POLL: Help! Which emerald cut do you prefer?

[jzc12]

New member here -- looking to this knowledgeable group for some much-needed guidance!

I am deciding between two emerald cut stones from James Allen for an e-ring and cannot decide between them. The smaller, better-color stone has what appears to be a better ASET image, but the other stone is so much larger that it seems like a great buy (and the ASET image for that one is also good).

Stone 208496 (http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.22-carat-h-color-vs1-clarity-sku-208496) is a 2.22 H-VS2 with slight fluorescence, but otherwise is largely consistent with the specs I'd want. The depth percentage is slightly high (69%), but the table is 59%.

Stone 216623 (http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-216623) is a 1.81 E-VS2. Depth is 62.10% and table is 67%.

I've attached the ASET images for both. The first image is for the 1.8, and the second image is for the 2.22. As you can see, the ASET image for the 1.8 ct stone seems to be better, and JA's gemologist recommended this one. I tend to trust his/her opinion, as s/he recommended the cheaper stone.

Here's what I'm struggling with in particular: while the ASET image of the 1.8 stone seems to be better, the picture/video on JA's website makes it appear that it is not cut as well as the 2.22 stone. I can't get past the thick black bars that are created by the facets when looking at the picture of the stone on the website. Am I focusing on something that doesn't matter, or doesn't the picture of the 2.22 stone make it look better, ASET image aside?

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. I am completely new to the world of diamond purchasing and would be grateful for your insights!

 

[Slickk]

Re: HELP! Which emerald cut do you prefer?

I admittedly don't know anything about emerald cut, but I like the bigger one better. I think the smaller one goes dark a little more. Just my opinion and I really don't know the finer details of emerald cuts. Plus getting a bigger size would sway me as I believe this cut faces up smaller than rounds. Good luck.

 

[Christina...]

What was the opinion if the gemologist in a side by side comparison?

 

[msop04]

Although I love the icy white of the smaller stone, it tends to look a little dark in the middle... The larger H stone looks better to my eye.

 

[jzc12]

Hi, Christina -- Between the two, the gemologist preferred 1.81 stone by a slight margin, but said that the 2.22 H was a close second. S/he said that both face "eye clean." I'm just trying to reconcile the positive feedback from the gemologist with what I see in the photo, which is something that, as a few people have mentioned, seems rather dark in the middle.

Thanks to everyone for their responses thus far!

 

[Christina...]

Sometimes the images can trick you into seeing something that isnt really there...if the stone is tipped slightly it can cause it to look dark in the middle too so what we see in the static image may not be what you would see in real life. I agree though that the first ASET appears to be the stronger choice which is why I asked what the gemologist opinion was....the eyes trump, but of course what you view as beautiful isn't necessarily what the gemologist sees.

I hope Karl K drops in, hes our resident step cut expert and he may be able to offer an opinion as well. If it were me making the decision based on the available info I would go for the slightly smaller stone...image looks good the gemologist preferred it in the side by side....that would make it worth seeing in my opinion.

 

[Gypsy]

Can you get both and have them sent to you? JA has a great return policy.

I'd be more inclined to follow up and ask WHY the gemologist preferred the 1.8. That's the crucial piece missing. There could be a number of reasons that are not performance related, and could be their preference.

 

[jzc12]

Gypsy, the thought of buying both at the same time terrifies me, so I'll have to make the decision by picking one and deciding if it's worthy of keeping after examining in person (and likely soliciting more advice on PS!). Thanks for the helpful feedback, though -- I think so much of this comes down to a gut instinct that can't be measured in numbers. I too am curious as to why the gemologist preferred the 1.8-G.

 

[chrono]

A difficult choice but for me, I would pick the 2.22 ct EC. Why? Because I prefer the shape (wider shoulders), smaller table and higher crown since they are comparable performance wise. I understand that both stones measure about the same size even though the ct weight difference is at least 0.4 ct. The dark banding seen during the rotation is due to the stone being tilted on the "table". Why not ask JA's gemmologist why he/she preferred the 1.8 ct EC?

 

[Lula]

They both look very nice. But they really are two different "styles" of emerald-cuts.

The smaller one has a more shallow depth, a larger table and just three steps on the pavilion. I personally love ECs in the style of the 1.81, and if it had slightly wider corners, it would be an ideal EC, in my world! I also like the E color, and the medium girdle. I also like VS1 and VVS2 clarity in an EC. You're getting a big look from this diamond because it is cut shallow. My guess, from the ASET, is that this is a bright stone.

The larger one has beautiful corners, which I love. But it has four steps on the pavilion, which creates a different facet pattern. Not better or worse than three steps, just different. It is deeper than the 1.81, and it has a slightly thick girdle -- which make it face up small.

What's the price difference on these two? If the price is close, I'd probably go with the 1.81, because the two stones are very similar in size, and my preference is higher color and a three-step pavilion, and I don't mind a table in the 67% range. You will get a bit of table glare with a table that size, but I personally don't find that offensive. Many here do.

ETA: If the larger EC is a lot more expensive, I'd definitely stick with the 1.81, because I do not like paying extra for carat weight that is hidden in the depth and the girdle. You should not be paying a 2-carat premium for an EC that faces up close to a 1.81 carat stone.

Have you seen many emerald-cuts in person? Do you have a preference for table size, color, width of corners, etc.?

 

[Millennistar]

I agree with Lula - the larger ct stone faces up only slightly larger than the 1.81. This coupled with the better ASET (although the larger diamond's ASET didn't look that bad) would put me in the 1.81 ct camp -- especially if there is a significant price difference.

 

[jzc12]

The reason why we didn't follow up with the gemologist is because we were down to the last hour or so before the hold ended, and wanted to be sure to make a decision before the 48 hours were up. I ultimately decided to go with the 2.22-H, but to say this was a difficult decision is the understatement of the year!

I am glad I reached out to you all, though, because I am learning a great deal and am getting better at articulating what I (think) I prefer in ECs. The wider shoulders of the 2.22 definitely appeal to me more. As for 3 facets vs. 4 facets, I don't have a particularly strong preference either way. I can see how a well-cut 3 facet EC in a shape similar to the 2.22 stone could be striking!

What I do feel strongly about, after having seen several ECs in person, is the L/W ratio. My fingers are quite long (yes, I'll be the one wearing the ring -- he gets to pick the setting!), and a few extra millimeters here and there go a long way visually for me. I did not see pictures of any good ECs with the measurements of the 2.22 at a comparable price point (the 1.81 being the exception). I wish everyone had pictures and provided ASETs on such short notice as JA does. That being said, all of your points about the 2.22 facing up small are well taken, and I had the same thought. Ultimately, the price difference was a little under $2k, and the final price for the 2.22 was just under $20k. To us, it was a toss-up. Did we get a good or bad deal?

ETA that, regarding L/W ratio, I tend to go for something close to 1.32 (i.e., not super narrow and long). The L/W ratio of the 2.22 ratio is slightly larger than that of the 1.81 if I recall, but not enough to swing me either way. Bottom line -- this was an IMPOSSIBLE decision!

 

[Gypsy]

I personally prefer the larger corners and the smaller, more numerous, steps of the larger stone not to mention a small table, so if it were a toss up for me, I probably would have swung that way too.

I think you paid a fair price for a lovely stone, from a vendor with a great return policy that provided you with a lot of information to help you make your choice.

So do I think you got a good deal? Yes.