Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Cuts of Emeralds

Emeraldanniverary

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
8
I'm still searching for a loose emerald and attempting to learn as much as possible on the way!

I've been advised by one person that a round cut emerald is weaker than other cuts because of the inherent structure of the emerald itself which is why they don't deal in them.

Someone else has suggested that a round cut is less likely to get scratched or chipped along the table or corners when set than a traditional emerald cut (who does sell them of course!)

Can anyone with experience let me know if both these are true or not?

And if a stone is very clean with no visible inclusions does that mean it is stronger than one with minor inclusions?

The stone will be for a ring, but not an everyday ring. Any advice on the best way to set it to protect the stone would be greatly appreciated (prong vs bezel, surround with small diamonds?)
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,369
The growth of emerald comes in a longish in shape, where there is greater yield if one cuts it as a rectangular stone which is why round shapes are not as common. Cutting it as a round does not make it any weaker. A round or any other shape still has the table exposed to damage. Corners can always be protected by well placed prongs and/or a good bezel. A clean stone is typically strong than an included stone but a stone with minor inclusions is still very strong. After all, it was able to handle the stress of faceting and polishing without breaking into pieces or chipping. ;))
 

Emeraldanniverary

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
8
Thanks Chrono, I was hoping you might reply having seen your other posts on emeralds!
I guess because of the extra waste, rounds are much harder to find...

Can I ask your opinion on these two Columbian stones?

First is a round cut with no certificate 0.97 carat, 6.54x6.54x4.45mm. $3225. Minor enhancement (although I had it looked at by someone who thought it was perhaps moderate treatment but valued it at $2750. From my research I do think that is low...)
It looks beautiful, although there is clearly an inclusion visible on the top right of the stone (seen as the feather on the photo I've taken from the side.)





Second is a square cut, 0.98 carat, 5.35x5.5x4.81 . To my eyes it's beautifully clean. Only downside is that because of the depth it's face is smaller and perhaps too small. Sold as no enhancement but the person who looked at it thought it might have very slight insignificant oiling and thought the underside of the cut was slightly off center . $3450 which was the valuation given by the appraiser (and I think if he was low on the other gem he may be low on this one too so the price is a good one).

http://certificates.igl-labs.com/pdf_di.php?b=MTQwMDEwMzQy





Thanks for your help!

_1376.png

_5554.jpeg

_5555.jpeg

_5553.jpeg
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,369
I would not make a final decision between the two without having seen both in person but it seems like you have? And you've also had a GG with you to examine the emeralds? If that is the case, you are in a better decision to make that final call.

1. Round has no paperwork, Step cut has questionable IGI paperwork
2. Round has possibly moderate enhancement (oil?), Step cut has a touch of oil
3. Round is not eye clean, Step cut is cut super deep
 

Emeraldanniverary

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
8
Thanks Chrono. I decided to keep searching...Hopefully will find something as clean as the square but with a better cut! I think it's going to be a long search...
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top