can I get the experts'' opinion on this emerald diamond?

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/13/2008 4:56:13 PM
Author: b5s4
Karl,

thanks for replying. I''ve been reading through your posts for more information. Just for a quick refresher, ideally table should be smaller than depth with table being 59-64% and depth being 60-66%?

table under 65 and reasonable spread with a max depth around 70%.

table smaller than depth is not true for example a 64% table 62% depth could be an awesome diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/13/2008 4:56:13 PM
Author: b5s4
Karl,

thanks for replying. I''ve been reading through your posts for more information. Just for a quick refresher, ideally table should be smaller than depth with table being 59-64% and depth being 60-66%? On this previous diamond, I''m confused about the table being 74.9% on the gia report it stated 66%. Why is there such a large difference?

Have it double checked but by the pics its in the 70s.
Wouldn''t be the first time the report was way off on table but it wouldn''t be the first time that the sarin was off either.
Either way its not one I would consider.

 

[b5s4]

well it turns out that was the wrong stone! traci at whiteflash called me and told me that the wrong stone was shipped to them so once they get in the right one I will post new pics. No wonder the table was so far off from the gia report!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/13/2008 8:01:14 PM
Author: b5s4
well it turns out that was the wrong stone! traci at whiteflash called me and told me that the wrong stone was shipped to them so once they get in the right one I will post new pics. No wonder the table was so far off from the gia report!

Thanks for the update!