Help deciding on emerald cut engagment rings

[brmarten]

Hoping to get some input on a few emerald cut ring options (driving myself crazy). All are roughly similarly priced but with some important distinctions. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

1) 2.20 E VS2
Excellent / Very Good
62% Table 66.2% Depth
1.43 L/W ratio
9.01x6.32x4.19
No Fluorescence

2) 2.44 D SI1
Very Good / Good
64% Table 59.7% Depth
1.29 L/W ratio
9.17x7.09x4.24
No Fluorescence

3) 2.62 E VS2
Very good / very good
59% Table / 63% Depth
1.45 L/W ratio
9.51*6.56*4.19
Medium Blue Fluorescence

 

[iota15]

If they were all similarly priced, although I'm having a difficult time imaging that, I would pick No. 3.

I prefer the 1.4 ratio for an emerald, but that's a personal preference. The medium floro should have no detracting effect, unless the vendor tells you specifically it does. In fact, I think I'd rather like having the floro, which I'm assuming is blue. Double check what the floro color is. Also, No. 3 has the smallest table - again, a personal preference, and bonus! It's by far the largest.

I don't know if there's really that many distinctions between the three. If you're concerned about the polish and symmetry ratings, I wouldn't be. I mean - maybe the "good" symmetry in No. 2 could be a detractor in an emerald, but certainly VG and E are just fine.

Do you have Aset or video images for any of these stones? These would give a better picture than the numbers alone. And number-wise, maybe No. 2 is a little light in depth, but without the images and Aset, it's too hard to tell whether this has any negative effect. Otherwise, the numbers generally look good on these emeralds.

 

[brmarten]

iota15,

Thanks for the quick response.

Your comments on fluorescence and dimensions are quite helpful. (Note the fluorescence is medium blue)

The other question I have is on the clarity / inclusions. I have attached the a copy of the diagrams from each stone's GIA certificate. Can you let me know if anything here would cause you concern?

 

[brmarten]

Note the above diagrams are in the same order as the original post: 1) 2.20 CT 2) 2.44 CT 3) 2.62 CT

 

[Blackpaw]

SO of the three (and just based on the numbers), id discount number 2 for its clarity - a step cut can show inclusions more easily so i think you're safer with the VS2s - and because the table is larger than the depth. Id also discount it because of its length/width ration but thats just personal preference,

With number 1 and number 3 you'll want to get images/video if possible, and ask the vendor if the stone is eye clean (and then check that your definition of eye clean matches theirs!!).

But on the numbers id go number three, as like iota says, it has the smallest table/largest spread and is quite a bit larger than the other two stones.

The fluor i wouldnt worry about (though check with the vendor that it has no visible effect on the stone) - i recently purchased an EC with med blue flour and though im yet to get my hands on it im confident it wont be an issue...

 

[Luminous-MB]

These inclusions shouldn't pose any durability issues, but have you asked the vendor if these stones are eye-clean to your standards?
Because of the larger facets in emerald cuts, inclusions can be seen a lil bit easier, so clarity can play a major factor in your decision. (and none of this can be known through the report's clarity plot)