Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

EC advice please

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
P

Pacioli

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10
I have begun searching for a diamond and am looking for a nice emerald cut. I came across the following diamond at James Allen, and was hoping to get some feedback from some of the knowledgeable people on this forum.

1.15ct Emerald Cut
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: IF
Depth: 63.8
Table: 64
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Thin - Medium
6.39x5.85x3.73
Cutlet: None
Florescence: None
Ratio: 1.09
$5,200
Picture can be found here

GIA is not available online but I have requested that they email it to me.

I realize that the ratio is not the generally accepted 1.3 to 1.4 (assuming I have gathered accurate information), but I was leaning toward 1.25 or 1.3 initially, so I''m not looking for a long stone. Any input on this diamond would be appreciated. For the price, the stone seems like a good deal; what am I missing?

Thanks in advance for your help!
 
I'm not digging the patterns. The symmetry seems a bit off to me. IMHO...a 1.09 ratio stone is going to look like a square emerald anyway.
 
BTW... for clarification purposes...the ratio on the first stone is 1.09 and you will get a discount with James Allen for being a pricescope member.
 
Date: 1/8/2009 2:23:41 PM
Author: emeraldlover1
What do you think of this one? http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Emerald-Diamond-1135596.asp Is it too long for you? Just trying to gauge what it is about the shape that you like. Do you want an asscher or a fatter emerald. This is a pretty fat emerald in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This one looks good, thank you. When I came across the diamond in the original post, it seemed to be priced lower than I would have expected. The diamond you have suggested is closer to what I was originally looking at, with slightly lower specs and a slightly higher price. So you think the stone you posted is a winner?

As far as shape, I have gathered that the longer stones (1.4+) are best on long, thin fingers. This is why I was leaning toward the 1.3 end.
 
Date: 1/8/2009 2:35:22 PM
Author: Pacioli

Date: 1/8/2009 2:23:41 PM
Author: emeraldlover1
What do you think of this one? http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Emerald-Diamond-1135596.asp Is it too long for you? Just trying to gauge what it is about the shape that you like. Do you want an asscher or a fatter emerald. This is a pretty fat emerald in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This one looks good, thank you. When I came across the diamond in the original post, it seemed to be priced lower than I would have expected. The diamond you have suggested is closer to what I was originally looking at, with slightly lower specs and a slightly higher price. So you think the stone you posted is a winner?

As far as shape, I have gathered that the longer stones (1.4+) are best on long, thin fingers. This is why I was leaning toward the 1.3 end.
Click to expand...
My guess is the original diamond is priced lower because it isn''t really an emerald or a square emerald. The paterns on it are just ok for a JA "ideal" diamond. I don''t like the looks of it even if the price is cheaper.

I''m in no means an expert but having searched fairly hard for the ideal proportioned well cut emerald cut I like the looks of the one that I suggested. The symmetry is much better and I bet the proportion is very nice. There are a lot of threads going around here latley as to paying for things that you can not see. The specs this diamond has are what most consider to be the sweet spot. I think it is priced appropriatley but more importantly by the looks of it this diamond should out perform the first one. However...I would still wait and see if any of the experts have an opinion on this stone. I''m not sure what they would think about the thin girdle or if that would be a problem.

As far as how the stone looks in person and on the hand. I perfer the "fatter" emerald any day. I have fairly short slender fingers and my stone I think is a 1.25 ratio. Can''t remember exactly but I actually think it elongates my finger while providing some nice finger coverage. Best of both worlds in my opinion.

Hope this helps.

BTW...you really need to see the stones in person to know for sure if you will love it. However I can tell you that from the pics I don''t like the first one at all.
 
Thank you for the input EM1; very much appreciated. As you suggested, I will wait for additional input from others.
 
Date: 1/8/2009 2:53:41 PM
Author: Pacioli
Thank you for the input EM1; very much appreciated. As you suggested, I will wait for additional input from others.
Click to expand...
lol...good idea.
 
Oh...and put it on hold while you are doing so...lots of lurkers out there.
 
Date: 1/8/2009 5:16:30 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/8/2009 2:23:41 PM
Author: emeraldlover1
What do you think of this one? http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Emerald-Diamond-1135596.asp Is it too long for you? Just trying to gauge what it is about the shape that you like. Do you want an asscher or a fatter emerald. This is a pretty fat emerald in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That one looks sweet.
If interested put it on hold and request the crown height and an IS image.
Click to expand...
I know! I saw it and was like, "This is awesome!"
 
Just an update - The Sarin report and IS image are in process. I will post these once I receive them, and look forward to final impressions. Thanks to all of you for the advice.
 
I see you put it on hold! Good job! I can''t wait to see more pics...
 
Nice pick EC1.

Did you get it Pacioli? It is no longer available
32.gif
!

ETA: Yeah! I see you have it.
 
Here is an update on the diamond EM1 suggested. I have received the IS image and have attached it to the post. A picture of the diamond can be seen HERE I have been told I will receive the Sarin report later today, and will update with the crown height at that time.

1.14ct Emerald Cut
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 66.2
Table: 63.0
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Thin - Thick
6.62x5.39x3.57
Cutlet: None
Florescence: None
Ratio: 1.23

What should I notice from the IS image? Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

ISImage1135596.JPG
 
kicken so far
If the CH is good I think its a winner
 
JA has now called me to provide the crown information. He stated the crown height range is 12.3-13.8, with an average of 13.1.

I have compared all of the numbers to the AGA chart provided by oldminer. It seems everything falls within the 1A criteria except for depth, which is 66.2 rather than 60-65.

The representative at JA told me that this diamond would fall into the top 5% of all EC''s they sell. I would like to pick up this diamond and would appreciate any final critical analysis/opinion anyone could offer.
 
13.1 is excellent.

I would say go for it
 
One final thing to add. I plan on setting the diamond in a Tacori 2591EM7x5, shown below, which I will obtain through goodoldgold.com. Any opinions on this would be appreciated as well.

Thank you all so much for your help on this big purchase.

2591EM7X5_multi2.jpg
 
nice setting, looks good
 
HI Pacioli,
I respect all who post here- and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I''m going to add an alternative viewpoint here.
First off, it looks like a wonderful stone.
If you like the shape, I would say go ahead and purchase.


In terms of charts and crown angles:
Forget that stuff, it''s really meaningless to you as a shopper. Personally, I have bought millions of dollars worth of emerald cut diamonds, never once knowing specific crown angles. I am purchasing diamonds which are right in front of me, and I trust my eyes....so that could be one reason- but in general, a shopper needs to buy from a seller that can personally evaluate the diamond as opposed to trying to figure it out on numbers. You''ve picked a proven vendor, so don''t stress the small stuff.

If you had to buy completely blind, from a seller you had doubts about, than knowing minutia, might be a good idea. It isn''t but it might.

When it comes to a stone you can look at yourself- in a good digital photos- and a trusted vendor has endorsed the stone- that''s what you should go by.


Personally I disagree that a stone is less than really well cut because it''s depth is 66.2.
There''s nothing wrong with a 66.2% depth.




Congrats- It looks amazing!
 
I think it looks great!
 
I still love the stone.

Sorry, I do not like the setting. I dislike the 2 little sidestones. [ETA: also the triangular squat prongs] I feel they might distract the eye from the centrestone and create overall the look of a small 3 stone ring. Just my 0.02.
 
Date: 1/13/2009 4:09:25 PM
Author: Steel
I still love the stone.

Sorry, I do not like the setting. I dislike the 2 little sidestones. [ETA: also the triangular squat prongs] I feel they might distract the eye from the centrestone and create overall the look of a small 3 stone ring. Just my 0.02.
Click to expand...
Interesting point!
I also like slightly larger proportions on the sides......

I would suggest having GOG place the center diamond between the proposed traps to make sure you love the proportion ( if that''s possible)
 
Date: 1/13/2009 4:17:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Date: 1/13/2009 4:09:25 PM
Author: Steel

I still love the stone.

Sorry, I do not like the setting. I dislike the 2 little sidestones. [ETA: also the triangular squat prongs] I feel they might distract the eye from the centrestone and create overall the look of a small 3 stone ring. Just my 0.02.
Click to expand...
Interesting point!

I also like slightly larger proportions on the sides......
I would suggest having GOG place the center diamond between the proposed traps to make sure you love the proportion ( if that''s possible)
Click to expand...
On this note, it would be useful to know what size center stone is in the stock photo of the Tacori ring. I think it is lovely and well-proportioned in the photo, but if it turns out to have a 3 ct center I might have to agree with Steel that the sidestones might overwhelm the lovely center stone Pacioli has picked out.
 
Date: 1/13/2009 4:17:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Date: 1/13/2009 4:09:25 PM

Author: Steel

I still love the stone.


Sorry, I do not like the setting. I dislike the 2 little sidestones. [ETA: also the triangular squat prongs] I feel they might distract the eye from the centrestone and create overall the look of a small 3 stone ring. Just my 0.02.
Click to expand...

Interesting point!

I also like slightly larger proportions on the sides......


I would suggest having GOG place the center diamond between the proposed traps to make sure you love the proportion ( if that''s possible)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don''t believe GOG has the particular band in stock so I don''t think this will be possible. So, is it just the size of the sidestones that don''t look right? Larger ones would look better? The representative from GOG mentioned that the setting was designed for a 7x5 stone, which is close to the size of the diamond I have selected. She said Tacori likely has another version intended for a larger center stone that would have larger sidestones. I have posted a side view in case that helps.

2591EM7X5_alt2.jpg
 
Date: 1/13/2009 4:48:22 PM
Author: cara

On this note, it would be useful to know what size center stone is in the stock photo of the Tacori ring. I think it is lovely and well-proportioned in the photo, but if it turns out to have a 3 ct center I might have to agree with Steel that the sidestones might overwhelm the lovely center stone Pacioli has picked out.
Click to expand...

My assumption based upon the the item number (2591EM7x5) and the explanation from GOG (the 7x5 refers to the size of the diamond intended for the ring)is that the diamond has dimensions of approximately 7x5. Granted, this may be an inaccurate assumption....
 
Is it possible for them to have the band custom made, so you can select the side stones?

There is no right answer about which size is best Pacioli- it''s really up to your eye.
 
This is really personal taste. If the ring shown has a 7x5 stone in the center, and you have chosen a stone with approximately those dimensions, then your ring should look close to the proportions of the ring in the photo and I think it will be lovely and just right.

Steel would prefer smaller/no sidestones (?) to avoid a 3-stone look while Rockdiamond might prefer larger sidestones, fully embracing the 3-stone look.

See how useful we are?

My earlier concern (that the photo was of a much larger center stone, and thus the proportions could be different for a smaller center stone) has been addressed. So now it is just personal preference!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top