Emerald cut

[robsfny]

Which one do you like better? Also, for emerald cut, is there something I should pay more attention to? I''ve been looking for diamonds and reading alot of topics on these forums and my head is spinning. I had no idea how in depth diamond shopping can be. Thank you for your time.


Report: GIA
. Shape: Emerald
. Carat: 1.63
. Depth %: 60.9
. Table %: 62
. Girdle: M-STK
. Measurements: 8.21-6.01X3.66
. Polish: Very Good
. Symmetry: Very Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: Faint



. Shape: Emerald
. Carat: 1.44
. Depth %: 63.5
. Table %: 61
. Girdle: M-TK
. Measurements: 7.60-5.65X3.59
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Very Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None


Report: GIA
. Shape: Emerald
. Carat: 1.58
. Depth %: 63.7
. Table %: 63
. Girdle: STK-TK
. Measurements: 7.29-6.30X4.01
. Polish: Very Good
. Symmetry: Very Good
. Culet: Very Small
. Fluorescence: None

 

[strmrdr]

so far so good.
get pictures is the next step, ASET is prefered.

 

[robsfny]

Here is another one.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Emerald-Diamond-1174126.asp

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome!

Can't judge an EC by the numbers, as Strm says, detailed pics and ASET are needed, you may be able to get an Idealscope image as JA do not provide ASET images for the last diamond. It appears to be more of a square in the pic which is available.

What are the colours and clarities of the first three diamonds?

 

[robsfny]

The 1.63 is H vs1 and the the 1.58 is G vs1 (the 1.44 is no longer available on whiteflash). How do I get aset images? Im sorry im new at this and dont understand alot of this stuff. I really appreciate the help.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/28/2008 4:17:25 AM
Author: robsfny
The 1.63 is H vs1 and the the 1.58 is G vs1 (the 1.44 is no longer available on whiteflash). How do I get aset images? Im sorry im new at this and dont understand alot of this stuff. I really appreciate the help.

Have a vendor call them in for pictures.
GOG does video, diamxray(IS type image) and gem files, WF does aset and IS.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/28/2008 3:50:45 AM
Author: robsfny
Here is another one.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Emerald-Diamond-1174126.asp

woofer

 

[robsfny]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=1153057

I like this one. My girlfriend looked at it and liked it too. It only has a regular picture though. If I contact this site, do they have aset images? Thanks again.

 

[robsfny]

I called whiteflash and they are sending me pics of the diamond. So i should have them by friday.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/28/2008 3:23:36 PM
Author: robsfny
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=1153057

I like this one. My girlfriend looked at it and liked it too. It only has a regular picture though. If I contact this site, do they have aset images? Thanks again.

another woofer has a bad p3 angle (bottom set of facets)

 

[robsfny]

http://www.bluenile.com/emerald-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-e-color-vs1-clarity_LD01345102?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0

http://www.bluenile.com/emerald-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-g-color-vs2-clarity_LD01181279?div_coll=collReport&div_exp=expReport&cert_icon=gia_zoom#grading_reportonclick=

Number wise, how do these look? Is there any way for bluenile to get pictures?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/29/2008 1:37:11 AM
Author: robsfny
http://www.bluenile.com/emerald-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-e-color-vs1-clarity_LD01345102?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0

http://www.bluenile.com/emerald-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-g-color-vs2-clarity_LD01181279?div_coll=collReport&div_exp=expReport&cert_icon=gia_zoom#grading_reportonclick=

Number wise, how do these look? Is there any way for bluenile to get pictures?

numbers look OK, the best bet is to give one of the full service vendors the info including the gia report number and see if they can get them in for pictures,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/28/2008 9:46:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/28/2008 3:23:36 PM
Author: robsfny
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=1153057

I like this one. My girlfriend looked at it and liked it too. It only has a regular picture though. If I contact this site, do they have aset images? Thanks again.

another woofer has a bad p3 angle (bottom set of facets)

I cannot believe this.

Here we have what looks like a perfectly acceptable emerald cut, probably even a very nice one, and you are calling it a woofer?

First, why this choice of words. Could you at least have some respect for the craftsmen creating this beauty?

Second, if you do not like this very tiny aspect of that diamond, could you at least indicate only that, and put it into perspective?

My point of view to the OP: that stone is perfectly acceptable for an emerald cut, and if you like it, you should not hesitate.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/29/2008 10:57:42 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

First, why this choice of words. Could you at least have some respect for the craftsmen creating this beauty?

I have no respect for cutters who mess up p3 angles.
Its the mortal sin of step cuts and the result of greed.
Funny that you brought this up as I have been using that term for oh almost 5 years now.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/29/2008 11:06:40 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/29/2008 10:57:42 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

First, why this choice of words. Could you at least have some respect for the craftsmen creating this beauty?

I have no respect for cutters who mess up p3 angles.
Its the mortal sin of step cuts and the result of greed.
Funny that you brought this up as I have been using that term for oh almost 5 years now.

Once again you are stating your opinions as facts. It may be also a function of the rough or any one of many other factors other than greed. It may not even be visible to the eye. It would make more sense in my opinion for our supplicant to call WF and ask them to look at the stone. They have an excellent reputation for being honest about the appearance of their stones.

You are showing a disturbing lack of respect for the cutter of this stone, whether you like it or not, and to the vendor of the stone. Your opinions are valued here, it is wrong of you to keep stating them as facts. It is unbecomming of you not to speak your opinions in a respectful manner that would carry just as much weight as your blatant attacks.

Wink

 

[Pandora II]

Can someone explain exactly what is ''off'' on that diamond?

I can''t see anything that would put me off it, it looks really nice. What ''should'' it look like if it was technically ''perfect''?

 

[robsfny]

I called whiteflash. They are getting that diamond on friday and will have the images for me. I will post them when I get them. Thanks to everybody for their help.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/29/2008 2:08:34 PM
Author: Pandora II
Can someone explain exactly what is ''off'' on that diamond?

I can''t see anything that would put me off it, it looks really nice. What ''should'' it look like if it was technically ''perfect''?

Let me attempt to try and answer:

It seems Storm believed the bottom pavillion angles on the 2 sides of the keel / culet on that stone are below 24.5 degrees which is the critical angle for diamond and resuls in a window which would allow you to ''see out the back'' of this diamond.
In such a case it is possible the stone would have a dar spot in the center rather like a big open culet in an old cut - you see a black sopt or your finger in the center of the stone.

Now I am not familiar enough with the lighting (maybe storm is?) to say for sure this is leakage in the center - it might also be a secnodary redirection of light.

Wink and others are a little upset about Storm''s woofer call without explanation justification and the subsequent definitve statements.

From my opinion with the info available if this stone does have angles below the critical angle then if the stone was set down the finger neither eye would neccessariy be likely to see the leakage because each eye has a different view angle and if either of our 2 eyes sees a flash, then even if the other one sees the dull spot, then the flash is what registers in our minds eye. That is how our vision system works. Sergey demonstrated this with high tech gaming LCD glasses at the first diamond cut conference in 2004.

However as wink says, the more polite approach would be to request an ASET image, or ask a trusted vendor to give an opinion (when you ask a vendor to do this, if you do not have a relationship already established, you can always ask like this "if i send this stone to an independant appraiser are they likely to confirm the stone has a central leakage area in the bottom facets?").

In the case of this particular stone I think any buyers should follow that course. Unless of course Storm is able to clarify that he is very familiar with this vendors lighting and this is clearly very bad leakage such as the bottom facets were say well below 20 degrees.

 

[JulieN]

Wow, Garry, you are so articulate today.

Half of the time, I can''t understand your Aussie-speak.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/29/2008 3:55:22 PM
Author: JulieN
Wow, Garry, you are so articulate today.

Half of the time, I can''t understand your Aussie-speak.

Drat, have to kill you now!

 

[KCCutie]

I''m learning so much from this thread!

Can someone please point me in the right direction for some basic stats to look for in an EC? Are they about the same as an asscher? Just want to know kinda what range of numbers should be worth calling in a stone as I know all step cuts are in the "must see" category.

 

[kcgunesq]

One source is here The problem is that many EC''s just don''t seem to adhere to the fixed number. GOG has several ECs that, to me at least, appear to be very nice, at least from a light performance standpoint. Yet the tables are frequently well over 70% and depths are often in the high 60s. Maybe I''m just reading their charts incorrectly, but if not, then it appears that perhaps even the majority of GOG''s ECs don''t adhere to the charts. See for example this diamond, which I think would score a 3A (table and depth being 3B, but crown scoring either 1A or 1B depending on whether the GOG certificate of the facetware number is more accurate.

I hope someone will correct me if I am leading you astray.

 

[JulieN]

GOG''s tables are a glitch! Check the reports and scans!

 

[Pandora II]

Thanks Garry, that was very helpful!

 

[kcgunesq]

Date: 5/29/2008 6:40:54 PM
Author: JulieN
GOG''s tables are a glitch! Check the reports and scans!

To a point I suspect you are correct. However, on the diamond above, while the summary on the right side reports a table % of 86.14 (probably incorrect) the DiamaCalc shows the table as 74.10, OGI shows it as 74.2 and GIA facetware 73.6. Assuming any one of or any combination of any of the last three is correct, this would still put this diamond would score at best maybe a 2B and possibly as low as a 3B, correct? But overall, this diamond appears that it might have better light performance than the (old) AGA score would suggest. Agree? Or are pretty much all of GOG''s numbers completely wrong? I''d be surprised if thats the case, but I don''t have any stake in the answer being one way or the other.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/29/2008 11:06:40 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/29/2008 10:57:42 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

First, why this choice of words. Could you at least have some respect for the craftsmen creating this beauty?

I have no respect for cutters who mess up p3 angles.
Its the mortal sin of step cuts and the result of greed.
Funny that you brought this up as I have been using that term for oh almost 5 years now.

Hi Storm,

I can sense that you are upset, but let me explain the background of my post.

As you know, I am in Vegas for JCK right now. Yesterday morning, I had a breakfast-meeting with Peter Yantzer.

As we meet, he is sitting at his computer, checking out pricescope, and he points this particular thread out to me.

Now, you have to understand that I never read threads here, when the subject is on emerald-cuts, simply because we do not cut these, and as such, I consider not having the extreme expertise in this, that most people expect from me in this forum.

So, here, Peter points out this thread (my first emerald-thread in years), and tells me that he cannot see or understand why you reject that particular stone. Looking at it, neither can I, and as a professional, it hurts me even personally to see that you use the word ''woofer''.

While Peter had to do something else for 10 minutes, I fired up my laptop, wrote my reply, and signed off. Just now, I signed on again, and see where the thread has gone, and I sense you being upset about all this.

I am sorry to see you upset, but I cannot retract any word of my post. In reality, I stand behind my words even stronger today.

The reality is that you are out of line in this particular thread. And if you say that you have done nothing differently than in many other emerald-threads in the past, you have probably been out of line in many of these threads too. It is not by repeating ''wrongs'' a hundred times, that they become ''rights'', my friend.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Hi Paul,
Your post didn''t upset me too much.
re: the term woofer.
Its just a term I have used since I first came to PS and ever since.
Great diamonds like your h&a rounds are kicken, stones with problems are woofers no matter the shape.
It would mean exactly the same thing if I just said I wouldn''t buy it.
Maybe I should stop using the term here but it is part of my personality as I use it when talking in person also and have for decades.
I will consider it.


If someone doesn''t know how diamonds react under the JA lighting in relation to IS images seeing where the leakage is might be hard that''s why I pointed it out.
As far as P3 angles go I started an article on them shortly after your post to explain it as it is too much for a reply to a thread.

As an aside I love the JA pictures they provide a ton of information in one image.
Some vendors images are more pretty but JA''s are the most informative of any one image to me.
Since JA only provides IS images on request I have compared every one of them I have came across to the diamond pictures so I can tell if asking them for an IS image is worth the consumers and JA''s time.
The images as long as stone is fairly level provide the level of information that if buying for myself I wouldn''t ask for an IS image and just go by the regular diamond picture.

storm
Who needs to get a ton of stuff done before his wifey2b gets here but keeps getting drawn back to PS.