For the Emerald Cut Experts!

[laozx]

Hi this is my first post. I''ve been searching for the past couple of weeks for an emerald cut diamond engagement ring. I''ve been doing a lot of research, and while I am no expert, these are the 3 diamonds that I am interested in. Can anyone tell me if one of them seems to stick out from the other 2 as being the best choice??? I kinda like between a 1.35-1.40:1 ratio. But none of the diamonds I list below fall between that ratio. Anyways, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

@$8300
ct: 1.40
col: F
cla: VVS1
Dep: 67.3%
Tab: 63%
Cut: no
Pol: ex
Sym: ex
Flu: no
Gir: sltk
Dim: 7.27 x 5.57 x 3.75

@$8300
ct: 1.37
col: F
cla: VVS2
Dep: 65.1
Tab: 62%
Cut: no
Pol: ex
Sym: vg
Flu: ft
Gir: med
Dim: 7.24 x 5.65 x 3.68

@$8300
ct: 1.39
col: F
cla: VVS2
Dep: 65.8
Tab: 67%
Cut: no
Pol: vg
Sym: vg
Flu: no
Gir: tn-stk
Dim: 8.16 x 5.24 x 3.45

Seems like the first 2 may have a little bit better cut, but the last one has a pretty good dimension. Please help! It''s such a hard decision

 

[laozx]

Does anyone have an opinion on these 3?? I'm trying to order by next week thanks

 

[Hest88]

I like #2 and I don't like #3. #1 is okay. However, I'd really prefer to get crown and pav info since with such limited info #3 could turn out looking the best in real life.

 

[laozx]

Thanks for your suggestions. I've been trying to get the crown info from a couple of the website sellers. But no luck so far. I will try to get them though! Anyone else have any insights??

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/12/2004 7:07:54 PM laozx wrote:

Anyone else have any insights??----------------

About a step cut ?

Gladly!

The third stone is somewhat "longer" - and the L/W ratio is probably the most obvious thing about an Ec - at leats to me, of course. You can get an idea about how different the proportiosn of these look using the ancy shape selector at gemappraisers.com if you have not been on their site yet.

Aside this, it may be that stone #1 be a tad more brilliant (deeper and with smaller table as is) - this just by following instinct (mine says "small table" most of the time). But I would not rely on such a hunch for selectiong a step cut diamond. There is no substitute for actually handling the stone and some brilliance test if you are specific about this. Even the high grades (why VVS, btw?) would not provide decent excuse for a dull cut, I would think.

All in all, shape (L/W mostly) is matter of taste and the numbers at hand (with or without that crown height) are not helping allot to guess how brilliant these may be. I would choose among these based on proportions alone and compare the chosen with one Ec tested to be as brilliant as they get - such as THIS

 

[laozx]

Thanks for your input. That was very helpful. I do agree, I wish I can see these diamonds with my own eyes to choose, that way it wouldn't be so hard for me to decide. WhiteFlash said they will try to get Sarin and lightscope reports of these diamonds. So I just have to wait for them and see what they get for me. I guess right now if I had to choose one, i'd be leaning more towards the 1.4 as of this point.

 

[laozx]

I was able to get the sarin reports for the 3 diamonds over the weekend. I was wondering if anyone can re-analyze my 3 choices and let me know if one of them is a better choice diamond for me. I'll go down the list again and add the crown and pavil. info. Thanks again

ct: 1.40
col: F
cla: VVS1
Dep: 67.3%
Tab: 63%
Crown Height: 14.9%
Pavil Depth: 49.1%
Cut: no
Pol: ex
Sym: ex
Flu: no
Gir: sltk
Dim: 7.27 x 5.57 x 3.75

ct: 1.37
col: F
cla: VVS2
Dep: 65.1
Tab: 62%
Crown Height: 13.6%
Pavil Depth: 49.2%
Cut: no
Pol: ex
Sym: vg
Flu: ft
Gir: med
Dim: 7.24 x 5.65 x 3.68

ct: 1.39
col: F
cla: VVS2
Dep: 65.8
Tab: 67%
Crown Height: 11.1%
Pavil Depth: 51.2%
Cut: no
Pol: vg
Sym: vg
Flu: no
Gir: tn-stk
Dim: 8.16 x 5.24 x 3.45

 

[Hest88]

Nice. I vote for #2 now. You're losing less in the depth, the crown height seems acceptably high, and the med girdle also means you'll be hiding less weight than in #1. #3 I've never liked because of the large table.

Can you get #1 & #2 and compare the two in person?

 

[laozx]

----------------
On 8/16/2004 1:40:56 PM Hest88 wrote:

Nice. I vote for #2 now. You're losing less in the depth, the crown height seems acceptably high, and the med girdle also means you'll be hiding less weight than in #1. #3 I've never liked because of the large table.

Can you get #1 & #2 and compare the two in person?----------------

Thanks Hest for your opinion. I think I am feeling #2 as my favorite one as well. I don't think I'll be able to compare both of them in person. If I can it will be through jewelryzone.com, since they are located in California which is where I am at. But, if I went that route, I will have to pay for sales tax, which will kinda suck for me. I'd rather order the diamond out of state if possible. Hopefully i'll make a decision before the end of this week.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/16/2004 2:00:03 PM laozx wrote:

----------------
On 8/16/2004 1:40:56 PM Hest88 wrote:


I don't think I'll be able to compare both of them in person.

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

Pictures ? Would it work with this seller?

 

[valeria101]

If not... no sweat! Look how many sellers list these two stones! One would probably care to provide a si-by-side photo for such a nice pair. And the "SP" mark nera the quotes indicate "shipping included" and "price match policy" - as you know. So nothing is lost if you do choose to insist to see and learn more details about these stones befoewhand, even remotely. I would definitely like to see both pictures and Ideal Scope pictures of both

 

[laozx]

----------------
On 8/16/2004 7:16:09 PM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 8/16/2004 2:00:03 PM laozx wrote:

----------------
On 8/16/2004 1:40:56 PM Hest88 wrote:


I don't think I'll be able to compare both of them in person.

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

Pictures ? Would it work with this seller?

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

Actually, I did get photos of the 1.39 and 1.40. They were kinda black and white looking. No one was able to provide the 1.37. However after careful thought, I put an order to a vendor to get the 1.37 in. When they get it in, he's going to take pictures of it and get a ideal-scope on it. I hope it turns out well. I really do wish I could see all 3 of them in person. I heard I maybe able to have it shipped to an independent appraiser so I can look at them first hand, however I think i'd have to pay some kind of cost for it? All of the vendors online have been very very helpful to me. But hopefully, the company will custom make my setting to how I like it. I'm taking a copy off of a setting I saw on mondera here Setting Wish me luck, I'd appreciate any other tips. thanks

 

[laozx]

Valeria, whiteflash sent me imagescope and a photo of the 1.37 diamond. Would this be an optimal imagescope of an ec diamond??

photo

imagescope

 

[valeria101]

Wow! The stone is perfect! Aside the shape, wich is just a matter of taste (and I do like it, of course) the near absence of darkness in the normal ligth photo and the red&black Iscope betray a bright, brilliant stone. I woudl not know to find any detraction about this. Just a wondeful Ec with classic profile. Right up there, as far as I can judge.