HELP PICKING EMERALD CUT

[jac233]

40x for #2

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Jac

Wait for Karl's input on these, for me I prefer the first as the second looks too dark in the centre probably due to the angles, but ask at WF if they can discuss each with you and if the dark areas under the table of the first stone light up once obstructive sources are removed or at normal viewing distances as if it was set in a ring.

 

[Lestat]

The two ASET images look identical to me, the other images all look different between the two stones. Possible mixup?

 

[Po10472]

Have you decided on the shape of EC you want? Its easy looking at pictures and numbers and focusing on the light return but it''s also extremely important to look at the length: width ratios.

I personally prefer a fat emerald cut versus the more rectangular shape and therefore lean towards a 1.25-1.5 shape, not everyone''s cup of tea.

This wee chart might help you out.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/31/2010 6:58:11 AM
Author: Lestat
The two ASET images look identical to me, the other images all look different between the two stones. Possible mixup?

I think you are right Lestat, the ASET are identical, I should have noticed it before but preferred working with the IS images and photos in this case, good catch!

 

[jac233]

You are correct...I attached #2 twice, thanks for the heads up. Here is the ASET for #1 which is the 1.96 ct stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/31/2010 8:25:29 AM
Author: jac233
You are correct...I attached #2 twice, thanks for the heads up. Here is the ASET for #1 which is the 1.96 ct stone.

Thanks jac!

There is too much darkness under the table for me, so I prefer the first.

 

[Karl_K]

this one has bad p3 angles:

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/60/1/Performance-and-the-p3-facets%2c-a-discussion-about-step-cut-diamonds.aspx

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/31/2010 8:25:29 AM
Author: jac233
You are correct...I attached #2 twice, thanks for the heads up. Here is the ASET for #1 which is the 1.96 ct stone.

As Lorelei said to dark under the table in each pic.

 

[jac233]

So do you think the #2 is a better choice overall? It is a little smaller (1.81 vs 1.96) and the color is one step lower (G vs F). Just wondering if that will make a big difference or are the pics a better judgement?

I will speak to WF over the phone today to discuss.

 

[jac233]

Would it be wise to have some other stones brought in for images?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/1/2010 8:16:24 PM
Author: jac233
Would it be wise to have some other stones brought in for images?

If you aren''t in a rush then that is definitely an option.

 

[jac233]

Thanks Lorelei,

I guess my concern is what is acceptable? There is now way to tell what the images will look like prior so it''s a gamble until they are photographed.

Can these images be much improved or will they all end up around the same?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/2/2010 7:56:29 AM
Author: jac233
Thanks Lorelei,

I guess my concern is what is acceptable? There is now way to tell what the images will look like prior so it's a gamble until they are photographed.

Can these images be much improved or will they all end up around the same?

There is a fair amount of improvement that could be gained yes, maybe the best thing I can do is link you to one of Karl's articles so you can view some example images to get a better idea?

Here you go,

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/60/1/Performance-and-the-p3-facets%2c-a-discussion-about-step-cut-diamonds.aspx

The main issue seems to be these diamonds are rather darker than they should be under the table. This effect could be exaggerated somewhat in the images due to obstructive sources but to me and I think Karl feels the same way, there is too much darkness visible in these EC's and there is a possibility these dark centres could show when set and worn in a ring rather more than you would wish.

 

[jac233]

Makes sense, thanks for the input!

I will see what else they have before I pull the trigger.

 

[jac233]

I know blue nile doesn''t provide images but what is there reputation like? They seem to have a great selection and I thought about ordering a stone and returning it if I don''t like??

 

[JulieN]

sure, you can do that, but 1) it''s a crapshoot. 2) how are you really going to know how good it is?

 

[jac233]

Here is another stone from JA. I obtained the ASET but they don''t provide the Idealscope.

Any feedback compared to the other images posted?

Shape: Emerald
Carat weight: 1.70
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Certificate: GIA

Depth: 68.3%
Table: 62.0%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence:
Measurements: 7.78*5.77*3.94
Ratio: 1.35

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/2/2010 10:20:42 PM
Author: jac233
Here is another stone from JA. I obtained the ASET but they don''t provide the Idealscope.

Any feedback compared to the other images posted?

Shape: Emerald
Carat weight: 1.70
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Certificate: GIA

Depth: 68.3%
Table: 62.0%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence:
Measurements: 7.78*5.77*3.94
Ratio: 1.35

Ask if the centre again lights up in normal viewing conditions, can you get the crown height too please?