Emerald Cut ideal Specs: Please advise & educate

[Karl_K]

Karl K: "There is no such thing as too high a crown as long as it has a matching pavilion."

Karl, this statement is purely bogus. Sorry, but if the crown is high and the pavilion is deep, the overall depth of the stone will make the diamond look very small for a given weight. There is something wrong with such a combination even if it performs well. Asscher cuts are a wonderful example of a great looking diamond which looks small for its weight. The problem is simply that it looks way too small visually for the weight the customer will be asked to pay. I see this as a "problem" even when a diamond performs well with light.

If the pavilion is bulging you mean.
Far more weight is kept by cutting overly large pavilions than cutting a deep pavilion.
The worst of the lot will have both deep and portly pavilions.
Higher crowns are far less tolerant than flat tops of overly portly pavilions.
Or in more technical terms you can not run the p1 facets as far down and as steep with a higher crown and it perform well.

As far as asschers go it has been proven time and again that a specific type 75+% depth asscher had more spread to the same spread out of asschers ranging from 60% to 68% depth.
What I find funny is people who call asschers small for their weight but are fine with princess cuts which at times are even smaller and generally in the same range by mm and asschers will have a larger 3d presence.
They are both measured the same way, across the sides.

 

[Matthews1127]

If the pavilion is bulging you mean.
Far more weight is kept by cutting overly large pavilions than cutting a deep pavilion.
The worst of the lot will have both deep and portly pavilions.
Higher crowns are far less tolerant than flat tops of overly portly pavilions.
Or in more technical terms you can not run the p1 facets as far down and as steep with a higher crown and it perform well.

As far as asschers go it has been proven time and again that a specific type 75+% depth asscher had more spread to the same spread out of asschers ranging from 60% to 68% depth.
What I find funny is people who call asschers small for their weight but are fine with princess cuts which at times are even smaller and generally in the same range by mm and asschers will have a larger 3d presence.
They are both measured the same way, across the sides.

I agree, and I think I understand what you mean about crown height and Pavilion angle.
Correct me, if I’m mistaken, but this would also fit in with the geometrical placement of P3, in reference to crown angle....correct?
As long as the cut is just right, a crown at any height won’t cause an issue, as long the pavilion angles are placed correctly to give the diamond great performance. It’s all about angles, and the way the light bounces in order to give the diamond enough life.
Granted, everyone has their preferences, so some will argue this, but it’s simple geometry. P3 plays an important role in step cuts, esp when dealing with performance. @Karl_K taught me that. I’ve done some research, and have read quite a bit on it, since his recommendations. It makes sense, and bears a lot of truth.
I’m certain the contrary is true, as well; a poorly cut stone, that is not geometrically sound, will not perform well, and at that point, the crown height makes no difference, if the rest of the angles don’t match up to give the diamond life.
I dunno...perhaps I’ve lost sight of the point, during the debate, but this is what I got out of the discussion.
If this is mere drivel, please disregard. I just want to make certain the point is clear & uncomplicated.

 

[Karl_K]

Matthews1127 you get it.
In step cuts angles and facet placement and table size that works well together makes for a great looking diamond.
The same is true with a RB but the RBs facets are more locked into place by the design which limits the possible variations.
The only free to be moved a large amount is the lower girdle/halve% in an RB design, they can be moved from very short(oec) to very long(splintery looking RB).
In a step cut by tradition and looks the crown steps should be the same width visually from the top to each other and the side to each other.
The pavilion steps can and do vary all up and down the pavilion to each other.
The typical hiding weight measure is to run the p1 facets a long way down the stone and have small p2 and p3 facets.
This often results in p3 issues because the p3 angle is not optimal.
A shallow crown is more tolerant of steep pavilion angels(making the p1 long).

This is actually the key to a princess cut, very steep pavilion with a very shallow crown.
It works with both a step or brilliant cut pavilions but the results are not the same as far as the overall cut quality of the stone. They are expected to do different things with light.

 

[Matthews1127]

Matthews1127 you get it.
In step cuts angles and facet placement and table size that works well together makes for a great looking diamond.
The same is true with a RB but the RBs facets are more locked into place by the design which limits the possible variations.
The only free to be moved a large amount is the lower girdle/halve% in an RB design, they can be moved from very short(oec) to very long(splintery looking RB).
In a step cut by tradition and looks the crown steps should be the same width visually from the top to each other and the side to each other.
The pavilion steps can and do vary all up and down the pavilion to each other.
The typical hiding weight measure is to run the p1 facets a long way down the stone and have small p2 and p3 facets.
This often results in p3 issues because the p3 angle is not optimal.
A shallow crown is more tolerant of steep pavilion angels(making the p1 long).

This is actually the key to a princess cut, very steep pavilion with a very shallow crown.
It works with both a step or brilliant cut pavilions but the results are not the same as far as the overall cut quality of the stone. They are expected to do different things with light.

Thank you, @Karl_K! I’m certainly glad I followed, and didn’t contribute useless info. It certainly made sense, when I followed your posts, but I wanted to make certain I was interpreting it all, correctly.
It’s true that numbers mean nothing until you have examined the stone, itself, either with multi-media visual aids, or with the naked eye. My EC would never pass PS standards on paper; the cert makes her sound horrible. To see her perform, and IRL, it’s difficult to believe she received such poor grades. DH & I don’t complain; this diamond was literally a steal! Had it received the grades most people, including my jeweler, believe it should have received, it would have most definitely fallen out of range of our set budget.
It’s difficult to stress enough the importance of close examination of any step cut one considers purchasing, whether it be an in person purchase, or online. Technology affords consumers the opportunity to examine diamonds in a way that allows someone to make an informed decision. This is second best to in-person examination. It’s vital to take advantage of this technology to really know what you’re looking at, and what you may be buying.
Please, OP, take advantage of the visual aids, and afford yourself the opportunity to prove a cert wrong...like we did.

 

[chl]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I could never consider a stone that has a larger table than its depth. It just doesn’t seem geometrically reasonable, and throws all sorts of red flags!
We need photos of the actual diamond. Videos! ASET images! Otherwise, we’re not going to get anywhere!

Thanks Matthews. Can you please explain why you would never consider a stone that has a larger table than depth? What kind of red flags would does this throw.

I have images not videos on this.

Please see attached: (not sure if it is clear enough)

 

[chl]

+1 to this - although I am an inexperienced noob really, I only ever go by the pictures/videos for stepcuts rather than what the report says!

I think @Rockdiamond would be proud of me


Just to check, what is the budget we have to shop with here?

What are the desired clarity/colour/size (mm or carats) criteria?

If I'm spending other people's money, I need to know how crazy we can get lol

Thank you for your responses! To answer your questions:

Budget: 200k - 300k
Desired clarity: VS2 and higher
Desired color: D-F, G, H
Carats: 5+ as long as the mm seems bigger than the carat, I'm all game.

I originally started with wanting a Graff (3.5 carat +) but not 4 carat. I am open to HW as well. However, I know given my 1) budget 2) Desired brand 3) carat size, the budget is not enough so Im open in looking at secondary markets .

Thank you! Feel free to add comments!

 

[Matthews1127]

Thanks Matthews. Can you please explain why you would never consider a stone that has a larger table than depth? What kind of red flags would does this throw.

I have images not videos on this.

Please see attached: (not sure if it is clear enough)

Table % to depth % ratio should not equal deep or shallow. Those percentages should compliment each other for optimal performance, and brightness. Pavilion placement & angle are vital to the performance & brightness of an EC. If the diamond is cut shallow or deep, that creates issues with the cut, hence, issues with the performance of the stone.

 

[Matthews1127]

Thank you for your responses! To answer your questions:

Budget: 200k - 300k
Desired clarity: VS2 and higher
Desired color: D-F, G, H
Carats: 5+ as long as the mm seems bigger than the carat, I'm all game.

I originally started with wanting a Graff (3.5 carat +) but not 4 carat. I am open to HW as well. However, I know given my 1) budget 2) Desired brand 3) carat size, the budget is not enough so Im open in looking at secondary markets .

Thank you! Feel free to add comments!

What is your L x W Ratio sweet spot?

 

[chl]

What is your L x W Ratio sweet spot?

I don't know if you are able to tell from the attached two images but this would be a nice EC ratio

 

[Matthews1127]

I don't know if you are able to tell from the attached two images but this would be a nice EC ratio

These APPEAR between 1.30-1.40:1 l x w ratio. The first looks more rectangular than the second, but both are in the “chubby” category. Very popular, these days.
My sweet spot is between 1.40-1.55:1.

 

[OoohShiny]

Just to ask the question, are you a fan of the modern EC look or would you consider a 'vintage' EC (with a culet)?

I'm just thinking that if you have that sort of budget, a custom cut by Yoram could be absolutely stunning...

You could go 'vintage': http://gemconcepts.net/old-emerald-cut-diamond/
Or you could even go 'ultra-modern': http://gemconcepts.net/octavia-diamond/

 

[Matthews1127]

Just to ask the question, are you a fan of the modern EC look or would you consider a 'vintage' EC (with a culet)?

I'm just thinking that if you have that sort of budget, a custom cut by Yoram could be absolutely stunning...

You could go 'vintage': http://gemconcepts.net/old-emerald-cut-diamond/
Or you could even go 'ultra-modern': http://gemconcepts.net/octavia-diamond/

This crossed my mind, as well!
I was also thinking that perhaps you should reach out to BGD & see if they have been able to find rough to cut one of their signature/Blue EC’s in the size you’re looking for!
@diamondseeker2006, do you know if BGD has achieved this cut at this size, yet?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the 1.3-1.4:1 ratio is my favorite, as well! And like Karl, I also like tables under 66. High crowns and smaller tables are incredibly beautiful on step cut stones. I have an antique asscher and the high crown and small table just make the stone.



Matthews, I wouldn't consider or recommend custom cut for a large and important diamond. There is too much risk for the vendor and the customer. I also don't think BGs emerald cuts are cut as pretty as those the OP posted as examples. His are more elongated and modern looking.

I think you would love older cuts if you like that ratio, chl. A vendor who often has fine quality, large emerald cuts is Anup Jogani in Beverly Hills. https://www.joganibh.com

His site isn't great, but I enjoy seeing his diamonds on Instagram (joganibh). I'd call him and see what he has.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'll tell you, if you desire a branded ring and diamond, second hand is the way to go. I am sure all of these prices are probably negotiable.

Harry Winston at 5 cts:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...ond-three-stone-engagement-ring/id-j_3906141/

HW at 6 cts

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...d-cut-diamond-platinum-ring-gia/id-j_3613003/



Others:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rings/engagement-rings/stone/diamond/?currency=usd&price=[143779 TO 4450000]&stone-cut=emerald

Oh, and never buy through that site. There are ways to figure out who the jeweler is and contact them directly because that site takes a large percentage of the price. So going through the jeweler who has the item should allow for a greater discount.

The 6 ct ring is from J Birnbach in NY, but they have a lot of nice rings:

https://www.1stdibs.com/dealers/j-birnbach/shop/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't like this setting, but I do like the center stone at 5 cts. But it is from Hancocks in the UK, which might be complicated.

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...erald-cut-diamond-platinum-ring/id-j_4184763/

Pretty stone, but I color:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...diamond-set-platinum-trapezoids/id-j_1954983/

Way too expensive, but wow, this is fabulous!

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...nd-sapphire-ring-raymond-c-yard/id-j_1070612/

 

[OoohShiny]

Few from JA:

Chunky facets but perhaps has that 'dark band' across the central facets when head-on (that I'm not keen on but I'm sure others are ok with! lol)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/6.02-carat-e-color-vs1-clarity-sku-4727636

Thinner faceting but some leakage when it gets to extreme angles:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/6.09-carat-g-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-782268

Perhaps lacking a bit of brightness/contrast when head-on but performs well and is bright across the stone from all other angles:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.70-carat-g-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-4740455

Same comments apply to this one:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.49-carat-f-color-vs1-clarity-sku-4273184

I like the faceting and performance of this one but the inclusion is quite visible, despite being VS1 (probably because larger stones = larger inclusions permitted within each grading category):
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.12-carat-h-color-vs1-clarity-sku-4665323

I like this one a lot - I'm not sure why it's so cheap! Perhaps the inclusion(s) is/are noticeable in real life?
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.11-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-sku-5015525

This also looks great to my eyes, but is an H:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.09-carat-h-color-vs1-clarity-sku-5037597

This is the wrong ratio and also an H, but does perform well (if perhaps a bit too dominated by the central band to my eyes):
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.08-carat-h-color-if-clarity-sku-4674220

Nice faceting and performance but I think the inclusions are too noticeable:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.06-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-sku-5037654

D VVS and performs well, but central band is quite dominant to my eyes (but that might just be me ):
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.05-carat-d-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-3619700

Active facets across the stone and I like the thinner faceting myself. Perhaps a tiny bit 'central band-y' but I think it works!:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.01-carat-e-color-vs1-clarity-sku-3155961

Likely too skinny, plus central band could be dominant:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.01-carat-e-color-vs1-clarity-sku-5015662

Chunky faceting, 5ct, D, IF, under $300k... perhaps might have too much contrast/obstruction when head-on, though:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.00-carat-d-color-if-clarity-sku-4656553

I find this quite an interesting stone - seems to look 'different', like it's really working those virtual facets? It also doesn't really have any obstruction/contrast head-on but still manages to have bright facets that create contrast (rather than all the facets being much the same, which creates a washed-out grey centre). It does perhaps leak at the extreme angles, but overall I think this would be one I would want to look at to assess real life performance! It's also $100k cheaper than the D IF... lol
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/5.00-carat-e-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-4664749

 

[Matthews1127]

This is beautiful, @OoohShiny!

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...t/5.00-carat-e-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-4664749

I agree with @diamondseeker2006; as much as I love Yoram’s work, cutting a diamond from exact specs is very difficult, and there is no guarantee something will not turn out right (ie: color, clarity, or even size). That’s a HUGE liability.
OP, I think following the trail that DS2006 has laid for you is also wise. If any of the JA’s posted, or any of the other listings don’t pan, reach out to the above mentioned vendors for some help!

 

[chl]

I don't like this setting, but I do like the center stone at 5 cts. But it is from Hancocks in the UK, which might be complicated.

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...erald-cut-diamond-platinum-ring/id-j_4184763/

Pretty stone, but I color:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...diamond-set-platinum-trapezoids/id-j_1954983/

Way too expensive, but wow, this is fabulous!

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...nd-sapphire-ring-raymond-c-yard/id-j_1070612/

Thank you!! I have a question for all of you:
How does I color EC pan out..? Is it highly not recommended?
For all of you, the first spec of the EC was the D VS1 6.36 with not so good cutting according to fellow posters and the 2nd spec is I VS2 8.13 with much better cutting and spec but lower color grade...


I VS2 8.13 carats or D VS1 6.36 carats...

I know nothing about Hancocks. Do you? Would love to know your thoughts on it.
I agree, the Raymond Yard is stunning....I've seen his works on Christies auction. If I can track down the seller, I would seriously consider .....

 

[chl]

I'll tell you, if you desire a branded ring and diamond, second hand is the way to go. I am sure all of these prices are probably negotiable.

Harry Winston at 5 cts:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...ond-three-stone-engagement-ring/id-j_3906141/

HW at 6 cts

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...d-cut-diamond-platinum-ring-gia/id-j_3613003/



Others:

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rings/engagement-rings/stone/diamond/?currency=usd&price=[143779 TO 4450000]&stone-cut=emerald

Oh, and never buy through that site. There are ways to figure out who the jeweler is and contact them directly because that site takes a large percentage of the price. So going through the jeweler who has the item should allow for a greater discount.

The 6 ct ring is from J Birnbach in NY, but they have a lot of nice rings:

https://www.1stdibs.com/dealers/j-birnbach/shop/

the second link, the HW 6 carat is actually the spec I posted on here.

I agree with the other poster here, I would not buy primary for branded diamonds....and if I do, it would be through 2ndary market. The only primary I would buy would be from creatives such as JAR or big fashion houses that do special designs.

 

[OoohShiny]

Simply because it meets all the specs except being an EC (and nothing to do with the fact I WANT it lol), I thought I'd re-post this one

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/5.02-carat-e-color-if-clarity-sku-3080284

 

[chl]

Made a comparison chart.....
Thoughts, comments all welcome!

 

[chl]

if anyone is in London or nyc, I would love for you to check it out in person for me ><" haha

 

[chl]

Simply because it meets all the specs except being an EC (and nothing to do with the fact I WANT it lol), I thought I'd re-post this one

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/5.02-carat-e-color-if-clarity-sku-3080284

beautiful! But it's too much of an asscher cut which I'm not a fan of. I prefer elongated cushion, ovals, emeralds (basically elongated cut and shapes)

the stats and specs seem to be SPOT ON!!!

 

[chl]

Simply because it meets all the specs except being an EC (and nothing to do with the fact I WANT it lol), I thought I'd re-post this one

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/5.02-carat-e-color-if-clarity-sku-3080284

I would love to hear what about this spec that makes it ideal?
is it safe to apply assécher specs to EC specs?

From my new knowledge from here,
Girdle: thick so not prone to chipping
Depth larger than table, so that is good proportion- for flash and sparks- good cutting
Cutlet: No
E color !
IF Clarity
Excellent in both Symm and Polish - good cutting
No Fluorescence

Is it true assécher cuts will always look smaller as the measurements are smaller.

quite tempted.

 

[Matthews1127]

I would love to hear what about this spec that makes it ideal?
is it safe to apply assécher specs to EC specs?

From my new knowledge from here,
Girdle: thick so not prone to chipping
Depth larger than table, so that is good proportion- for flash and sparks- good cutting
Cutlet: No
E color !
IF Clarity
Excellent in both Symm and Polish - good cutting
No Fluorescence

Is it true assécher cuts will always look smaller as the measurements are smaller.

quite tempted.

@Karl_K,
Are you able to address the question re: Asscher face up size? I know I had seen you mention it in another post, comparing the face up size of an Asscher to that of a Princess Cut.

 

[OoohShiny]

if anyone is in London or nyc, I would love for you to check it out in person for me ><" haha

There are quite a few of us in the UK who would be happy to assist a purchase of a 5ct+ rock, I'm sure!

 

[OoohShiny]

I would love to hear what about this spec that makes it ideal?
is it safe to apply assécher specs to EC specs?

From my new knowledge from here,
Girdle: thick so not prone to chipping
Depth larger than table, so that is good proportion- for flash and sparks- good cutting
Cutlet: No
E color !
IF Clarity
Excellent in both Symm and Polish - good cutting
No Fluorescence

Is it true assécher cuts will always look smaller as the measurements are smaller.

quite tempted.

I have to admit that, personally speaking, I just don't look at the actual numerical specs of stepcuts!

Unlike Rounds (of all flavours), for which we have ASETscope and IdealScope and HCA tools to use to assess, and there are known 'best combinations' of crown angles and pavilion angles and table sizes which ensure the highest light performance / miminal leakage / good contrast (hence the 'SuperIdeals' range of cuts and the also the various 'flavours' of new and genuinely vintage cuts), the facets and angles of ECs and Asschers seem to have a lot more variability.

This means that one can view 'chunky' faceting, 'skinny' faceting, 'antique' style, 'modern' style, 3-step/4-step/5-step crowns, 3-step/4-step/5-step pavilions, clipped corners / squared-off corners, skinny windmills / fat windmills / no windmills (carré-cut style), straight pavilions / 'portly' pavilions, no culet / open culet, defective and spot-on Pavilion 3 facets, 'hall of mirrors' effect (if you're lucky!), slow-moving vs fast-moving flashes...

While Rounds can also have different 'flavours' in terms of faceting (chunky vintage-look producing lots of fire Vs skinny Solasfera or Eightstar producing lots of splintery white-light scintillation), the angles still have to be in certain ranges to work well, as mentioned.

Stepcuts, however, seem to be a lot more difficult to get 'right' - I don't think they necessarily have more angles and facets (so more work to get them all interacting successfully with each other), but to me, they are more 'artisinal', meaning the cutters can tweak the various faceting angles to produce different looks.

That is why I don't believe there is necessarily one set range of numerical values to stick with for stepcuts, in terms of angles / table sizes / etc. - there is just too much variation and too many options to consider, and even when the angles etc. look like they'll be complementary to each other, sometimes a stone just looks, well, a bit crap...

I therefore just look for stones that perform really well to my eyes and pretty much ignore all the actual numerical details, other than carat and size measurements because they are usually key criteria in a search.

Is this approach incorrect? I don't know - I believe that @Rockdiamond would approve, as he has previously expressed many times his frustration with 'numerical' grading systems that take no account of beauty but (IIRC) @oldminer has posted a table showing graded ranges of angles etc., so perhaps I am wrong in my approach?

I would have to let others comment on my success or failure - I can only recommend what I think looks good and performs really well in the videos!

Of course, if my approach is leading people astray / completely wrong / recommending terrible stones, someone please do tell me!!


Anyway, WRT that 5ct asscher, I just find that it looks incredible in the video - lots of coloured fire (which seems rare for stepcuts), lots of white light flashes across the stone from edge to edge but without being 'all-on' or 'all-off' at the same time, what looks like that 'hall of mirrors' effect (where it looks like the stone goes down forever in the centre when head-on and a few degrees each side ), and pleasing contrast/obstruction patterns (to my eye).

Compare it to the other options available on James Allen and other sites, and see if you agree that it looks different and seems to have completely different performance to most other stones!

 

[Matthews1127]

I have to admit that, personally speaking, I just don't look at the actual numerical specs of stepcuts!

Unlike Rounds (of all flavours), for which we have ASETscope and IdealScope and HCA tools to use to assess, and there are known 'best combinations' of crown angles and pavilion angles and table sizes which ensure the highest light performance / miminal leakage / good contrast (hence the 'SuperIdeals' range of cuts and the also the various 'flavours' of new and genuinely vintage cuts), the facets and angles of ECs and Asschers seem to have a lot more variability.

This means that one can view 'chunky' faceting, 'skinny' faceting, 'antique' style, 'modern' style, 3-step/4-step/5-step crowns, 3-step/4-step/5-step pavilions, clipped corners / squared-off corners, skinny windmills / fat windmills / no windmills (carré-cut style), straight pavilions / 'portly' pavilions, no culet / open culet, defective and spot-on Pavilion 3 facets, 'hall of mirrors' effect (if you're lucky!), slow-moving vs fast-moving flashes...

While Rounds can also have different 'flavours' in terms of faceting (chunky vintage-look producing lots of fire Vs skinny Solasfera or Eightstar producing lots of splintery white-light scintillation), the angles still have to be in certain ranges to work well, as mentioned.

Stepcuts, however, seem to be a lot more difficult to get 'right' - I don't think they necessarily have more angles and facets (so more work to get them all interacting successfully with each other), but to me, they are more 'artisinal', meaning the cutters can tweak the various faceting angles to produce different looks.

That is why I don't believe there is necessarily one set range of numerical values to stick with for stepcuts, in terms of angles / table sizes / etc. - there is just too much variation and too many options to consider, and even when the angles etc. look like they'll be complementary to each other, sometimes a stone just looks, well, a bit crap...

I therefore just look for stones that perform really well to my eyes and pretty much ignore all the actual numerical details, other than carat and size measurements because they are usually key criteria in a search.

Is this approach incorrect? I don't know - I believe that @Rockdiamond would approve, as he has previously expressed many times his frustration with 'numerical' grading systems that take no account of beauty but (IIRC) @oldminer has posted a table showing graded ranges of angles etc., so perhaps I am wrong in my approach?

I would have to let others comment on my success or failure - I can only recommend what I think looks good and performs really well in the videos!

Of course, if my approach is leading people astray / completely wrong / recommending terrible stones, someone please do tell me!!


Anyway, WRT that 5ct asscher, I just find that it looks incredible in the video - lots of coloured fire, lots of white light flashes across the stone from edge to edge but without being 'all-on' or 'all-off' at the same time, what looks like that 'hall of mirrors' effect (where it looks like the stone goes down forever in the centre when head-on and a few degrees each side ), and pleasing contrast/obstruction patterns (to my eye).

Compare it to the other options available on James Allen and other sites, and see if you agree that it looks different and seems to have completely different performance to most other stones!

While there are “recommended” specs of all diamonds, round and fancy, fancy cuts require a lot more optic and visual aid help; always best to examine with one’s naked eye in different light environments for the “real” test.
Everything you stated above is correct: there simply is just too much variation, and some fancies that are amazing on paper are total crap, and others that are crap on paper are amazing, IRL.

 

[Karl_K]

I would love to hear what about this spec that makes it ideal?
is it safe to apply assécher specs to EC specs?

From my new knowledge from here,
Girdle: thick so not prone to chipping Med is ok
Depth larger than table, so that is good proportion- for flash and sparks- good cutting Not so for example a table of 65 and a depth of 62 could be awesome. While it can eliminate some with poor potentual it can also eliminate some awesome stones.
Cutlet: No For a modern stones yea none.
E color ! Color has next to nothing to do with visible brightness in colorless and near colorless ranges.
IF Clarity Clarity until it becomes and issue does not determine brightness. Where it becomes and issue can be a bit tricky because it can vary. These days most vs1 GIA graded should be fine with some lower graded being fine.
Excellent in both Symm and Polish - Some awesome ECs are VG/VG and even sometimes lower. I generally dont go below vg/vg unless it is being vetted by a professional in person pre-sale.
No Fluorescence

Is it true assécher cuts will always look smaller as the measurements are smaller.
Check out the mm size of princess cuts of the same weight and the asscher will have a much greater 3d presence for the same mm measurement. They are measured the same way.

quite tempted.

 

[Blingalingaling]

FWIW, my new 6.59 ct. EC technically falls in the "too shallow" category, yet the stone is super-bright, sparkly-with colorful fire, has the "hall of mirrors" effect and is one of the most beautiful EC's I've ever seen, including the ones I've seen in Graff. It's L-color and it doesn't even have the super-high crown that people rave about, yet I wouldn't trade it!
I've been told, I've read it here and I believe it, that you can't judge a fancy from the numbers because they don't fully predict how the stone will perform. What's important with EC's in terms of numbers are the length, width and symmetry. For the rest, you must let your eyes be the judge because otherwise, you might settle for a stone that's less than exciting IRL or pass on something great because of it's stats on a piece of paper!