spec check on emerald

[jp22]

i am pretty close to purchasing an emerald cut diamond and would like appreciate any thoughts/advice for those whom probably know way more than I do. Here are the specs:

Carat: 1.22
Cut: VG
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 66.4
Table: 64
Sym: VG
Pol: VG
Girdle: Thin to Med
Culet: N
Flor: N
Meas: 7.3 X 5.4 X 3.61
L/W: 1.35

From the research I''ve done, this seems like pretty good specs. I think the depth may be a little out of the recommended range though. Also, there is another diamond which is a little larger, same general specs, except the polish is good rather than very good. I realize its personal preference, but i''m doing this as a surprise so I have little to work off of from my g/f. Any thoughts are much appreciated.

jp22

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

How thin and where is the girdle thin?
How does it perform optically? The #''s will not help with that. have you got ideal-scope photo''s?
I suggest you use an appriaser

 

[chrono]

Looks like you''ve picked out something that looks very promising by the numbers. I''m not too concerned about the depth. 66% isn''t all that terrible. Unless you are a cut expert, the next step is to get the opinion of an independent appraiser to make sure the stone is an optical killer.

 

[Hest88]

The initial numbers look promising, but there''s no way to tell if it''s a great stone with just those stats. Can you get a Sarin and possibly an IdealScope picture?

 

[EuroStyle]

I thought it was recommended to look for a girdle that is one thing.....for instance medium....never a "to".....for example thin to medium?



Sean

 

[chrono]

The caution with the girdle is if it is extremely thin then it will be prone to breakage. Also, if it is extremely thick, then it is hidden weight that takes away from the overall top down size. A xxx to xxx girdle is fine. It is the extremely xxx that is best avoided.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/29/2005 12:13:15 AM
Author: EuroStyle
I thought it was recommended to look for a girdle that is one thing.....for instance medium....never a ''to''.....for example thin to medium?

Was there any explanation about what difference does this make ?

As far as I know, it is neither good nor bad if the thickness goes anywhere from ''thin'' to ''slightly thick'' and some variattion is quite common either from side to side or on the corner breaks. In theory, thinner than this may be fragile and thicker "eats up" too much material and may reduce the spread (aparent size face up).

As long as the optical symmetry of the piece is not hurt... why does it matter ?