is there en expert here on emerald cut diamonds???? i need you r help!!!

[valeria101]

No. No rule of thumb (such as "the smaller the table the better) works, really.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/19/2005 2:51

3 PM
Author: ridi
#1. also when you are saying you would excuse half of milimiter of size you are talking about that you would excuse the depth??


#2. that you would be basicaly ok with the particular depth of this stone becasue the table makes up for it?

#1 - Yes.
Extra depth makes the face up surface smaller (at least in theory - it would be nice to have the particular stone infront!)

#2. - Almost...
The version I had in mind is more like : "that you would be basicaly ok with the particular depth of this stone becasue the brighteness makes up for it".

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

Basically, if the smaller one (#1) is allot brighter than #2, I would preffer brighteness over size. Allot is the intended key word here.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

A lot of interesting stuff here- chrono- wow, you''ve really done some research!
Probably a lot more than a typical jeweler might ever do.
Not that I''m defending that, but the truth is- not many dealers have Sarin reports drawn on stones. So when the the jeweler asks a dealer to do this, it might not be well recieved.
It''s difficult enough to get dealers to send stones out on memo ( sent for customer''s approval)

When buying fancy shapes in particular, dealers use their eyes to judge.
It''s nice to want a table% samler than the depth, but that''s generally going to mean the diamond will be on the deep side.
No question that shallow crown angles and large tables have a different look than deeper angled stones- but it really is personal preference.
Many times the cutter adds a facet below the girdle that reflects up intop the table "mocking" a small tabled stone.
Stone #1 looks good as far as the small table, but it will look a lot smaller than #2 with a 69% table- don''t underestimate the power of visual size.


Ridi- That''s quite a collection of stones to have seen- your head mut be spinning!

Did one "speak to you?"

 

[ridi]

David you are right, my head is going arrlound in circles, and you guys are right , number 2 does look alot biggger, but do not forget it is also 30 points(.30) bigger than #1

i like number 2 as a stone its is great but it is a little too elongated for me , but the stone is grea also it is vs2, i was able to see the feather inside with the help of the jeweler , #1 seems ok, these are the the stones which i am considering, i saw maybe 20 stones that i did not even mentin here, but when i put #1 and #2 together i see the difference in color, #1 is a little brighter, and smaller ofcourse, i think the parametrers somehow balance each other out, the color vs clarity, table is agood size but depth is ok or average, i know one thing i will not fiond out any thing perfect ever, there will always be a drwaback to somehting,

the parameters might be good but it might not be the color i want,

ijust one a good over all package

but you guys are right #2 is 3.0X ct it looks like 3.3 it looks big, but aghain it is vs2, f color
and i saw the feather, it was kind of difficult to see without the jewelers help after staring for 5 minutes my self i coud not locate it,
it is also more expensive by $4k,
and a little 2 elongated as i said earlier, will see more stuff tuesday and willmake the final decizsion by then, but i am glad you all like #1 becasue it willbe definatelly 1 of my top choices, as long as #1 does not scare youaway with its parametrer, and everything about it, i feel alot better, if it is not a BAD stoine or NO or DONT BuY i am considering it, please let mek now what ever else you guys may htink off about these stone will let you know more whn i see more stones

but i think i am close, i just hope i am right becasue there are no returns, here or exchanges final deal

let me know guy but i am going -- crazy here

thanks all

 

[chrono]

Going by the numbers alone, I like #1 even though I''m not keen on the depth being 70%. However, if the stone is brilliant and lively, I''ll take that and accept that it will look smaller than it should.

I don''t like the large table on #2 but who knows, maybe it has a high crown? I can''t see the stones so I really can''t comment on them but my choices will also be #1 and #2.

 

[ridi]

aclso jsut curious why are you all didmissing

#3??? i am too but whay are you?

 

[ridi]

also the cost of #1 is 32k am i over paying?? opinions??? conclustions????

thanks

 

[ridi]

bought #1

done
result the stone is very fiery
nice

conclusions??

 

[AChiOAlumna]

Congrats on your choice!!

If you love it, then that''s all the conclusion you need....can''t wait to see the pictures!!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/21/2005 6:48:35 PM
Author: ridi
also the cost of #1 is 32k am i over paying?? opinions??? conclustions????

thanks

Isn''t the stone THIS ? Blue Nile didn''t take out the listing yet

Their prices are bit more, but... I don''t think you could have obtained this for that much less (maybe up to 1k).

I am glad to hear you like the cherry. Hopefully all the diverging opinions on this thread weren''t much of a headache

 

[ridi]

i will make pictures soon and post it here,

val, chrono, achi all of you thank you verry much for everything

val you are right it is better to have a little bigger depth than bigger table, besides the stone inmmy opinion is very much briliant and i know that becsue i had a stone put next to it with biger table and smaller depth and it was not as briliant, thanks guys verry much

love you all!

 

[Kaleigh]

Can''t wait to see it!!!! Congratulations!!!

 

[ridi]

also forgot to tell you
i love the matchbox shape

its not too long it is not square the shape oin my opinion is perfect!!

 

[chrono]

Ridi,
I''m glad you found an EC that makes you very happy. Now, please post pictures of that beauty.

as "payment" for our help.