Emerald Cut

[ccambre]

I am considering purchasing a 2.1-2.2 carat emerald cut, VS 2, I color. I have seen charts listing 65% as ideal for depth and table percentage. However, I have talked to jewelers who tell me that the 65/65 rule is BS. If that is the case, what dimensions should I be searching for? I''m getting very frustrated trying to learn the true "ideal" cut. Thanks.

 

[valeria101]

Well... there is no ideal set of proportions for ECs. If "ideal" for you means "most brilliant" than the respective guidelines should actually include a complete description of the stone - there are more details at play than table and depth.

There is a set of cut guidelines "by numbers" by AGA (LINK) - a bit more elaborate than 65/65, as you can see. But you may find that the safest way to get a brilliant emerald cut diamond would be to go for one already selected for it's optics, since "numbers" cannot completely account for light return in this cut as they get close to doing for rounds.

Just my 0.2, of course

 

[Rank Amateur]

To me, the thing that makes an emerald shape sing is the L:W and the light and dark interplay of the faceting. Light return and fire do not leap to the fore like they do in a round brilliant or even a princess.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/14/2004 4:45:03 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

To me, the thing that makes an emerald shape sing is [...] the light and dark interplay of the faceting.

----------------

Hm...

That would be "Scintillation" on a Brilliance Scope scale, with bright an dark areas (which may mean either light loss or total reflection right towards the viewer) at play. Indeed, ECs will achieve this play of light with some light loss - so a different standard applies than for rounds where light loss tends to be considered an absolute evil and baned from the picture.

Anyway, Pricescope contains allot of stories about diamodn optics to go along its' shopping advice, if you ever want to explore them