question on emerald cut from a newbie!

[artdecolover71]

Ok, I am finally starting to get a clearer picture of what characteristics are desirable and which ones are subjective. On an emerald cut, what does it appear like if the table is over the recommended parameters? thanks in advance for your experience AND time!!

 

[artdecolover71]

sorry to be such a dimwit, but can someone explain what an emerald cut with a table too large would look like? I am trying to understand all characteristics and that one, I am not clear on, thank you

 

[marymm]

To my understanding, an EC with a too-large table often also has a short crown height, and would present to the eye as very glassy/flat and more one-dimensional (for lack of a better term) - as compared to an EC with an average to small table and a crown height of at least 12 degrees would draw your eye in and have that hall-of-mirrors appearance.

Still, a larger-than-average table alone is not enough to disqualify an EC from a second look - but if it is coupled with a short crown and/or a shallow depth, it is more likely it will have performance issues.

A larger table combined with a decent crown height and depth can still give a glassy look, and there are many people who prefer that in their ECs, calling it a swimming pool effect, as opposed to the hall-of-mirrors effect.

Numbers alone aren't enough to evaluate an EC - you need to see it perform in person in various lighting conditions and have an Aset in order to make an informed decision.

 

[artdecolover71]

thank you so much! that helps a lot!

 

[bgray]

yes Marymm said it well. There are many variables of course. Mainly you want to see distinct bars of light reflected back at you. Emerald cuts dont have that brilliant dispersion like brilliant cuts though if they have larger shoulders or corners that can add some more of the sparkly look. Look for minimal windows (areas) of darkness. A crown higher than 10% can be okay. 10 is still a little low but I have seen some nice stones with a shallower crown. Ideally 12 to 14. The issue with emeralds/squares is that the shape of the rough kind of dictates the cut of the stone and a higher crown (my observations) usually results in much deeper stones with smaller face up. So you pay more for weight on the bottom. I found it very very hard to find a well cut emerald cut that also had the ratio and face up dimensions that was pleasing to me.

 

[artdecolover71]

of course I probably want the typical....something that faces up larger than its carat weight and is eye clean. don't mind something in the G-H-I range or even the right J. fluorescence doesn't bother me if its only noticible in certain light.

love the input, it is all SO helpful! thank you!

 

[bgray]

of course I probably want the typical....something that faces up larger than its carat weight and is eye clean. don't mind something in the G-H-I range or even the right J. fluorescence doesn't bother me if its only noticible in certain light.

love the input, it is all SO helpful! thank you!

of course....thats what i was looking for! There is a little rule of thumb that is certainly not completely infallible but as I recall the stone's depth should be a greater percentage than the table size. I found it to be very helpful in weeding out stones. I cant fully explain why but I believe that when the table % is smaller than the depth the proportions everywhere else tend to fall in line.

 

[artdecolover71]

Can you share the final stone specs you chose and where you decided to purchase from? Jamesallen is great and Solomon bros has also been really attentive.

 

[ecf8503]

Have you read this? https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/emerald-cut-diamond

When I was shopping for mine I tried to keep the table and depth in the 60-65% range. Worked for me as an initial weed-out tool, although some I liked visually did fall outside that range.

 

[artdecolover71]

yes, I I read that-thank you so much for sharing. I guess bc a couple of the stones I came across had larger tables but all the other specs looked good. I was just wondering if it was subjective, like most other things. I am willing to compromise some of the other things if it is eye clean and appears white.

 

[chrono]

Excellent advice from the above posters which I agree with. It is all about the combination of angles to make it "work". Even if all the numbers are "paper perfect", the EC could still be a dud. I've seen this happen all too often.

 

[artdecolover71]

thank you!