Hi. I am new to this forum, but have spent some time recently reviewing the information on this website (and many others) and reviewing some of the prior posts. I am actively engaged in shopping for an engagement ring for my soon-to-be-fiancee. I am seeking an emerald cut in the 2.00-2.25 carat range. I have located 2 stones that are strong contenders and wondered if anyone who subscribes to this forumm, upon seeing the below information, has any views on the respective merits of these stones. Here are their parameters:
Stone 1: Emerald Cut, 9.52 x 6.59 x 4.06 (1.44 length-width ratio), weight 2.25 carat, depth% 61.6%, Table% 68%, girdle THN to MED, Culet none, Polish good, Symetry very good, Clarity VVS1, Color H, fluorescence medium blue, comments none, key: pinpoint, natural.
Stone 2: Emerald Cut, 9.10 x 5.84 x 4.15 (1.55 length-width ratio), weight 2.00 carat, depth% 71.1%, Table% 67%, girdle ETN to VTK, culet small, polish good, symetry good, clarity VVS1, color E, fluorescence none, comments none, key: pinpoint, extra facet.
The quoted price of both of these stones is identical: $16,500.
Obviously, the thing that draws me to the second stone is that it is an E color, which is particularly important in an emerald (both have the same clarity, so they are comparable in that regard). That stone, however, has some things that I know are "out of the ordinary" range (i.e., girdle range is troubling, depth% is higher than what I understand one should look for and there is an extra facet, which I assume cannot be a good thing).
The question I have is how much do those factors impact the "look" of the stone (i.e., when someone looks at the stone on my fiancee''s finger)? The first stone, for example, has none of those problems, but it is an H color. I know that the difference between E and H is noticeable. What I don''t know is how apparent will the shortcomings of the E stone be to the observer. Given their identical price, are the "problems" with the second stone sufficient to make the first stone the better one overall despite that it''s color is H (as compared to the far more favorable E)? For what it is worth, stone 1 is noticeably larger to look at, which is not surprising given it is .25 carats larger, so that stone does have an additional appeal for that reason, despite it lower color grade.
Does anyone have thoughts/feedback they would be willing to share with me? There is so much information out there about parameters of diamonds and I''m trying to figure out if I pass up this E stone simply because it has girdle problems and an extra facet (which may or may not impact the look of the stone) am I a moron who let detailed numbers override common sense??
Thanks so much in anticipation of any thoughts you might have.
-Terry
Stone 1: Emerald Cut, 9.52 x 6.59 x 4.06 (1.44 length-width ratio), weight 2.25 carat, depth% 61.6%, Table% 68%, girdle THN to MED, Culet none, Polish good, Symetry very good, Clarity VVS1, Color H, fluorescence medium blue, comments none, key: pinpoint, natural.
Stone 2: Emerald Cut, 9.10 x 5.84 x 4.15 (1.55 length-width ratio), weight 2.00 carat, depth% 71.1%, Table% 67%, girdle ETN to VTK, culet small, polish good, symetry good, clarity VVS1, color E, fluorescence none, comments none, key: pinpoint, extra facet.
The quoted price of both of these stones is identical: $16,500.
Obviously, the thing that draws me to the second stone is that it is an E color, which is particularly important in an emerald (both have the same clarity, so they are comparable in that regard). That stone, however, has some things that I know are "out of the ordinary" range (i.e., girdle range is troubling, depth% is higher than what I understand one should look for and there is an extra facet, which I assume cannot be a good thing).
The question I have is how much do those factors impact the "look" of the stone (i.e., when someone looks at the stone on my fiancee''s finger)? The first stone, for example, has none of those problems, but it is an H color. I know that the difference between E and H is noticeable. What I don''t know is how apparent will the shortcomings of the E stone be to the observer. Given their identical price, are the "problems" with the second stone sufficient to make the first stone the better one overall despite that it''s color is H (as compared to the far more favorable E)? For what it is worth, stone 1 is noticeably larger to look at, which is not surprising given it is .25 carats larger, so that stone does have an additional appeal for that reason, despite it lower color grade.
Does anyone have thoughts/feedback they would be willing to share with me? There is so much information out there about parameters of diamonds and I''m trying to figure out if I pass up this E stone simply because it has girdle problems and an extra facet (which may or may not impact the look of the stone) am I a moron who let detailed numbers override common sense??
Thanks so much in anticipation of any thoughts you might have.
-Terry
300x240.png)