Does this stone face up appropriately for its ct weight?

[dani13]

Hi friends!! Just wondering if this stone faces up appropriately or small for its carat weight....


EC
2.11 ct
8.51 x 6.24 x 4.17 mm
depth: 66.8%
table 62%


THANK YOU!!!!

 

[iota15]

Multiplying the width and length, I get 53 sq. mm's - which is my measurement for a 2 carat round brilliant.

Lengthier stones look different though, and may appear slightly smaller than a round - even with the same face up square mm's. It's probably about right for a 2 ct emerald cut (based on my radiant cut research).

 

[dani13]

Thank you iota!!!

 

[Amys Bling]

http://www.ajediam.com/Emerald_diamond_sizes.html

gives you the carat sizes for emerald cuts. it also depends on the L:W ratio, but you get the idea.

 

[captainmcgee]

How about this one:

RB
4.18 ct
10.33- 10.37mm x 6.39 mm
depth: 61.7%
table 56%

 

[Amys Bling]

looks about right mif.

http://www.ajediam.com/Sizes-of-Diamonds.html

 

[captainmcgee]

Is there anywhere to find out mm for 4.5?

 

[Amys Bling]

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds/diamond-carat-weight

my assumption is that it would be around 10.6mm, as a 4ct is 10.2 and a 5ct is 11.0mm so i split the difference. could be totally wrong though.

 

[canuk-gal]

Is there anywhere to find out mm for 4.5?

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mm-to-carat-stone-conversion-chart.17578/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mm-to-carat-stone-conversion-chart.17578/[/URL]

 

[captainmcgee]

Thanks!
According to that chart the 4.18 faces up smaller than a 4. Is that correct? Most 4cts I've looked at weren't even close to 10.4mm

 

[Amys Bling]

it seems as though some charts say a 4.0ct RB should be 10.2....others say 10.4. It would seem that maybe the RB you are looking at is slightly deep in cut, but that does not mean that it wont be a spectacular stone.

 

[captainmcgee]

The vendor showed me the chart and said that RB 4ct should be 10.2 she said it almost faces up as a 4.25 rather than a 4.18 so im a little bit confused.

 

[Amys Bling]

The vendor showed me the chart and said that RB 4ct should be 10.2 she said it almost faces up as a 4.25 rather than a 4.18 so im a little bit confused.

I can't say which chart is more accurate. According to the one I linked, 10.2mm is a 4ct, so your 4.18 definitely faces up larger than a 4.0ct. Not sure how it compares to a 4.25ct

 

[Matthews1127]

Dani,
I realize this thread is ancient, but I was scrolling through old threads, and stumbled upon this one. I became curious about my own EC, and I found this link. I hope this helps....
CRM
I typed in your measurements & asked the computer to compare it with an "average" 2.11 EC to get you a ball park figure.
http://www.diamdb.com/compare/2.11ct-emerald-8.51x6.24x4.17-vs-2.11ct-emerald/

 

[oldminer]

Calculating the square mm of the visible flat surface defined by the girdle outline is fairly easy, but making any meaningful decision on which diamond to choose from two or three fairly similar square mm sizes is not a recommended thing to do. The thickness or thinness of the girdle will have an important impact on the visual size compared to the weight and you are leaving that out along with other minor factors which also impact visual size. The concept is that visual square mm defined by the girdle outline compared to the carat weight has meaning, but is not the way to pick "the stone" you ought to buy. It leaves highly important attributes, namely visual appearance and light behavior characteristics out of the question. You just should not eliminate what truly has the most important effect on appearance out of your considerations for the sake of simplicity. I'd just as soon have a stone which looked a tiny bit undersized which was fiery and lively, than one that looked a tad larger, had the same weight, but was somehow lacking in liveliness.

What you can do is to eliminate the outliers, those that look really small for weight, those that look very large for their weight. Likely, you will find there are other deficiencies in those that will eliminate them for clear cut reasons. Screening diamonds takes a series of decisions and thoughtful eliminations, but once you get into the central range of what works better and best, then it is time to move to other considerations for further screening, or to order a couple stones to see in person.

 

[Matthews1127]

Calculating the square mm of the visible flat surface defined by the girdle outline is fairly easy, but making any meaningful decision on which diamond to choose from two or three fairly similar square mm sizes is not a recommended thing to do. The thickness or thinness of the girdle will have an important impact on the visual size compared to the weight and you are leaving that out along with other minor factors which also impact visual size. The concept is that visual square mm defined by the girdle outline compared to the carat weight has meaning, but is not the way to pick "the stone" you ought to buy. It leaves highly important attributes, namely visual appearance and light behavior characteristics out of the question. You just should not eliminate what truly has the most important effect on appearance out of your considerations for the sake of simplicity. I'd just as soon have a stone which looked a tiny bit undersized which was fiery and lively, than one that looked a tad larger, had the same weight, but was somehow lacking in liveliness.

What you can do is to eliminate the outliers, those that look really small for weight, those that look very large for their weight. Likely, you will find there are other deficiencies in those that will eliminate them for clear cut reasons. Screening diamonds takes a series of decisions and thoughtful eliminations, but once you get into the central range of what works better and best, then it is time to move to other considerations for further screening, or to order a couple stones to see in person.

I agree...I used the link I posted to compare my EC to the "Average" EC of the same size & realized that in spite of the similarities, the demo simply removed the appearance of diamonds in light, and other important factors that should be considered in "face up" appearance. My diamond faces up larger than it is...I know because I can SEE it...lol! Other people who don't know the true carat weight of my diamond always mistake it for a larger carat weight than it is, because it APPEARS larger. The demo stated that it's "normal" for my size stone, and I just don't buy it. What the demo CONFIRMED for me is that the quality of the diamond was excellent, in comparison to EC's considered to be of good-excellent quality; it meets the standards for a good, quality EC. I also noticed that the l x w ratio used in this link was broader than what I would consider "best" for a true, rectangular EC Diamond. 1.25-1.60 is very broad, and would include more Square Emerald Cut Diamonds, rather than stressing that true rectangular EC's fall into the l x w ratio of 1.40-1.60.
I just think the demo is more of a guide, but there are so many factors to consider!!!
Excellent points!!!