what do you think?

[Finz]

Carat: 1.01
Shape: Emerald
Measurement: LxW 1.44
Depth%:65.3
Table%:66
Crown%:9.10
Pavilion%:53.1
Girdle: Med - Thick polished
Culet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: VS1
Color: H
Fluorescence: None
Price: 3600.00
B&M Store

 

[diamondsman]

The ratio is nice,the depth ,table I would have like to have seen them closer to the 70's%,(65% might be a little on the flat side).
price is ok if it's a G.I.A Cert.

 

[diamondsman]

The ratio is nice,the depth ,table I would have like to have seen them closer to the 70's%,(65% might be a little on the flat side).
price is ok if it's a G.I.A Cert.

 

[Nicrez]

Diamondsman, I have to disagree. I think the shallower depth and almost equal percentgae crown allows the emerald to shine a bit more. It's about a 2B on the AGA charts http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fnc2.asp, but as I first suspected the crown height is a little low, which isn't optimal.




It's a pretty good stone, and my only other concern is that an H may show some color, since it is a shaped stone, and are known for color showing past colorless. However, if it's is cut well, which it seems to be, it may just have a great clear water.




How is it that the girdle is polished? That's odd, does anyone know what that means? The price is about market, maybe a bit over by $2-400, but that better cut may be why, also being a B&M




Here's an Ideal cut from DCD


http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2224129




Here's a premium cut from DCD too:


http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=1988384

 

[diamondsman]

I respect your opinion nicerez,
I have just looked at many of my diamonds and from my experience of 30 years ,stones that are around the 70 depth have much more brilliance and don't have a dull or flat appearrance,(not to say that this stone does), the american market usually goes for the bigger look and therefore a bigger table is usually preferd, around the 70% table and 68%-70% depth with a ratio of 1:1.40-1.50.
In Ec. diamonds it is hard to decide buy numbers only , the visualization of the stone is very important .
as nicerz noted the " but as I first suspected the crown height is a little
low, which isn't optimal. "
I agree with her, therefore making the stone a bit shallow.

good luck

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 2/27/2004 11:47:41 AM diamondsman wrote:




I have just looked at many of my diamonds and from my experience of 30 years, stones that are around the 70 depth have much more brilliance and don't have a dull or flat appearrance,(not to say that this stone does), [...] the visualization of the stone is very important .

----------------

Diaondsman,

What would a good description of the "look" of emerald cut diamonds be ? There are not too many talked about on PS, but even of those none got any account of light return or any other optical quality. True enough, the 70% seems to go by tacit consensus as a "good number": but what is a buyer to do with no EC in sight for reference ?

 

[Nicrez]

Good question Ana, because according to the AGA charts, it would be a lesser cut to be that deep...




Should I assume that the depth would be best paired with a tiered step that builds outward? I saw an EC that had that sort of puffy outward step appearance and a cutter told me that when it is cut like that, it is done "improperly", and that there is too much of the stone hiding behind the setting, but the person never explained why or how they knew that to be true.




Any good reference points on this? I am curous now too!!!

 

[valeria101]

Actually, Nicrez, I am not sure I get the right picture from your words... There is some truth that depper cuts can look better: it is very hard to make a shallow stone sparkle, and, at least by reputation, somewhat more depth does give more freedom of choice for the other parameters of the cut and still allow for decent "sparkle". Of course, neither extremely deep not the extremely shallow stones are greatest, for one reason or another.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about the angles of the 'steps' on the pavilion... if so, the depth of the stone is just one factor determining them. Steep steps make for dead, transparent areas around the center of the stone, when tilted at even slight angle from the vertical (when the ring is worn). This is not great, but total depth has little to do with it. This is why one can't say "the deeper the better" for these cuts. Same "look" results from the oposite effect on shallow Ecs. Not sure wether the 65% is already is the 'disaster' zone where no facet arangement can avoid windowing though. There are just too many parameters involved.

Too bad there is not easier to model these "facy cuts" - it would be great to have DiamCalc or Iscope picture on them to talk about