Weigh in on emerald cut quality. Pics and spec included.

[Millennistar]

Hello PS''ers! I was hoping I might solicit your expert opinions on cut quality for Emerald Cuts.

I had my first experience comparing diamonds in person today at a local jeweler. The extremely patient BF and I have just begun to look for "eye clean" ECs with dimensions of around 9 mm x 7 mm that come in under the 15K mark. I think the jeweler did a good job of finding diamonds that fit our budget, but what I''m struggling with is not really knowing how well these diamonds will perform (optically, speaking).

We did not view them under different lighting conditions, and the jeweler told me that GIA didn''t include certain % (crown and pavillion) on their certs so I cant even use the AGA Cut Class charts for fancy shapes as a rough guide. I couldn''t really tell much difference between the diamonds in terms of fire and brilliance, but then again, I wasn''t comparing them side by side -- only individually as I tried them on.

So, I guess my first few questions to all of you knowledgeable PS''ers are:

1 - What questions should I ask the jeweler to get a better sense of how well these diamonds are cut?
2 - Is it appropriate to ask for ASET images of these diamonds?
3 - What other tools might the jeweler have available to give me a sense of how well the diamonds will perform.

The next set of questions involve some pics and specs. Please see the next few posts to weigh in on whether any of these might raise red flags or is significantly better than the others. (Also, please excuse the pics -- I took them with my iPhone).

 

[Millennistar]

My next set of questions involve some pics and specs. (Please excuse the pics -- I took them with my iPhone). Please feel free to weigh in on which of these you feel might be the best -- and/or -- if any of these raise red flags.

Okay, here''s a side by side of three ECs against a critical white background.

The specs from left to right are as follows (this is all of the info I have)

2.52 J VS1 - GIA
9.71 x 6.49 x 4.26
Depth = 65.6%
Table = 56%
Girdle = Medium
Cul = None
Pol = Good
Symmetry = Good
Flu = None

2.50 H SI2 - GIA - Note, inclusions could ONLY be seen under 10x, no black crystals.
8.67 x 6.65 x 4.56
Depth = 68.6%
Table = 59%
Girdle = STK - XTK
Cul = None
Pol = Very Good
Symmetry = Good
Flu = None

2.32 I VS2 - EGL
9.17 x 6.66 x 4.06
Depth = 60.9%
Table = 64%
Crown Height = 12%
Pavillion Depth = 46%
Girdle = Medium
Cul = None
Pol = Very Good
Symmetry = Very Good
Flu = None

In the next few posts, please find pics of each of these diamonds individually on my hand (sorry, didn''t have time to take off my nail polish from Halloween!) As a caveat, I took these photos from different distances and different angles -- I was snapping them really quickly. I''ll definitely do a better photography job the next time around.

 

[Millennistar]

Good, I cropped the nail polish out. Anyway, here''s the 2.52 J VS1. I liked the length of this one the best (9.7 mm) but felt it was a little too skinny for my tastes (6.49). The jeweler said she was going to look again for something with this length, but a little fatter. I can''t detect much yellow now that its on my hand.

 

[anitabee]

the middle one seems to instantly speak to me. i like the proportions and if you say you can''t see the inclusions except for under 10X then that one seems to be the winner. mind you, that is kinda odd for an SI2 step cut - usually they pop right out at you. the j on the left really seems to be showing its yellow color as does the I on the right. if color isn''t an issue for you, then disregard my comments.

i had an emerald cut that i loved. they''re so classy and stand out from the crowd. i love how they shoot off rainbow colors

have fun!

 

[Millennistar]

Here''s the 2.50 H SI1.

 

[Millennistar]

And finally...Here''s the 2.32 I VS2.

 

[decodelighted]

I liked the 2nd one too. Pattern-wise, color-wise & shape-wise. The other two do not appeal to me at all.

ETA: The 3rd one looks a bit better on your hand than in the tray ... but I'd still choose #2 out of those choices. Not sure what your jeweler can tell you about "performance" that you wouldn't see with your own eyes in person. If the patterns and color and shape appeal to you than that's about all you can do with Emerald Cuts, as there aren't any real ideal standards that I know of.

 

[Millennistar]

Anitabee -- thanks so much for our response. I know, one can definitely see the color against the white background -- but I really couldn''t tell all that much once the ring was on my finger. Both the J and the I seemed to face up pretty white.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/4/2009 6:49:52 PM
Author: Millennistar
Both the J and the I seemed to face up pretty white.

Did you take the stones *outside* and try them in different lighting environments? Color is funny -- you might not see it right away, but once you DO .. you can''t "unsee" it. Yanno?

 

[Millennistar]

Thanks decodelighted! So, I really shouldn''t be concerned with the cut specs?

 

[Millennistar]

Decodelighted...re: color, I did not view them in different lighting environments, but you raise a good point.

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 for me too.

 

[Millennistar]

In general, I think my only concern with #2 is that for the carat weight (2.50), its the smallest looking diamond -- and the most deeply cut. (In other words, I''ll be paying for carat weight that I don''t see). I''m wondering if sandwiching it in between two stones of lower color grading might be affecting perception.

 

[AprilBaby]

I am really liking the shape of #2. It was the first one to pop out at me, before I read the specs.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/4/2009 7:02:38 PM
Author: Millennistar
In general, I think my only concern with #2 is that for the carat weight (2.50), its the smallest looking diamond -- and the most deeply cut. (In other words, I'll be paying for carat weight that I don't see). I'm wondering if sandwiching it in between two stones of lower color grading might be affecting perception.

Emeralds in general are more deeply cut. 68.7% doesn't seem *overly* deep to me. In fact, are you sure the depth is correct on #3? Because its Table size is considerably bigger than its Depth and that's usually a big no-no.

More shallow stones might seem spready & have visual impact from a distance -- but can end up being much less interesting, sparkly, hypnotic close up. Its all a balancing act. Trade offs.


ETA: In stones of that *size* ... color is way more apparent also. Your stone won't always be viewed from the "face up" position. Most times people will see it from an ANGLE ... and tint is much more visible from the *side*. Something else to think about. ESPECIALLY in such a clear cut like the emerald. I remember a friend of mine describing her boss's wife's ring as "ginger ale colored" and she knew in an instant that it was a low color despite being huge. Always rung in my mind as I judged color in Asschers (square emeralds).

 

[decodelighted]

Are you sure about those numbers? Do you have copies of the certs? Table size in the mid-fifties seems odd to me for Emeralds? But I could be wrong....

 

[Millennistar]

Hi decodelight! Thanks so much for all of your help here! I definitely DON''T want a ginger ale diamond, so I''ll be much more critical the next time around. regarding the specs, I just double checked what I had typed against the certificates and they are all correct. Hmmmm...

 

[emeraldlover1]

I have a 2.75ct J emerald cut and I don''t see the color in 90% of all lighting situations. Sometimes I see a hint but it in no way is ginger ale colored. That being said, still pay close attention to it the next time.

From the looks of it I like #2 however, I like fatter emeralds.

 

[Millennistar]

Emeraldlover -- that is so helpful. I too, like emeralds a little fatter -- looking for something at least 7 mm in width. Are pics of your stone on pricescope? Do you mind if I ask how you went about selecting yours to ensure that the cut was good? Any lessons learned?

I''m afraid that finding the perfect emerald is going to be a nightmare, as my jeweler doesn''t seem to be offering much info beyond color and clarity. AS such, I''m having a lot of trouble trying to determine what''s going to return the most light. Based on my reading and the pics of #2, I think the p3 angles might be a little off because you can clearly see light leakage/a window (i.e., my finger through the bottom of the stone).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi everyone!

Millennistar- looks like you''re really on the right track- a good patient BF is a great start..hhehe

Seriously- it sound like really nice experience at the jewelers- yay!

From the photo of the three stones, my pick would actually be the 2.32 I /VS2....or the stone graded I/VS2 by EGL.
I am an advocate of only buying high quality stones ( like these) with a GIA report. If you wanted to choose a stone like that one, I''d make it contingent on having the seller get a GIA report.
What I can see from the photo that I like about the 2.32 is the corner and set patterns.
The middle stone also has nice apprent steps, albeit with less dramatic corners- at least as far as I can tell from the photo.

I agree with anitabee that the stone on the right - and the one on the left- seem to broadcast more color than the center stone.
A lot of folks , like EM1 don;t notice a tint in a J color.
Now an M, that''s another story.

From my perspective, the answer to all three questions is basically this: If you go with someone selling online you will have far better access to ASET images. This is a great site- with tremendous info.
However it is entirely possible you might find an excellent dealer who never reads internet forums, and does not use ASET. So judge the seller from a more overall viewpoint. Consider things like the reputation and business practices. Look at the type of items the store has in the showcase. You''ve said they were competitve price-wise. Today that''s high on everyone''s list.

A store carrying diamonds has to have diamonds that perform well from a business standpoint -that is to say, sell.
To do this, they have to make sure to buy stones that look good.
How do Tiffany''s, Cartier, Harry Winston- as well as many others- achieve this goal?
They hire or train buyers with an eye for fine make (cut).

You probably have a great eye for make already.
Can you spot subtle differences in the stones? Make sure to get to look at the stones in different lighting. Pick what pleases you.


I can completely understand wanting to have rules to follow about table and depth on these things....when I read some of the rules I think.."Oh I should never have bought that amazing 2.04 emerald cut because the table was this or the depth was that."
Some of the most remarkable emerald cuts don''t follow the rules.

 

[emeraldlover1]

Date: 11/4/2009 9:29:56 PM
Author: Millennistar
Emeraldlover -- that is so helpful. I too, like emeralds a little fatter -- looking for something at least 7 mm in width. Are pics of your stone on pricescope? Do you mind if I ask how you went about selecting yours to ensure that the cut was good? Any lessons learned?

I''m afraid that finding the perfect emerald is going to be a nightmare, as my jeweler doesn''t seem to be offering much info beyond color and clarity. AS such, I''m having a lot of trouble trying to determine what''s going to return the most light. Based on my reading and the pics of #2, I think the p3 angles might be a little off because you can clearly see light leakage/a window (i.e., my finger through the bottom of the stone).

There are a million pictures of my stone on p.s. I''ll see if I can find some links for you. To be honest, after just having spent the last year planning my wedding I''m a little rusty on my diamond knowledge and I don''t even remember what parameters I looked for. The funny thing is six months ago I probably remembered a lot more. Anyway, I knew the shape I had in mind as well as I liked a very even step cut pattern. I kept those two things in mind and let me eyes decide for me. I also worked with a few good vendors and had some stones brought in. Color wasn''t really a big issue for me because I knew that I wanted a bigger stone. I did however see a few J''s that had way more of a tint than mine did but I can''t even begin to tell you why that is. Once I knew what stone I really wanted I posted it here and got feedback on it from the experts.

I just took a look at the online inventory of a few vendors and there isn''t a lot in your size and color range you are looking for. I''d contact a vendor that knows and wants to help you with a step cut. We worked with Mark at ERD. He was really helpful. Another good vendor for step cuts is Good Old Gold. I''m sure there are more but those are the two I would go to for an emerald.

I''ll see if I can find my posts.

 

[Millennistar]

David,

I can''t thank you enough for your advice. I think I''ve been lurking around pricescope so much that I''m addicted to numbers, proportions, data and have forgotten how to trust my eye -- or even develop trust. I love your line: "Some of the most remarkable emerald cuts don''t follow the rules." I think the fact that I walked away from the jeweler today feeling like I needed more information might indicate I just haven''t yet found "the one" (diamond, of course). Maybe I should put more faith in the adage, "you''ll know it when you see it."

I however, do appreciate your opinion on the EGL diamond, and your advice to get a GIA report. I wouldn''t have known to do that -- and I think its a great move!

Thank you so much again!

 

[emeraldlover1]

Here are the pictures of my stone unset as well as the stats: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pics-of-my-emerald-cut-unset.87829/

I hope it is helpful!

 

[Millennistar]

Thanks EM1 -- I''ll do some searching around for your posts so you don''t have to spend the time! Really appreciate your help with vendor suggestions!

 

[emeraldlover1]

No problem! I really hope you find a good one...I stare at mine all the time still.

 

[Millennistar]

OH MY GOSH -- EM1 -- that is a BEAUTIFUL stone!

 

[EmeraldCutQuest]

About a year ago, I was looking for something almost identical to what you are searching.

You can read the posts in this forum, including specs, and see pics, in: ... All she wanted was a cat ... https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/all-she-wanted-was-a-cat-ring-pictures.86356/

Some bottom line comments:

1. J color is fine -- most of the time you will not be comparing it side-by-side to anything!
2. Yes, consider the specs, but don''t go nuts over them; if you like the way the stone looks, THAT''S really what counts.
3. Certificates are fine, and they CAN give you a sense of reassurance, but, you are buying a diamond, NOT a certificate (see again #2 above).
4. Proportion (Width x Length) is more important to the ''look and feel'' than I previously thought.

--ECQ (no longer).

 

[Lorelei]

The last EC is EGL graded, I would stick to GIA personally.

 

[LisaLondon]

I was completely against a J stone, until I fell in love with one! That is when I decided that cut was THE most important thing to me. I wanted an Emerald or an Asscher. Only a very fat emerald, the long skinny ones do nothing for me. The first stone I saw was what I compared everything against, and that is the one we chose in the end. I saw PLENTY of other stones that looked better on the certificate, but nothing looked as amazing on my hand or in a setting. Some of the more perfect certificate stones I saw had really weird proportions (long and skinny) or were just simply not well cut (too shallow, too deep). Your eye will tell you that. The only bit of advice I would add is don''t get something because it has a nice tidy certificate. Get something that makes your heart race and that you can live with forever. Same as with the man!!

 

[bgray]

Date: 11/4/2009 7:02:38 PM
Author: Millennistar
In general, I think my only concern with #2 is that for the carat weight (2.50), its the smallest looking diamond -- and the most deeply cut. (In other words, I''ll be paying for carat weight that I don''t see). I''m wondering if sandwiching it in between two stones of lower color grading might be affecting perception.

i agree--and i prefer #1. two has much thicker black bars.