i understand that cut is important in choosing a diamond. if an emerald cut diamond falls in to the categories of 2B for table % and 3A for depth % . is it considered a poor cut.
need some advice on emerald cut diamonds and table depth %''s.
On shaped stones it's always a tough call where numbers can't dictate a choice. I noticed that some wonderful stones existed in those middle categories of the AGA charts, but the better cut ones DO end up being the lower cut under 70% stones in Depth and Table %s...
Some people believe that an emerald with a deeper depth will have a beautiful pool like effect, and is MEANT to have a slightly larger pavillion. That sort of goes against the AGA charts, so I think it's based on appearance. I always recommend to SEE the stone and see how you like it. Of course, I suggest G or better in color and a VS2 in clarity or so for an optimal stone and price.
The rest is up to your eye, but stick to the 2B range and better, where both are in 2B, because the proportions of being in the same category make the stone more percise, is my opinion. I think this stone could be lovely, but what do you think?
Just taking into concern table and depth, as long as the table is a 2b and the full depth is within 2% of the 2b characteristic, it is possible that the stone can be a 2b, as long as all the other characteristics are 2b or better. Only 1 3a characteristic is permitted. To me a 2b is not a bad cut. For that matter neither is a 3a (which is more of a average cut). Just some words to the wise, Emerald cuts because of the faceting alignment may have eye visibe inclusions up to VS2 in stones over 1.00 ct. As for cut try to get a small table, no more than 69%, a higher crown, about 12%+, and a total depth no more than 69% with a medium girdle. That should keep you within a cut class 2 or better for cut grade. Make sure you get a Sarin report at least in order to establish a cut grade. And make sure you look at to see if you like it.