Emerald Opinion....

[emeraldseeker]

I have been annoynig Valeria with this for a few days, just wondering what everyone else thinks. The emerald cut i have decided on after a month is...

1.40 carats
7.07 x 5.50 x 3.79 (1.29 Ratio)
Color - D
Clarity - VS1
Table - 62.9%
Depth - 68.9%
Crown - 11.3%
Pavall - 53.6%
Girdle - Sligthly Thick
Polish - VG
Symmetry - VG
Flor - None
Beautiful light return when i saw it.

8000 ...

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK...going to set it in plat. with 12-15 pt baugettes ???

 

[Giangi]

Looks amazing! Grab it now that you can! Great color, clarity, finish and cutting proportions on this one!

 

[Hest88]

That's pretty nice. Knowing how difficult it is to get an EC with those proportions, I'd snatch it up!

 

[Apache]

This afternoon a gemstone appraiser told me that the Emerald Cut Diamond is at all time low. I found the reply "grab it" very interesting. I have a 3.4, G, VVS1 with baguettes on the side and something that looks like a trillion type design. Platinum Wire. And, then I was told DeBeers is raising prices on large diamonds. Anyone with expertise on these issues? Please advise.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 8:15:56 PM Apache wrote:

This afternoon a gemstone appraiser told me that the Emerald Cut Diamond is at all time low. I found the reply 'grab it' very interesting. I have a 3.4, G, VVS1 with baguettes on the side and something that looks like a trillion type design. Platinum Wire. And, then I was told DeBeers is raising prices on large diamonds. Anyone with expertise on these issues? Please advise.----------------

ECs are, on average, the lowest priced per carat. At least among all diamonds listed on PS they are. It woudl take more data than this to get a 'trend'... but given where they are now, I the prices could not have been rising for this cut (taking shape into account, all things equal)!

Whatever happens with the prices for rough, it would take a long time to trickle down to retail (and the same bit you mention has been commented on here previously and made news already).

The stone listed here is a very fine cut - I am not sure simmilar pieces woudl ever be a bargain compared to the average EC price (whatever that means).


I am not sure what the question is...

 

[Apache]

You answered the questions. Thank you.

 

[Apache]

As you may have surmised, I know zilch about gems. A week ago I paid $150 for an appraisal. I believe my ring is flawless and 3.5 thus I questioned the "G" rating and 3.40 vol. The appraiser stated the diamond could be flawless and could be 3.5 but he would need to view the diamond off the setting. He also mentioned he is conservative in his appraisals and there is a 10% allowance (whatever that means). The gemologist is an Accredited Master Gemologist and Appraiser FSA?. I am concerned that the option of apprasing the diamond "off" the setting was not presented until today. The ring was purchased 25 years ago and at the time, I recall a 3.5 and flawless rating. Is it possible the appraiser had an off day or was in a rush? Should I seek another appraiser? Logically, a "flawless" rating and a D color rating would be more attractive to a buyer and it would also be important information for replacement purposes (insurance). Thank you.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 9:12:28 PM Apache wrote:
Logically, a 'flawless' rating and a D color rating would be more attractive to a buyer and it would also be important information for replacement purposes (insurance). ----------------

Was the ring certified or handed down as D-IF ?

Actually, I totally understand why the appraiser did not regrade the stone IF (of FL): it would take the concurent opinions of more than one grader to get such a clarity grade on a GIA cert. Same for D color. Color grading is done with the stones face-down and the stone has to be out of setting for clarity grading. The position of the stone and grading conditions are all object of strict standardization - so it is not acceptable to give definitive grades (if understood as equivalent to what one of the major labs would say, otherwise those letters and numbers are meaningless) with the stone set.

In all honesty, a top stone like that would indeed need the word of approval of a lab on it's grades. To make the story short - this one needs a trip to GIA !

You could ask the same appraiser a different question than "what the grades are" - namely: "do you think this has good chances to get G-IF or whatever from GIA?". This is something he could tell you. Giving top grades under his signature is another matter - actually his attitude is quite correct. Some would not give calrity grades higher than VS1 without a lab's endorsement....

Hope this heps.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 9:12:28 PM Apache wrote:



Logically, a 'flawless' rating and a D color rating would be more attractive to a buyer and it would also be important information for replacement purposes (insurance).

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

This is funny! But you are entirely right!

Insurance - obviously. And buyers too: emeralseeker here just got a D-VS1 instead of a E-VVS2. Not that the two sets of grades would not be completely impossible to tell apart without the famous "grading conditions", but "D" is top...

Funny what these grades do to people... very interesting research area, btw

 

[ShopDiva]

Wow that sounds good! Where did you find such a great Gem? I am also looking to get an emerald cut for my setting, ours sound similar. I have a plat. scott kay setting with 12 bag.

 

[Apache]

Thank you again. And, yes, he did mention I could send the ring to "the" lab and have them certify quality, etc. The appraiser stated a need to look at the stone without the setting to look for flaws and color. If that is the case, why did I waste time and money on the original appraisal. I asked for an appraisal on the present true value of the ring. I also asked that the appraisal include all factors that determine replacement value In other words, if I lose the ring or it is stolen tomorrow, I must have an appraisal certifying the properties of the present stones. Otherwise, I am not insured to the proper value and/or I leave money on the table if I chose to sell said diamond.

When I asked about the "D" versus "G" as well as "flawless" he simply said "did you tell them it is a VVS1"? I said yes, however, they tell me a "G" has color and you verbally indicated the diamond was devoid of color. He would only state "the prongs are in the way" and I would need to look at the diamond devoid of the setting.

Although some find my questions "funny" the reality is "proving" value to an insurance company or "buyer". I certainly expect an appraisal to indicate its actual replacement value and I definitely want to know its true properties for sale purposes.

I paid for a true appraisal of my diamond by a recognized expert, yet, I now learn I need an appraisal from a specific lab in order to determine it's true value. Then, why did I waste money paying an appraiser if his appraisal does not reflect the true value If the labs appraisal is the only accepted standard in the industry why not just say so. Of course, the public may not be pleased to learn they must wait 4-6 weeks for the one and only lab to provide a true appraisal which could lead to legislation de-monopolizing the industry.

I don't think spending $150 on an inaccurate appraisal is funny. And, I don't believe the appraiser is at fault nor meant to mislead. It's the principle of the issue and it's also a money issue. Simply stated, I either pay for another appraisal or I will be underinsured. Or, if I sell the ring, I again must pay for an appraisal from a specific lab or I leave thousands of dollars on the table. Of coure, the other option is to pay 5 people for 5 appraisals and compare the evaluations. Nope, that won't work. None will agree to certify a "D" color or a "flawless" rating, although they may all feel the gem does meet the established criteria.

Monopoly is defined as an exclusive trading privilege; assumption of anything to the exclusion of others.

Thank you for enlightening me on the game.