What do you guys call the Ultimate Emerald Cut diamond?

[valeria101]

Date: 10/28/2004 1:43:28 PM
Author: Chrono

I thought the window/paper test is only for rounds?

No... not really. It actually checks for windows in anything (colored stones included). Very shallow diamonds (think rose cuts) get to be see-through like that from top down - but an Ec should not do that at all.

You can probably read through an EC tilted so that you look through the table and a pavilion side (not the culet). If you can do this easily with a larger stone it is not all that appealing (at least to me). A combination of large table and steep pavilion does this. The effect would be hard to spot without loupe on a 70 point piece, and given enough magnification... you can see through anything.

Do you have the specs of those two ?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/28/2004 1:48:38 PM
Author: Chrono
Ana, are you mad at me? Please don't be. I know from your previous post that even pictures are not the right way to gauge the look of 'THE' EC.

I did print out some pictures and Iscopes of a few really nice ECs as a reference for this afternoon. Wish me luck.

What ?! No way! Thanks for the nice chat on ECs - I've been longing for a thread like this

How about this:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/emerald_0_51ct_d_vvs1.htm

I know it's small, but everything else (optics, really) is right high up there ! Good ref, IMO.

 

[chrono]

Don''t know the specs yet. I''ll jot it down for peer review here tomorrow.

Ana,
It''s just that I saw a mad face in your post, so I thought you were mad at me for asking stupid questions.

Okay. I''m really leaving now and I''ve even printed this thread as a reminder for what to look out for. Thanks everyone. I''ll post more about the 2 ECs tomorrow.

 

[chrono]

Okay. I''m back and here''s what I observed yesterday:

EC #1
0.72ct E vs1
6.46 x 4.69 x 2.67
Depth 56.9%
Table 75%
Girdle vThin to Medium
Symm & Polish GG
No Fluoro

Very icy and super clean. It looked really nice. I must say it was very impressive but not wow, this is it. It has nice long shoulders and despite being shallow, I could not see through the diamond. I could see every single facet and they looked very thin and long. Very complex and clear. Lovely "zebra stripes" as Hest would describe it. Lots of scintillation and fire.


EC #2
0.70ct E vs1
6.17 x 4.43 x 2.98
Depth 67.3%
Table 77%
Girdle vThin to Thick
Symm & Polish GG
No Fluoro
Very icy and super clean too. Also nice looking but didn''t hold a candle to EC #1. Don''t know why though. Shoulders are smaller and very obviously deeper stone than EC #1. Also unable to see through the diamond. Facets were nice but chunkier "zebra stripes" and looked as though there were less steps than EC #1. Don''t know why. Less fire but super excellent crown height. A LOT higher crown height than EC #1.


I hope to hear some of your analysis on these two ECs. I''m not sure why they would look so different.
1. You''d think EC#1 being so shallow would not beat EC#2 optically
2. EC#2 had a much higher crown height but didn''t have the fire of EC#1
3. Why does EC#1 look like it had more facets/steps than EC#1?
4. Does this mean than slimmer steps look nicer than chunkier steps (from the top down)?

Well, I went through my criteria with the jeweler yesterday and he''s going to run another search on his search engine. He''s apparently signed up with the something like the virtual listing on PS on a trial basis. He said to wait a week and didn''t lift an eyebrow when I was super detailed about what I wanted him to call in:
0.7ct to 0.75ct
E/F
vs1/vs2
Depth 63% - 67%
Table 60% - 65% (basically a little less than the depth)
Crown Height 10% and upwards
He knows I love fluoro

Should I push for the symm & polish to be VG VG since the grading range for Good seems to be very iffy?

 

[chrono]

Bumpity Bumpity Bump.
Comments anyone on the 2 ECs and what I observed?

 

[valeria101]

Too bad there is no account of light return (LR) to go with your description... From this side of the screen, it sounds like the first stone had higher contrast (not high LR, I bet). The shallow cut suggests that you could see the pavilion facets through the larger table - not much of a surprise. The second piece sounds "typical" - large and steep pavilion facets (so you don''t see their individual reflection from the tops as well) and large table that does not allow ''virtual facets'' to form (that is visible reflections of crown facets onto pavilion, the trick that gived "depth" to Asschers, IMO).

To get the look of the first stone but brighter overall, you would be back to square 1 sorting among AGA1A-1Bs with an IdealScope. Nothing beats sorting through stones - just don''t tell your jeweler that, he might not like calling in that many

 

[chrono]

Ana, your post makes sense. Yes, I do like the look of the first stone and if it had been cut to 1A or 1B specifications, I bet it would have been a killer EC, hence I went through the specs of what I wanted to see again with the jeweler.

As for the "typical" EC look, I guess that itsn''t desirable?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/29/2004 12:31:56 PM
Author: Chrono

As for the ''typical'' EC look, I guess that itsn''t desirable?

If you like the first, why care about AGA ? I only guessed it may not be very bright from those numbers, but there is no way I could know more than you do...

At least it is not very common to find ECs with both high brilliance and glitter ( = contrast, facets showing one by one - or however else this may be described). If diamonds are supposed to be brilliant, than a bright one is desirable - in general. Otherwise, it should be fun to be judge of emerald cut diamonds

It would be fun to talk about these with diamonds infront

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/29/2004 9

1:22 AM
Author: Chrono
what I wanted him to call in:
0.7ct to 0.75ct
E/F
vs1/vs2
Depth 63% - 67%
Table 60% - 65% (basically a little less than the depth)
Crown Height 10% and upwards
He knows I love fluoro

Should I push for the symm & polish to be VG VG since the grading range for Good seems to be very iffy?

This reads like the front page of Blue Nile's signature Ecs... for better or worse. There are quite a few close to your specs on their list as well - some sort of pictures (GCAL) and all stats included. Did you take a look ?

 

[valeria101]

For example... these two 70 pointers.

 

[Hest88]

Chrono, did you try taking both out to compare them in sunlight, hold them under the table to get low light, etc.?

 

[chrono]

Date: 10/29/2004 12:42:12 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 10/29/2004 12:31:56 PM
Author: Chrono

As for the 'typical' EC look, I guess that itsn't desirable?

If you like the first, why care about AGA ? I only guessed it may not be very bright from those numbers, but there is no way I could know more than you do...

At least it is not very common to find ECs with both high brilliance and glitter ( = contrast, facets showing one by one - or however else this may be described). If diamonds are supposed to be brilliant, than a bright one is desirable - in general. Otherwise, it should be fun to be judge of emerald cut diamonds

It would be fun to talk about these with diamonds infront

No, I do not like the look of EC#2 and if you say that THAT is the typical EC, then I do not care for the typical EC. You are also correct that it wasn't a very bright stone. It didn't even make me look at it a second time.

I liked EC#1 because it seemed to have more interplay of light with its facets. I could see the contrast i.e. facets showing one by one more clearly. Although I clearly prefered EC#1 over EC#2, it just was not THE EC. Somehow I just knew it in my heart. I guess it's because it was a little too shallow and the large table gave it a slightly different look.

Ana,
Are you saying that I should go for more brilliance than glitter? I'm a little confused.

Hest,
I took both ECs away from the strong lights and looked at them outdoors in the shade. It felt a little scary walking around with two diamonds in my hands outside the shop. I was hoping no one would mug me and I won't drop the stones.

 

[chrono]

Ana,

Wow, I didn''t realize the specs I gave fit in with BN''s stones. I prefer the second one you posted over the first for a simple reason: the first had this HUGE dark area which I think is unattractive. The second one looks more balanced and I think I like the smaller/thinner facet lines. Is this a personal preference? Which would you pick?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/29/2004 3:26

7 PM
Author: Chrono
Ana, Which would you pick?

The second one as well... like the shape more, and G-IF sounds nice too.

About brilliance and glitter... sorry for the mess. I guess I was trying to say the same as Jonathan describes as contrast brilliance (black under 'scope). Since there are no Iscope pictures to talk about, those descriptions are not too useful.

If you look among BN's "signature emerald cuts" there are quite a few D-F, IF-VS2 70 pointers you may want to inspect. Looking for AGA 1A I was still left with ten or so - all worth inspecting. The photos on GCAL certs (where you will find the kind of images I posted) were not taken to show cut quality, but do give some indication of contrast (the black zones). No clue of light return from there though - same situation as for the H&A viewer (reflective and leaking facets all appear the same color - white in photos, and red in the H&A viewer). Hope this is right - just my intuition, with no further refference at all.

 

[chrono]

Here''s another update. I''m going to look at this EC this afternoon. What do you think of the numbers? I''m keeping my fingers crossed that it''ll look as beautiful as the numbers are promising.

0.76ct EC E vs1
ratio of 1:1.4
Symm VG
Polish Ex
Table 63
Depth 67
Crown (eye balling it at around 12%)
No culet
Med girdle

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2004 2:14:55 PM
Author: Chrono
I''m keeping my fingers crossed that it''ll look as beautiful as the numbers are promising.

Second that !

 

[Hest88]

Oooo, those specs *do* look promising.

 

[chrono]

Okay, here's the status report. I did see this gorgeous EC yesterday and the specs are BETTER than I thought:

0.76ct EC
E vs1
ratio of 1:1.4
Symm VG
Polish Ex
Table 63
Depth 66
Crown 15%
No culet
Med girdle

Wahoo! I think this is it. I'm pretty sure this is it. I've viewed it in indirect sunlight yesterday and wow, the steps are mesmerizing. When moving the diamond, the fire is wow!

The two ends are shooting tons of pin point rainbows while the side steps alternatively light up. It was a light show. It made my current EC look like a piece of dead glass.

I'll have to check it out in my office lights today and in the sun this afternoon.

Can you believe I forgot to bring it with me this morning? I'm going to head home at lunchtime and take a look at it. I'll also be able to give you the dimensions then too.

 

[moremoremore]

That is DEAD ON!!!!!! WOW. In terms of #s, that''s a KEEPER!!!! And I believe that your eyes have confirmed those #s!!!! I''m really happy for you! I can''t wait to see it...I bet it''s amazing!!!

 

[Hest88]

Ahhhhh!!!! It''s so great, Chrono, to have a stone with great numbers AND live confirmation that the numbers do matter!!!

 

[chrono]

Thanks for all the help, reviews and good vibes. I'm back now with all the information and comments on what I see in different lighting.

GIA cert from July 16, 2004

EC
E VS1
6.26 x 4.44 x 2.94 mm

Depth 66.2%
Table 63%
Girdle Medium
Culet None

Polish Ex
Symmetry VG

I brought it to a different vendor that I do quite a bit of business with for a quick eyeball of this EC. I would have bought from this vendor but he doesn't accept trade in stones. He said the specs are spot on and the cut is one of the best he has seen. Absolutely worth buying without regrets. OMG. Let me tell you that whoever said ECs are subtle and quiet have NOT seen an EC like this. It is anything but understated.

Indirect light

You see all the gorgeous steps. A beautiful balance of narrow light and dark lines in the center with tiny sparkles like crushed ice at the two ends. Very white with hints of strong dispersion at the ends.

Office fluorescent light

Icy icy white. Can you believe this puppy actually looks good in office lighting? Unbelieveable!

When moving the EC from side to side, the rainbow moves from one end of the long steps to the other end. The corners still looks like icy crushed ice. Very drool worthy.

Sunlight

This is where I have to get my drool bucket and say again, "ECs are NOT subtle and quiet". Rainbows flash everywhere.

It is actually more impressive from a few feet away than it is on my finger although it looks like a lightshow from a few inches away.

I hope I'm describing the ultimate EC. What are your opinions?
Everything seems to have checked out very well, so I'm very keen on keeping this diamond.
I believe it came up as a 1B stone which I don't have any complaints about because it only missed the 1A grade due to the depth by 66% vs 65%.

I'm really glad I had the opportunity to see at least 4 or 5 ECs in person all from the same vendor. I now know what's a dud, an average cut, a nice cut and a yowzaa cut. The static pictures posted did help me visualize what nice steps will look like, different shapes (small and larger shoulders) and the 3D link Ana forwarded to me gave me an even clearer idea of the optical performances of ECs that have a small table w/larger depth vs larger table w/smaller depth.

 

[noobie]

Sooo, where are the pics? Is sounds like a great stone! Congrats.

What are you going to do with it?

 

[chrono]

Oh Noobie, what pic? Cflutist is making a collection hat to raise some money to buy me a digital camera.

This is my engagement ring upgrade; not in size but in all the other 3 C''s, although in this case, all the 4 C''s were improved with Cut being the greatest improvement. This stone will carry a lot of sentimental value; the original EC is going to be gone for good.

I plan to reuse the original split shank WG setting which sets the EC in an E-W orientation (a piece inspired by Mark Morell). Perhaps when I have recouped [$$)]sufficiently, I''ll do it in platinum from the man himself.

 

[Hest88]

So Chrono, your new stone will be about the same size as your old? See, my EC is only slightly larger than yours and it was bought before I knew anything about cut. I''ve always wondered if it was worth it to upgrade the cut when I wasn''t upgrading the size. (I''d want to keep the same setting, so upgrading size wouldn''t be an option.)

 

[chrono]

Hest,

This upgrade is absolutely worth it. My orignal is a 0.71ct G SI1 (6.14 x 4.67 x 2.97) with the worst cut in the world. AGA 3A or 3B.
The new EC is 0.76ct E VS1 (6.26 x 4.44 x 2.94).

I bought the original emerald cut over a decade ago before I knew anything about cut as well. I also wondered time and time again if it was worth upgrading this stone just for the cut, and now I can tell you the answer is a resounding YES, you bet. This super well cut EC makes my original EC look like a dead piece of glass. I had no idea ECs could look this beautiful and could sparkle so much.

I also set a budget and am able to keep within it. $$$, it didn''t cost me much but the optical reward is so much greater. Plus, with the new EC being practically the same size as the old EC, I can re-use the original setting. My only regret is that the EC has no fluorescence. With this baby being so sweet, I can pass on the fluoro this time. It''ll just give me a new excuse to buy another diamond in the near future.

 

[Lucky8]

Hi,

I am planning to buy an EC. I am a bloke in the UK and want to buy an EC for my engagement... she better had like it. I have been doing the usual bloke thing of reading up on the numbers and cuts and I know you will say DO NOT BUY WITHOUT LOOKING.... but can''t resist the USD rate! and I will get one within guide numbers. SOme questions....

Some say stick close to 1:1.4 others say 1:1.5 - 1:1.7 - views?

Does the ratio need to change with Ct or will the proportions "v" light return stay the same big or small?

How does this sound? (don''t know about other angles)

Measurements: 1.55 to 1
Depth: 66.5%
Table: 63%
Girdle: Medium
Culet: NONE
Polish: VERY GOOD
Symmetry: VERY GOOD
Fluorescence: NONE

 

[Lucky8]

Hi - sorry its an F - VS1

Ta