|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Is this a good emerald cut diamond
|
|
 |
Is this a good emerald cut diamond |
 |
| P: 8/29/2005 1:55:26 PM | |
lovelylulu Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,000 Last Post: 11/18/2009 Member Since: 7/6/2005 |
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
|
| Posted: 8/29/2005 1:55:26 PM | |
|
There are 7 replies to this message. There are 7 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 8/29/2005 4:14:35 PM | |
AChiOAlumna Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,678 Last Post: 2/24/2007 Member Since: 3/11/2005 |
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!
|
| Posted: 8/29/2005 4:14:35 PM | |
| P: 8/29/2005 4:19:51 PM | |
|
lovelylulu Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,000 Last Post: 11/18/2009 Member Since: 7/6/2005 |
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?
|
| Posted: 8/29/2005 4:19:51 PM | |
| P: 8/29/2005 4:23:18 PM | |
|
AChiOAlumna Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,678 Last Post: 2/24/2007 Member Since: 3/11/2005 |
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...
|
| Posted: 8/29/2005 4:23:18 PM | |
| P: 8/29/2005 7:47:19 PM | |
windowshopper Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,023 Last Post: 7/25/2006 Member Since: 7/11/2004 |
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
|
| Posted: 8/29/2005 7:47:19 PM | |
| P: 8/30/2005 11:02:50 PM | |
diamondsbylauren Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,128 Last Post: 1/5/2006 Member Since: 10/18/2003 |
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 David |
| Posted: 8/30/2005 11:02:50 PM | |
| P: 8/31/2005 12:37:23 AM | |
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
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. Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 8/31/2005 12:37:23 AM | |
| P: 8/31/2005 11:44:16 PM | |
|
windowshopper Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,023 Last Post: 7/25/2006 Member Since: 7/11/2004 |
Date: 8/30/2005 11:02:50 PM 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.............
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
|
| Posted: 8/31/2005 11:44:16 PM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
