cherij0411
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 125
Emerald Cut Question Please help
- Thread starter cherij0411
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 15,808
Looks decent to me... no wide girdle and 70% depth is not too much. Given the L/w proportions, the length would make it look substantial on the finger.
The surface of this stone seem to be about 95% of what a 1.5 cts round is expected to be (at about 7.5mm diameter, 60%depth, thin-med girdle and ideal proportions taken into account) - but most rectangular pieces would be even smaller than a round of the same weight. However, you can probably obtain a larger-looking EC keeping the specs at AGA 1A limits (LINK) and depth between 60% and 65% - much like rounds would have it.
For example, THIS piece would hvae the same face-up surface (I take that as "size") as a round of the same weight (and the specs above) and there are others a tad larger too.
However, the stone you have selected seem to be just right to me - with no size "problem". I would worry more about how it actually looks (proportions, symmetry, brilliance...)
The surface of this stone seem to be about 95% of what a 1.5 cts round is expected to be (at about 7.5mm diameter, 60%depth, thin-med girdle and ideal proportions taken into account) - but most rectangular pieces would be even smaller than a round of the same weight. However, you can probably obtain a larger-looking EC keeping the specs at AGA 1A limits (LINK) and depth between 60% and 65% - much like rounds would have it.
For example, THIS piece would hvae the same face-up surface (I take that as "size") as a round of the same weight (and the specs above) and there are others a tad larger too.
However, the stone you have selected seem to be just right to me - with no size "problem". I would worry more about how it actually looks (proportions, symmetry, brilliance...)
- Status
300x240.png)