Why are many emerald cuts too deep?

[Cravin My Emerald cut]

My boyfriend and I went ring shopping today and a B&M. I live 25 miles west of NYC, so the jewelers have access to tons of diamonds. One thing I hadn''t considered too much (even though in retrospect I say "duh") is the dimensions as opposed to the carat weight. I''d focused on crown height and table % for emerald cuts and know the lenght to width ratios I prefer but hadn''t put much thought into the actual length and width dimensions.

We''re looking in the 2-3 carat range....previously 2''s left me wanting something slightly larger and 3''s were too big. I was hoping to see a 2.5, but the stone we saw today was great.

He only had one in stock... $16,500 (which I found reasonable) for a 2 carat GIA cert H color, VS2, table 68% dimensions approx 9.2 x 6.3 (I forget the depth) but the cert stated ideal cut.

As I searched online for 2 carats with similar dimensions I found it very hard to find them. Most are cut much deeper. The jeweler even touched on how what you want to find in an emerald is one that''s not carrying too much weight in depth.

So my question is....why are so many emeralds cut so deep? It seems they would make them face up as large as possible since that''s what people like.

 

[strmrdr]

simple.. diamonds are sold by weight not size.
There is a huge incentive $$$$ too meet the magic weight numbers especially once it gets close too 2ct, 2.5ct and 3ct.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

To add to Storms comment - Most emmerald cuts are made from octahedral shaped rough which is conducive to cutting deeper stones just as are princess cuts.

 

[oldminer]

What grading document had "Ideal" cut on it. Only a few AGS certs are out there with that and I doubt it was an AGA-Cert so far from home. Maybe you better be very careful.

It is very tempting for cutters to make a diamond weigh more so you can be asked to pay more. Often the appearance is not hurt by the extra weight, but it isn''t helped, either. Garry''s explanation of hitting certain magical goals of weight plays a huge role in the weight of most diamonds.

 

[diagem]

Let me just add...

The depth is greatly dependent on the crown height vs. pavilion depth ratio....

For example..., I would rather have a deep EC (let say in its 70%-75%) as long as the crown height is of significant size and correct angles...
I dont have a problem with a CH of 25%+/- and call it a deep Diamond which hit the magic weight number!

 

[Cravin My Emerald cut]

Date: 1/13/2008 7:23:32 AM
Author: oldminer
What grading document had ''Ideal'' cut on it. Only a few AGS certs are out there with that and I doubt it was an AGA-Cert so far from home. Maybe you better be very careful.

It is very tempting for cutters to make a diamond weigh more so you can be asked to pay more. Often the appearance is not hurt by the extra weight, but it isn''t helped, either. Garry''s explanation of hitting certain magical goals of weight plays a huge role in the weight of most diamonds.

It was GIA certified. I wish I''d written down all the specs.....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/13/2008 7:55:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
Let me just add...

The depth is greatly dependent on the crown height vs. pavilion depth ratio....

For example..., I would rather have a deep EC (let say in its 70%-75%) as long as the crown height is of significant size and correct angles...
I dont have a problem with a CH of 25%+/- and call it a deep Diamond which hit the magic weight number!

problem is finding one....
The vast majority of overly deep EC''s all the weight is in the pavilion.

 

[tberube]

hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little "deep" because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of "size goal" for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/13/2008 8:55:12 PM
Author: tberube
hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little ''deep'' because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of ''size goal'' for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

... or is a great cut since the cutter gave up its magic size of 1.00 carat...., and went down....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/13/2008 8:55:12 PM
Author: tberube
hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little ''deep'' because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of ''size goal'' for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

in general anything 70 and over id want a discount unless it was one of the rare ones with 25% crowns then it likely has a premium.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW has anyone ever seen or noticed a posting on the web of any AGS Emerald cuts yet?

I suspect they will be impossible to polish an emerald cut well enough.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 2:09:14 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
BTW has anyone ever seen or noticed a posting on the web of any AGS Emerald cuts yet?

I suspect they will be impossible to polish an emerald cut well enough.

nope
the only ones Iv seen with AGS certs didn't have the cut grade so were likely test stones and they didn't like the results.
Same thing happened with SEC's there were maybe a dozen then no more none with the cut grade.

well I should have search before I said anything here is the only one...
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD01048090

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 2:27:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/14/2008 2:09:14 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
BTW has anyone ever seen or noticed a posting on the web of any AGS Emerald cuts yet?

I suspect they will be impossible to polish an emerald cut well enough.

nope
the only ones Iv seen with AGS certs didn''t have the cut grade so were likely test stones and they didn''t like the results.
Same thing happened with SEC''s there were maybe a dozen then no more none with the cut grade.

well I should have search before I said anything here is the only one...
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD01048090

Whats the story?
Why is AGS not detailing the numbers??? No C1-C2-C3..., N0 P1-P2-P3 angles?

Makes sense? I am not to impressed!

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 12:07:24 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/13/2008 8:55:12 PM
Author: tberube
hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little ''deep'' because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of ''size goal'' for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

in general anything 70 and over id want a discount unless it was one of the rare ones with 25% crowns then it likely has a premium.

Hey Strmrdr,

Do you have the same theory with Asschers?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 3:19:08 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 12:07:24 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/13/2008 8:55:12 PM
Author: tberube
hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little ''deep'' because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of ''size goal'' for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

in general anything 70 and over id want a discount unless it was one of the rare ones with 25% crowns then it likely has a premium.

Hey Strmrdr,

Do you have the same theory with Asschers?

yea pretty much...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 3:06:46 AM
Author: DiaGem
Whats the story?
Why is AGS not detailing the numbers??? No C1-C2-C3..., N0 P1-P2-P3 angles?

Makes sense? I am not to impressed!

yea I hear ya....
Im not impressed with the AGS SEC system at all.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:01:37 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/14/2008 3:19:08 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 12:07:24 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/13/2008 8:55:12 PM
Author: tberube
hmmm....interesting topic. What IS the right depth for an EC? Mine''s 67.4%. I don''t understand depth too well in any cut other than rounds, simply because the info really isn''t out there. But I wouldn''t be surprised if my diamond is considered a little ''deep'' because it''s a .90ct - which I only recently hear is a sort of ''size goal'' for cutters (before I thought it was 1ct and I was being smart in getting a .90 - oh well).

in general anything 70 and over id want a discount unless it was one of the rare ones with 25% crowns then it likely has a premium.

Hey Strmrdr,

Do you have the same theory with Asschers?

yea pretty much...

In Asschers..., I know there is pressure/orders by manufacturers to halt their cutters from going above 69.5% +/- depth.
I personally think its wrong but is done due to public/gemologists opinion that 70%+ is BAD!!!

Most of the (nicely cut) Asschers that I saw which surpassed 70% depth were amazing stones simply cause their CH was higher and tables were smaller!

Another reason I claim the norm is bad for fancy cut Diamonds!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:37:55 AM
Author: DiaGem
In Asschers..., I know there is pressure/orders by manufacturers to halt their cutters from going above 69.5% +/- depth.
I personally think its wrong but is done due to public/gemologists opinion that 70%+ is BAD!!!

Most of the (nicely cut) Asschers that I saw which surpassed 70% depth were amazing stones simply cause their CH was higher and tables were smaller!

Another reason I claim the norm is bad for fancy cut Diamonds!!!

well true in a way but who is cutting them that way?
Even RA wasn''t being cut that way towards the end.
All I can really do is react too whats on the market......
We both know that a totally awesome 75% depth asscher is possible but the 75% deep asschers on the market unless they are an antique stone aren''t cut that way...

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:44:08 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/14/2008 5:37:55 AM
Author: DiaGem
In Asschers..., I know there is pressure/orders by manufacturers to halt their cutters from going above 69.5% +/- depth.
I personally think its wrong but is done due to public/gemologists opinion that 70%+ is BAD!!!

Most of the (nicely cut) Asschers that I saw which surpassed 70% depth were amazing stones simply cause their CH was higher and tables were smaller!

Another reason I claim the norm is bad for fancy cut Diamonds!!!

well true in a way but who is cutting them that way?
Even RA wasn''t being cut that way towards the end.
All I can really do is react too whats on the market......
We both know that a totally awesome 75% depth asscher is possible but the 75% deep asschers on the market unless they are an antique stone aren''t cut that way...

They are not cut that way because of the "magic" 69.9%td numbers!!!
To much resistance from consumers on these baby''s once they surpass the magic #...

Mass producers will not play around..., the direct order is 69.9% and below!!!
Most of my step-cuts are over 70%

Feest your eyes on this baby!!!

 

[strmrdr]

I just did a search for
Asscher shape, 1.01–5 cts, D–Z color, IF–SI1 clarity, 75–90% depth, 50–60% table, $100–100000,

and found 5 Id consuder getting more information on and a better picture for one......
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-VS2-Good-Cut-Asscher-Diamond-1132609.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

1.04 F VS2 75% 56% GIA stk no vg vg 5.60-5.57x4.18
1.50 G VS2 81.8% 53% GIA - no gd vg no 6.14x6.09x4.98
2.01 G VS2 79.8% 51% GIA - no gd vg 6.73-6.57x5.24
2.21 I VS2 75.9% 55% GIA - no vg vg 6.99-6.86x5.21

 

[strmrdr]

compare those 5 to this...
6920 All diamonds matched.
Asscher shape, 0.95–5 cts, D–Z color, IF–SI1 clarity, 60–90% depth, 50–70% table, $100–100000,
5 out of almost 7000 diamonds...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:53:40 AM
Author: DiaGem
They are not cut that way because of the ''magic'' 69.9%td numbers!!!
To much resistance from consumers on these baby''s once they surpass the magic #...

Mass producers will not play around..., the direct order is 69.9% and below!!!
Most of my step-cuts are over 70%

Feest your eyes on this baby!!!

yuumy!!!
how much does that puppy weigh? length and width?

 

[diagem]

Would you believe this baby is over 80% total depth?

Millenium Rose Diamond 18.33 ct Fancy Deep Orangy Pink - Internally Flawless
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pretty-pink-asscher-diamond-ring.74841/

 

[strmrdr]

Id love too see pictures of this puppy...
1.50 D VS2 83.1% 50% GIA tk-vtk vg vg ft 7.12-5.08x4.22 $4908 $7362

and this one:
1.50 D VS1 71.2% 41% GIA m-stk no gd gd no 6.61x6.21x4.42 $8309 $12464

but these stones are freaks in todays market.....

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:58:17 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/14/2008 5:53:40 AM
Author: DiaGem
They are not cut that way because of the ''magic'' 69.9%td numbers!!!
To much resistance from consumers on these baby''s once they surpass the magic #...

Mass producers will not play around..., the direct order is 69.9% and below!!!
Most of my step-cuts are over 70%

Feest your eyes on this baby!!!

yuumy!!!
how much does that puppy weigh? length and width?

5 carats and some change, 10.6x9.3x7.0 (aprox.)mm 75% td, 59% table--- GIA ex-ex!! Culet--- Medium

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 6:01:11 AM
Author: DiaGem

Would you believe this baby is over 80% total depth?

Millenium Rose Diamond 18.33 ct Fancy Deep Orangy Pink - Internally Flawless

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pretty-pink-asscher-diamond-ring.74841/

Dimesions:

18.33 carats: 15.7x12.2x9.9mm Depth= over 80%--- Table=under 50%----VG/G!!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 6:02:36 AM
Author: strmrdr
Id love too see pictures of this puppy...
1.50 D VS2 83.1% 50% GIA tk-vtk vg vg ft 7.12-5.08x4.22 $4908 $7362

and this one:
1.50 D VS1 71.2% 41% GIA m-stk no gd gd no 6.61x6.21x4.42 $8309 $12464

but these stones are freaks in todays market.....

I guess you and I are FREAKS!!!

 

[elmo]

Date: 1/14/2008 5:53:40 AM
Author: DiaGem
Feest your eyes on this baby!!!

DG - nice rock!

Strm - the D with the 50 table, one of DG's?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/14/2008 6:23:25 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 6:01:11 AM
Author: DiaGem


Would you believe this baby is over 80% total depth?

Millenium Rose Diamond 18.33 ct Fancy Deep Orangy Pink - Internally Flawless


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pretty-pink-asscher-diamond-ring.74841/

Dimesions:

18.33 carats: 15.7x12.2x9.9mm Depth= over 80%--- Table=under 50%----VG/G!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 6:24:40 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 6:02:36 AM
Author: strmrdr
Id love too see pictures of this puppy...
1.50 D VS2 83.1% 50% GIA tk-vtk vg vg ft 7.12-5.08x4.22 $4908 $7362

and this one:
1.50 D VS1 71.2% 41% GIA m-stk no gd gd no 6.61x6.21x4.42 $8309 $12464

but these stones are freaks in todays market.....

I guess you and I are FREAKS!!!

well duh! lol