Three emerald cuts: please help me choose

[momothree]

I somehow chipped the center EC in my engagement ring and it is in the process of being replaced by my insurance company (they are being **wonderful**, by the way, but I had been thinking of switching to a cash-out policy like Jewelers Mutual or Chubb but never got around to it. Now that I''m in this position, I can fully appreciate how having cash in hand might be somewhat easier and less restrictive.) Anyhow...
I have been given info on three stones, which all seem promising. Nothing yet on crown height percentage or girdle thickness which I have asked for but there is the possibility that I might not get the info. It sounds like the insurance company''s replacement consultant buys stones from little old men in black bags who are not used to having questions asked of them. Also, all three stones have a GIA cert. Ok, here goes:

1) 1.27 I VS1
7.44 x 5.41 (L/W 1.37)
depth = 64.7%
table = 64.0%%

2) 1.3 H Vs1
7.80 x 5.38 x 3.39 (L/W 1.45)
depth = 63.0%
table = 61.0%

3)1.27 H VVS2
7.07 x 5.55 x 3.65 (L/W 1.27)
depth = 62%
table = 65.8%

I have read pretty much every thread I could find about ECs and it seems like all three have the potential to be nice stones. I also know that its important to look at them in person but I am nearly positive I will not get to look at more than one at a time. I believe I have to make my choice based on the numbers, and then reject it if I don''t like it. So, if you had to choose one sight unseen, which would you choose and why?

I have gone back and forth but so far I''m leaning towards #3 even though it faces up a tad smaller than my old stone. It seems like it has a much better cut (mine has one of those super large tables people warn about) and it''s a higher color and clarity. It also has a boxier look to it, which my other stone had and I really liked. I have no objections to changing shape/proportion but I am concerned that stone #2 might be a little on the long side even though it falls within the classic proportions.

I would welcome any and all thoughts. Thanks!!

 

[jaz464]

Oh, I would not NOT choose an EC based on this limited information! In fact, I would not buy an EC w/o seeing it first. I is too low in color for myself but if you have seen an I EC and liked it, then there is no problem. I really can not say anything else...the depths and tables all fall into acceptable ranges. This, of course, does not mean that it will be a beautiful diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

get pictures
standard and IS or better yet aset.
buying an EC withoutt em or seeing it first is crazy.

 

[valeria101]

Second Strm...


Well, at least proportions show and you can decide about the shape and apparent size.

Can you get to see all three? If so, I'd try to take a look at the stones in different lighting situation to expose either excessive leakage (better seen with the stones in lower diffuse lighting on a black background) or darkness (= 'head obstruction' - diamonds appear very bright in direct light but die away in indirect light). Or just forget worrying about what the lighting environment is, and take a look at them via IS or ASET.

Serg and Garry have posted some pictures with diamonds displayed that way to expose cut faults. You may want to look 'em up.


My 2c. I'm not an expert...

 

[momothree]

Thanks for your help guys. Under normal circumstances I would, of course, see the stones but I feel somewhat beholden to the insurance company because they are holding the purse strings here. And I am certain nobody has ever asked these questions before; I am sure most claimants are focused on size and size alone. I will absolutely see what they will let me do. I will buy an ideal-scope today and make my own analysis, even if it ends up being one stone at a time (which I sure hope that it does not..)

 

[valeria101]

I am quite convinced these guys mind size more than anything.... as per average popular request. How do these compare to the stone you have lost? I am surprised that these are not of the same grade (and the same as the former stone).

Sure enough, if the smallest were the brighter by allot, it would no longer be any clear winner there. But that, I can't tell from the stats given. Only size and shape shows.

 

[momothree]

Valeria: You are awesome! I have been looking up everybody''s ECs to try and get a sense of dimension and looking at diagrams but nothing beats looking at pictures of real stones side by side even if they come from the land of Photoshop! Unfortunately, my gut says to go for the squatter ones but I say that without 100% confidence.

My original stone, now damaged, is 1.25 c, I , VS1, some fluorescence, 7.08 x 5.57 x 3.57. In my opinion, it faced up nice and white (I used to have an I stone "complex" but I am over it). I don''t have any other info on the stone except I know that the table was large and it had a little of the glassy look people talk about with large tabled stones. Even so, I liked it!

As to why a potential replacement stone could be higher clarity and color than my previous, it''s simply because 1) they need to at least meet each of the 4 cs on paper, as well as the actual stone dimensions, 2) it must be a GIA certified stone, and 3) they are limited by what inventory is available at any given point in time.

I have just ordered an ideal-scope and am going to toss out the idea of having the "replacement guy" send more than one stone to an objective appraiser so I can get more complete info and examine personally. Wish me luck!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/28/2006 10:33:31 AM
Author: momothree
Valeria: You are awesome!

Isn''t she just?

So clever and generous with her time to help people out!

 

[momothree]

Good news! I am going to be able to inspect both #2 and #3!

 

[f0rbidden]

As a fellow EC lover, I''m glad to hear you''re going to see these diamonds in person!
I hope you find something you love as much as the original which it will replace.

happy shopping!

 

[valeria101]

Aww... Thanks. It is good fun to hag around and drop a line every now and then (ten times a day!). If useful, all for the better

Date: 2/28/2006 10:33:31 AM
Author: momothree

My original stone, now damaged, is 1.25 c, I , VS1, some fluorescence, 7.08 x 5.57 x 3.57. In my opinion, it faced up nice and white (I used to have an I stone 'complex' but I am over it).

The third diamond on the list really does come close! With higher grades a bonus.

I hope one of the two will be a winner.

Do these stones have lab reports? If so, there should be at least a couple more stats - finish (polish and symmetry) and girdle width - that I would consider. Those wouldn't be nearly as important as looks and brilliance, but 'fair' in either of the finish grades or an 'extremely thin' part of the girdle would get me thinking and probably rejecting the option. Hope it isn't the case.

 

[momothree]

Hi again! They do have lab reports, which I have not yet seen. The polish/symmetry is VG/VG on #2 (the 1.30/H/VS1 stone) and G/G on #3 (the 1.27/H/VVS2 stone). No girdle info as yet.

Both stones are being sent to the insurance guy for inspection and onto me. Apparently there is some sort of inclusion -- a natural indentation -- that is a possible concern to him on the 1.30. Wouldn''t the stone have to be eyeclean, though, to get a VS1 grade? Anyway, the insurance guy will give his recommendation as to whether he thinks the inclusion poses any aesthetic or structural concern. He will then send me both (along with their lab reports) and hopefully one of the two will "speak" to me. I was planning on taking them to an appraiser to make sure everything checks out, or do you think that is redundant given the work that the replacement guy is doing?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/28/2006 3:59:12 PM
Author: momothree


Apparently there is some sort of inclusion -- a natural indentation -- that is a possible concern to him on the 1.30. Wouldn''t the stone have to be eyeclean, though, to get a VS1 grade?

I would think it is eye clean 300%. If the ''indented natural'' is on a very thin section of the girdle I would worry too. I wold guess this is what the jeweler wants to inspect, but surely he knows better and there might be more things to look out for.


A thought at random ...
... if the only ''thing'' that makes it VS1 is the ''natural'' on the girdle, than you will get a stone with the potential to be repolished in to ''internally flawless'' - which is cool, IMO. GIA makes a note about such stones on the lab reports. You may find some jewelry shop here and there actively looking for such tones to ''upgrade'' by a slight recut. Some are worth the throuble, some not. ''Flawless'' sounds nice.

 

[momothree]

Hmmmm, interesting. I will report back.
Thanks again for your time and your insight!!!

 

[momothree]

I received two stones and I am pretty sure there is no such thing as a bad decision here. Both are pictured below, side by side, photographed through the plastic lid of the box. The one on the left is the 1.3 ct stone I reference above:
7.8 x 5.38
H
VS1
63% depth
61% table
thin girdle
VG polish
VS symmetry

The other is 1.29 stone with the following stats:
7.12 x 5.6
I color
VS1
67% depth
65% table
thin to medium girdle
VG polish
VG symmetry

Both are beautiful. I was concerned that I would not like the L/W proportions of the 1.3 because I am used to a more "squatty" stone but I love it. Unless someone sees something that I don't see, I'm going to pick that one. After hearing so many sad stories about the difficulties people have had with their insurance companies, I feel very lucky to have two such excellent options. Frankly, both are better than the stone I damaged.

 

[momothree]

Here''s another view of the 1.3 ct.

 

[momothree]

And yet another!

 

[Shay37]

Those are both beautiful. I would go for that one (the one you picked) too. I really like the cut on it. Good for you.

shay

 

[chrono]

Wow, the 1.3 is gorgeous. I''m glad you found such a wonderful replacement EC.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I like "fatter" ECs as well. I think they both look good. My EC is an I and looks completely white face up and at most angles. What setting are you putting it in?

 

[momothree]

Hi Tacori: My previous setting had trilliants on either side of the EC and I''ve had issues with it for years, primarily because the trilliants were exceptionally icky, as was the workmanship of the ring. So, I''m taking advantage of this accident to get a new setting BUT I have been thinking about it for eons. In fact, since I discovered PS, I have posted several random ramblings about settings.

At this point, I am leaning towards getting a very thin halo setting like this but with an EC stone. I have a beautiful eternity band with round stones that I always wear on my left hand so I had assumed that any new mounting would be worn on my right hand, as I had done with my old ring once I got the eternity band. However, much to my surprise, I have tried on a couple of similar halo rings with emerald cut centers and they actually looked great with my eternity band. So how about that very long answer to a short question!!!

Your ring is absolutely lovely, by the way.

 

[lovelylulu]

do you have any pictures of the halos you''ve been trying??

 

[koko]

I think you made the right choice....my EC is more the "classic" L/W ratio of 1:5, rather than the squarish asscher look.....I''ve really enjoyed it. And I think they look larger when they''re more rectangular in shape. It sounds like you''re on the way to a beautiful ring that you''ll enjoy for years to come.....my 1.15c EC has a "very thin" girdle.....wonder if mine will ever chip?? Ha, Ha....

P.S.: Thanks, Valeria for your helpful insights.....especially enjoyed seeing the 3 stones side by side that you put up!!

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 3/7/2006 3:08:39 PM
Author: momothree
Hi Tacori: My previous setting had trilliants on either side of the EC and I''ve had issues with it for years, primarily because the trilliants were exceptionally icky, as was the workmanship of the ring. So, I''m taking advantage of this accident to get a new setting BUT I have been thinking about it for eons. In fact, since I discovered PS, I have posted several random ramblings about settings.



At this point, I am leaning towards getting a very thin halo setting like this but with an EC stone. I have a beautiful eternity band with round stones that I always wear on my left hand so I had assumed that any new mounting would be worn on my right hand, as I had done with my old ring once I got the eternity band. However, much to my surprise, I have tried on a couple of similar halo rings with emerald cut centers and they actually looked great with my eternity band. So how about that very long answer to a short question!!!


Your ring is absolutely lovely, by the way.

Thank you so much. I think a thin halo would look great. I am planning on getting an e-band with bead set RBs for my wedding band. I think RBs look great with ECs.

 

[momothree]

Hi again. Here is the ring that I have ordered (to fit an EC, of course). It''s been posted around here a bit because its on the DCD/James Allen web site but I have ordered mine from Dimend Scaasi because I have been a very happy customer of theirs in the past. I should have it in a week or so. Sounds crazy, but I have become attached to my new stone so quickly. I was really enjoying just gazing at it in its little box so it was hard seeing it go away, even though I know it will soon have a beautiful new home.

Also, I wanted to give a very belated thank you to Chrono, whose posts were tremendously helpful in educating me about EC specs. I think they made me a smarter "customer" in dealing with the insurance agency.

 

[Kaleigh]

Congrats on finding a gorgeous new EC and the setting will be gorgeous. Can''t wait to see it once it''s finished.

 

[valeria101]

Your choice would have been mine as well... nothing more to say.

And the ring! It would e te first emerald cut in such a setting on record here - can't wait.