Opinion on LW ratio for Emerald Cut Stones

[kevinraja]

I have read at many articles regarding LW ratio for EC stones. While it was mentioned that longer/narrow stones are less brilliant, the question is at what LW proportions does a EC stone fit narrow description. What is the most sought after LW ratio? And what is the most ideal ratio (theory)?

 

[windowshopper]

i think (repeat think) that the classic is somewhere around 1:40 or 1.50 but i found I repeatedly went for 1.33 to 1.35. Less was too blocky and more became quite thin. In my opinion--carat weight does play a part in the aesthetics of ratio...........a 10 carat with a 1.5 ratio will look a lot better than a 1 carat with the same -------------which will look like a baguette!

 

[valeria101]

There is a complicated way to explain why the long&thin stones appear less brilliant.... and it invloves the size of the stone''s keel (the ridge on the bottom) and what not. Not sure if between 2:1 and 3:1 the brilliance of ECs can be optimized anymore. No matter what you do, the very large facets on the long sides would for ever produce just one large flash at a time and no "glitter".

So they look like baguettes - ditto to Windowshopper

Small ECs are almost never cut to be brilliant - they come from rather flat rough that makes the right proportions terribly wasteful (or not feasible at all). The squarer (?) small step cust do not suffer as much from this problem.

Did you see that "fancy shape selector" on gemadvisers.com ? It halps clarify what the prportions look like. For almost any choice brilliance varies allot depending on all other parameters but L/W. So unless you happen to like them over 2:1, the shape would not curse brilliance for good, IMO.

The preffered L/W seems to be between 1:3 and 1:5 says GIA and most refferences (including the AGA mentioned above).

!