''too deep''.
There are many amazing looking Emerald cuts in the low ''70''s depth.
True, a 71.3 may look smaller than a 65%, yet it''s not a reason to ''throw it out of bed''.
If one restricts thier shopping based on the numbers WS put up they may miss the perfect stone for them

Many Emerald Cut lovers see the depth as part and parcel of the cut, and also responsible for the look they love

technically yes -i agree but at that carat size you really lose a lot of stone (appearance of size). a 5 carat with a 71 depth isnt such a big deal..........also deep stones are hard to trade.............