Advice about this 1.6c Emerald Cut...

[stjohnychan]

I''ve been reading this forum since I started shopping for an engagment ring about 2 months ago, and learned many basics here, so thanks. Now I''m getting down to picking an actual stone, and I was hoping for some expert feedback about the current candidate:

Emerald Cut
1.6 Carat
Ideal Cut
G
IF
(GIA Cert)

Table: 63 %
Depth 69.7%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Thick
Cutlet: None
Flourescence: None
7.97x5.58x3.89
Ratio: 1.43

I found this diamond on pricescope and it is in my pricerange (9-10K- which seemed to me like a very good price for this diamond). I think it is just what I''m looking for, but I''m definitly interested in any opinions.

My biggest worry is the depth/table ratios. I have searched the archives here on the subject and sometimes see depth as good up to 70, but sometimes only up to 65, with table always slightly lower. If anyone could explain if this diamonds depth/table ratios should worry me, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

 

[JulieN]

looks nice to me. ask for an Ideal Scope and Sarin.

 

[chrono]

Can I ask why an IF? Is it because there is nothing else?
It is also on the deep side with a thick girdle. It may not hurt the diamond's light performance but it will certainly be smaller than another comparable EC that has a 65% depth and medium girdle.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/22/2007 3:52:13 PM
Author:stjohnychan
I''ve been reading this forum since I started shopping for an engagment ring about 2 months ago, and learned many basics here, so thanks. Now I''m getting down to picking an actual stone, and I was hoping for some expert feedback about the current candidate:

Emerald Cut
1.6 Carat
Ideal Cut
G
IF
(GIA Cert)

Table: 63 %
Depth 69.7%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Thick
Cutlet: None
Flourescence: None
7.97x5.58x3.89
Ratio: 1.43

I found this diamond on pricescope and it is in my pricerange (9-10K- which seemed to me like a very good price for this diamond). I think it is just what I''m looking for, but I''m definitly interested in any opinions.

My biggest worry is the depth/table ratios. I have searched the archives here on the subject and sometimes see depth as good up to 70, but sometimes only up to 65, with table always slightly lower. If anyone could explain if this diamonds depth/table ratios should worry me, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

The #''s look good..., but those are just numbers when it comes to Emerald Cuts...
These are the kind of Gems you have to see with your own eyes...

I just dont understand how Emerald Cuts are marketed as Ideal-Cut (especialy with a GIA report...)

Good question Chrono... Why IF??? If you insist on the top grade, go for a D-IF or FL...

In regards to you concern, 65 or 70% td..., it too depends on your preference!!! Some prefer spreadier flater cuts (58-65% td.), and some prefer Higher depth with more build up crowns (65-75% +/- that''s where you get what I call Sculpture effect!!!), but make sure the td %''s is divided correctly by clearly seeing a high build-up crown and distinctive step facets leaning towards a small table (68 to 50+/- %).

 

[stjohnychan]

Chrono- I understand the conventional wisdom is that clarity is a little more important in ECs, because there are less facets to hide things, so I was looking for IF-VVS2. I wouldn''t mind either VVS1 or VVS2, because I know we couldn''t see anything in it anyways, but I do kindof like the idea of the IF.

So its partly because I like the idea, but mostly because it''s what I found. If doesn''t seem to me that the price difference between IF and VVS1 is very large for this kind of diamond...but you''re the expert-- do you think I would be better off focusing on a VVS2 and trying to move up a color grade, or is the range I''m looking in alright?


And about the depth-- so the main concern is that slightly too much of the diamond is "down" (i don''t know the real term) so it won''t look as big as it is? Am I correct to think that 69.7 is slightly, and not incredibly too high?


And JulieN- I was under the impression that IdealScopes weren''t useful for ECs, but reread about it because of your post. I will definitly call and ask for an idealscope picture.

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 2/22/2007 6:07:18 PM
Author: stjohnychan
Chrono- I understand the conventional wisdom is that clarity is a little more important in ECs, because there are less facets to hide things, so I was looking for IF-VVS2. I wouldn''t mind either VVS1 or VVS2, because I know we couldn''t see anything in it anyways, but I do kindof like the idea of the IF.

So its partly because I like the idea, but mostly because it''s what I found. If doesn''t seem to me that the price difference between IF and VVS1 is very large for this kind of diamond...but you''re the expert-- do you think I would be better off focusing on a VVS2 and trying to move up a color grade, or is the range I''m looking in alright?


And about the depth-- so the main concern is that slightly too much of the diamond is ''down'' (i don''t know the real term) so it won''t look as big as it is? Am I correct to think that 69.7 is slightly, and not incredibly too high?


And JulieN- I was under the impression that IdealScopes weren''t useful for ECs, but reread about it because of your post. I will definitly call and ask for an idealscope picture.

Thanks for the responses so far.

At least consider VS1... haven''t met too many people unhappy with their G stones.

Anyway, the spread factor is -11%, assuming standard clipped corner angles. That''s within normal range for emerald.

Ideal Scope...it doesn''t hurt to have it. ASET is better, but I don''t think they provide ASET pictures.

 

[stjohnychan]

Dia-Gem... thanks. I was confused about the Ideal Cut claim also, because it was my understanding that that kind of grade doesn''t really apply. When I asked about it, the salesperson told me basically that they had parameters for this kind of diamond and that this one fell into them. (Although confused, I was planning on taking him at his word, because James Allen is pretty reputable, no?).

So its hard to shop for ECs online, huh?

When I order this diamond I am definitly going to take it up to 47th St. and compare it to some others to make sure that my Eyes like it... I just wanted to be as knowledgable as possible beforehand and also make sure I wasn''t wasting my time ordering it...

 

[Gypsy]

I have a VSI square emerald cut and I can''t see a THING in my diamond...nor can anyone else with a VS1 step cut that I know, or have heard of. So I really think you''ll be just fine with a VS1... good choice the the G... I have an F and frankly would have been just as happy with a G... but F is what they had, so its what I got.

 

[strmrdr]

When buying an EC online good images are a must, ASET images prefered followed by regular photos.

 

[chrono]

A VS1 is perfectly fine. I have an EC with VS1 and can't see anything with the naked eye. Heck, I can't even see anything with a loupe, only a backlit magnifier will show the inclusions, and it's really small and few. A G is a nice and safe colour. I tend to like cooler colours for ECs so I'd personally prefer to stay around F, but G should be all right.

As for depth, as long as it has a high crown height and small table, the chances are higher that it will be a pretty diamond. You don't want most of the depth in the pavilon combined with a shallow crown. In Idealscope and/or ASET should help you pick the right EC.

 

[stjohnychan]

No ASET yet but I''ll ask for one... here is the regular picture; and link -Diamond Picture (I hope that shows up, not really sure if it will...)

 

[diagem]

Basicaly looks like a good stone (based on a still face up image.)
One thing pops to my eyes..., upper right pavilion corner does not look of equall size to the rest....

But again, based on an image!