Emerald: Crown Height/Table impact on Overall Depth %

[Defender]

In my continued quest to find a nice emerald at a good price, I have been given info/suggestions by vendors of a few different emeralds with depths that seem quite deep to me.

However, I have been told that that table, crown height and other cut parameters still can make a deep emerald a very attractive make. I wonder how much of this is reasonably correct, and how much is hype. These stones are in the 70-73 % depth range, but they feature good table sizes in the 59-64% range, with crown height percentages in the 13-16% range. I know that these numbers are only part of the overall story, but I trying to determine whether this advice is on the right track.

Does this make sense, and are these Emeralds with good table and crown numbers still worthy of consideration, despite their high depth percentages.

 

[strmrdr]

no time but hit www.goodoldgold.com and look at the emeralds he has there.
There are some deep ones that are awesome that Id love to have.

edit: they are missing from the new website.
email them and ask for the link/data

 

[chrono]

Date: 3/17/2006 12:30:42 PM
Author:Defender
In my continued quest to find a nice emerald at a good price, I have been given info/suggestions by vendors of a few different emeralds with depths that seem quite deep to me.

However, I have been told that that table, crown height and other cut parameters still can make a deep emerald a very attractive make. I wonder how much of this is reasonably correct, and how much is hype. These stones are in the 70-73 % depth range, but they feature good table sizes in the 59-64% range, with crown height percentages in the 13-16% range. I know that these numbers are only part of the overall story, but I trying to determine whether this advice is on the right track.

Does this make sense, and are these Emeralds with good table and crown numbers still worthy of consideration, despite their high depth percentages.

Defender,
It is true that a deeply cut EC can look beautiful provided that the table is small, the crown height is high (12% and upward) and the other cut parameters are in synch. The downside is these deep stones face up a lot smaller for their carat weight. I highly advise you to pick something with a depth of 60% to 65% so that all that weight will not be hidden in the pavilon where nobody can see it.

 

[f0rbidden]

the depth on my EC is 71.3% and i adore it

many many people here (and everywhere, for that matter) have said that with fancy cut diamonds - you have to see to believe.
it''s hard to judge fancy cuts on numbers alone. so go have a peek and see what the eyes have to say

 

[kittycatsmac]

My new EC depth is 68 and table is 70. I think really when it comes to a fancy cut that your eyes have to be the judge and not the numbers. I have to agree with fOrbidden.

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/17/2006 12:30:42 PM
Author:Defender
In my continued quest to find a nice emerald at a good price, I have been given info/suggestions by vendors of a few different emeralds with depths that seem quite deep to me.

However, I have been told that that table, crown height and other cut parameters still can make a deep emerald a very attractive make. I wonder how much of this is reasonably correct, and how much is hype. These stones are in the 70-73 % depth range, but they feature good table sizes in the 59-64% range, with crown height percentages in the 13-16% range. I know that these numbers are only part of the overall story, but I trying to determine whether this advice is on the right track.

Does this make sense, and are these Emeralds with good table and crown numbers still worthy of consideration, despite their high depth percentages.

Emerald cuts can be gorgeous with td% of 70+

But mostly it depends on your "personal" taste.

 

[oldminer]

You cannot buy what you cannot find. There are few emerald cuts in the 60 to 65% depth range, and only some of them are truly great looking. There are many more very fine looking stones with deeper depths, but the penalty you pay is decreasing apparent size as depth % increases. Its a costly trade off.

The cut parameters I have recommended since 1986 hold emerald cuts to a difficult to obtain standard in the hope that increased demand for less depth stones would lead more cutters to make them available. It is purely demand that makes the value of better cut stones encourage cutters to make them that way. As it presently stands, people cave in and buy the deeper stones that cutters can give more carat weight to. It is sort of a false premise to pay for unseen extra weight, but if the consumer demands no better value, they won't get it. This is a traditional based business and it is slow to accept change.

A 71 or 72% depth stone is not a terrible compromise if it is very pretty. Those who advise to use your eyes, myself included, are correct as the market generally offers more deep stones than more moderate depth ones. Consumers readily understand more weight and have a difficult time with a multitude of parameters and measures of light performance. The easy path is not always the best one, but most people just do take the easy path.......

One buys an emerald cut for its subtle look, not its flashiness. It always is a matter of taste, but getting a good spread for the weight is smart thinking which I have encouraged for the past 20 years, in spite of many others who will tell you "forget parameters". Most of them either don't know, don't care, or have a bias to sell you the stones they own which they'll say are the best ones in spite of depth percentage. Well informed consumers are not so easily swayed, but the uninformed are the vast majority still.

 

[Defender]

Thank you Oldminer. I understand your point about the hidden weight. As a laymen, I have already seen that a well cut 2.5 can be the same size as some deep 3 carat stones.

Getting back to the original question, can a expert such as yourself confirm "the general idea" that in most cases a good optimized crown height will help in balancing the looks of a deeper stone.

For example, won''t a 72% deep stone with a 16% crown height look significantly better than a 72% deep stone with a 12% crown height? I know that the table size figures into this too....

I am just trying to ascertain how info on the crown (and pavilion too) will help a laymen in consideration of a stone with a deeper depth.

 

[chrono]

Defender,
Old Miner has a website where he lists the different cut grades for daimonds of all shapes. Take a look here for emerald cuts. It will probably come in handy to decide which stone you want to eliminate. I will caution you that it is very difficult but not impossible to get a Class 1A EC. Even a Class 1B or Class 2A ECs can be very beautiful. With all that said, once the elimination by numbers is done, the final test is to view with your own two eyes and decide if that is the one you want. Step cuts are such that it cannot to be chosen by numbers alone, it must be seen but the numbers sure do help.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 3/17/2006 3:49:36 PM
Author: Defender
Thank you Oldminer. I understand your point about the hidden weight. As a laymen, I have already seen that a well cut 2.5 can be the same size as some deep 3 carat stones.

Getting back to the original question, can a expert such as yourself confirm ''the general idea'' that in most cases a good optimized crown height will help in balancing the looks of a deeper stone.

For example, won''t a 72% deep stone with a 16% crown height look significantly better than a 72% deep stone with a 12% crown height? I know that the table size figures into this too....

I am just trying to ascertain how info on the crown (and pavilion too) will help a laymen in consideration of a stone with a deeper depth.

Hi all a few days past but i was doing some searching on this subject:

my EC stone has a depth of 61.9 and a table of 59. The crown is nearly 17% . .............It is a gorgeous stone. I wanted a stone with a higher crown and wanted sommething over 12%. I was willing to pay for the weight in the top for this one.

I am now looking to find a larger stone and I have found but one that i am even interested in looking at. I simply am not willing to pay for extra weight in the bottom. plus i believe that a depth larger than table is a must for a beautiful stone