Emerald Size Question

[cherij0411]

Hi

I would like to get a 2carat emerald cut, BUT I want to look like a 2 carat.

What I mean is I know Emeralds look smaller compared to rounds. So what size emerald should I get so it looks like a 2 carat round???

I hope I am making sense.

What should I be looking for in terms of depth, table, Girdle, Crown etc??

 

[valeria101]

Makes sense! You may want to consider the surface of the stone face-up (not the table, the section through girdle) as 'size' (this is what shown anyway in face-up projection). Total depth is what most determies size.

A 2cts 60% deep round with thin-med girdle would have a diameter of ~8mm and face-up size of 50square mm. The area of the EC would be length x width, of course.

I am not sure it would be very desirable to really match the 50 sqmm - EC are supposed to be cut a tad deeper than rounds, so a little excuse on size would be acceptable. But 'little' remains key. It is more tricky to actually hunt down am EC with the same percentage depth as a round (60%), since this % is calculated as total depth over width - so the proportions of the EC come into play (60% depth means a different thing for a narrow stone than for a squarish one).

These being said, At least by the wisedon of AGA (see EC proportiosn chart here) 60-65% depth is best for an EC. So the standard does seem to agree with your idea and serve your purpose...

A little search on PS for Ecs with depth between 60% and 65% produced a couple of stones matching your criteria.

Hope this helps

 

[valeria101]

For example:

This 2.02, H-Si1 comes with a 52 sqmm face-up surface. Dead on...

Now that I am thinking of it, the same type of argument (get the size of a rund in a rectangular stone) is used in the description of the branded Radiant cut (www.radiantcut.com). They allow a 5% 'surface loss' for those clipped corners - sort of precission overkill, I would say.

 

[Stephan]

Are you looking for a square emerald cut?
Or do you prefer another ratio than 1:1?
Go to this site to learn more about ideal emerald cut and choose the ratio you like.

 

[cherij0411]

I currently have an emerald that is 1.5 ratio length to width, but I think I prefer more "fatter" square rather then rectangle.

So the Depth on mine is 70.6 and table 72. Is that why it does not look as big as it should, becasue it is too deep or the table is too large???


THanks

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 12:16:05 PM cherij0411 wrote:



So the Depth on mine is 70.6 and table 72. Is that why it does not look as big as it should, becasue it is too deep or the table is too large???

----------------

Well, 72% depth would not be reagrded as a disaster. It is debatable wether all shapes 'should' should have the same size (as I defined it or otherwise) as a round. After all, it just so happens that rounds are the most popular cut today.

The table size does not determine the face-up area of the stone - total depth does.

You may hear that stones with larger tables look larger. When explained at all, this is supposed to be some optical effect... not part of the argument above. I am not very sure what is this all about.

 

[diamondsman]

length by width should be between 1:1.35-1.50 depending on your preference 1.50 being on the longish side.
depth and table should be around the 70's.+/-

good luck

 

[abbey]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 12:02:32 PM valeria101 wrote:
<



(60% depth means a different thing for a narrow stone than for a squarish one).

Valeria.
Just curious how this applies..... Are you saying that depending on the shape (l/w ratio) of the emerald that there would be a most appropriate depth %?? I like the "chunkier" ones with like a ~1.3 ratio. What depth do you think would yeild the prettiest & biggest looking diamond?
Thanks