Emerald diamond table

[abbott]

What do you think of emerald diamond with the following stats:
M: 9.02 x 7.37 x 4.58
depth 62.1
table 71
gridle vt-thin
cutlet none
polish vg
sym g
clarity vs1
color F
What do you think of the table... and what would you pay for such a diamond??? Thanks!!! ABBOTT

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Hey abbott!

First...how many carats is this??

Second...the depth is great but the table is a little too large...may look glassy, but with fancy cuts (especially ECs) you really have to look at it yourself!

Third...the "VThin" girdle concerns me...greater risk of chipping...

Price?? Wouldn''t know where to begin with this one...sorry

 

[abbott]

I was concerned about the table and the girdle. The size of the diamond is 2.63c... What about the length width ratio??? Thanks again... ABBOTT

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Then length to width ratio is 1.22:1. This is strictly a preference thing. I prefer a 1.4 to 1.5 ratio, making it a little more rectangular. The 1.22 ratio is more square. There''s nothing wrong with this...it''s just not my taste...

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 5/2/2005 9:44:53 PM
Author:abbott
What do you think of emerald diamond with the following stats:
M: 9.02 x 7.37 x 4.58
depth 62.1
table 71
gridle vt-thin
cutlet none
polish vg
sym g
clarity vs1
color F
What do you think of the table... and what would you pay for such a diamond??? Thanks!!! ABBOTT

welllllll....i think you might have a very nice looking diamond here. yes the table is a bit large but the flip side is that the diamond looks a lot bigger. my table is 59 and people often guess the stone to be much smaller than it is. likewsie a vthing girdle is somehwat more risky but not tremendously so....if its set well and insured its a benefit..........you have less carat weight in the girdle. lastly 1.22 is the most popular shape right now--its like a matchbox. a squarish rectangle. i prefer thinner but its a very nice shape. the depth is ideal