Why are many emerald cuts too deep?

[oldminer]

"Why are many emerald cuts too deep?" This is the topic of the thread.

The truth is that no beautiful diamond is "too" deep. However, pressure has finally been brought to bear mostly by consumers and smart retailers, that customers want an efficient amount of visible size for the weight that is being offered in each diamond.

We've all seen deep diamonds which looked very fine, but were also impressed by how much smaller they appear than ones cut with less depth. I know that depth percentage alone does little to disclose or describe light performance, but it does tell us a lot about visual size of the diamond. When you pay big bucks for a diamond, you might as well get one that looks like a good deal for the weight. Its a rather simple concept. There is no "too deep" when it comes to potential beauty, but there definitely is a course of moderation which dictates that visual size is very important to the overall beauty quotient.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/14/2008 9:42:41 AM
Author: oldminer
''Why are many emerald cuts too deep?'' This is the topic of the thread.

The truth is that no beautiful diamond is ''too'' deep. However, pressure has finally been brought to bear mostly by consumers and smart retailers, that customers want an efficient amount of visible size for the weight that is being offered in each diamond.

Dave..., you are talking about spread! and if you consider this the only visible size than you are correct!
I see spread as a 2-D visibility..., I think Diamonds (especially fancy cuts) when cut correctly can enjoy a 3-D visibility which I call the sculpture effect! As long as the depth is balanced correctly between crown and pavilion..., a high crown angle will add a lot to the beauty and visible size of a Diamond set in jewelry!

Your case is true when a cutter takes a octahedron crystal, saw''s it in to halves and then proceeds cutting small crown steps with a small crown height, leaving the weight in the deep pavilion.

We''ve all seen deep diamonds which looked very fine, but were also impressed by how much smaller they appear than ones cut with less depth. I know that depth percentage alone does little to disclose or describe light performance, but it does tell us a lot about visual size of the diamond. When you pay big bucks for a diamond, you might as well get one that looks like a good deal for the weight. Its a rather simple concept. There is no ''too deep'' when it comes to potential beauty, but there definitely is a course of moderation which dictates that visual size is very important to the overall beauty quotient.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2008 10:09:56 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 9:42:41 AM
Author: oldminer
''Why are many emerald cuts too deep?'' This is the topic of the thread.

The truth is that no beautiful diamond is ''too'' deep. However, pressure has finally been brought to bear mostly by consumers and smart retailers, that customers want an efficient amount of visible size for the weight that is being offered in each diamond.

Dave..., you are talking about spread! and if you consider this the only visible size than you are correct!
I see spread as a 2-D visibility..., I think Diamonds (especially fancy cuts) when cut correctly can enjoy a 3-D visibility which I call the sculpture effect! As long as the depth is balanced correctly between crown and pavilion..., a high crown angle will add a lot to the beauty and visible size of a Diamond set in jewelry!

Your case is true when a cutter takes a octahedron crystal, saw''s it in to halves and then proceeds cutting small crown steps with a small crown height, leaving the weight in the deep pavilion.

We''ve all seen deep diamonds which looked very fine, but were also impressed by how much smaller they appear than ones cut with less depth. I know that depth percentage alone does little to disclose or describe light performance, but it does tell us a lot about visual size of the diamond. When you pay big bucks for a diamond, you might as well get one that looks like a good deal for the weight. Its a rather simple concept. There is no ''too deep'' when it comes to potential beauty, but there definitely is a course of moderation which dictates that visual size is very important to the overall beauty quotient.

I agree the old school SEC and EC have a presence that is out of proportion to their LxW.

 

[tberube]

Date: 1/14/2008 10:09:56 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/14/2008 9:42:41 AM

Author: oldminer

''Why are many emerald cuts too deep?'' This is the topic of the thread.


The truth is that no beautiful diamond is ''too'' deep. However, pressure has finally been brought to bear mostly by consumers and smart retailers, that customers want an efficient amount of visible size for the weight that is being offered in each diamond.


Dave..., you are talking about spread! and if you consider this the only visible size than you are correct!

I see spread as a 2-D visibility..., I think Diamonds (especially fancy cuts) when cut correctly can enjoy a 3-D visibility which I call the sculpture effect! As long as the depth is balanced correctly between crown and pavilion..., a high crown angle will add a lot to the beauty and visible size of a Diamond set in jewelry!



Your case is true when a cutter takes a octahedron crystal, saw''s it in to halves and then proceeds cutting small crown steps with a small crown height, leaving the weight in the deep pavilion.


We''ve all seen deep diamonds which looked very fine, but were also impressed by how much smaller they appear than ones cut with less depth. I know that depth percentage alone does little to disclose or describe light performance, but it does tell us a lot about visual size of the diamond. When you pay big bucks for a diamond, you might as well get one that looks like a good deal for the weight. Its a rather simple concept. There is no ''too deep'' when it comes to potential beauty, but there definitely is a course of moderation which dictates that visual size is very important to the overall beauty quotient.

Wow - that''s excellent information. I always wondered why my EC seemed a little "flat" at the top. Not that it isn''t beautiful - it''s still one of the most gorgeous diamonds I''ve ever seen - but it''s true, a lot of the weight is in the pavilion. It still seems a tad large for its weight, IMO, facing up more like a full carat than .90. Still begs a few questions - but wow, I feel like I''ve finally clicked into the understanding of an EC''s cut (something I''ve been researching to no avail simply out of geeky interest).

Thanks for that.

 

[oldminer]

The discussion of TD, "Total Depth", is very simplistic and because it is simplistic, there is a lot of information which becomes neglected. To fully discuss "total depth", one needs to cover crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion depth on round and near square diamonds. Once a diamond which has a longer direction than the other, such as a rectangular emerald cut, radiant, pear, marquise or oval for instance, the discussion must recognize how one needs enough depth, correct faceting and other important factors taken into account to allow the diamond to be a lively one.

The use of simple total depth in pre-screening diamonds can be useful for folks seeking high performance diamonds, but there is a large world of diamonds that look darned good which would fail pre-screening depth measurement parameters. Shallow diamonds tend to get watery although Dia-Gem has pointed out how to improve their looks by proper faceting tricks. Deepish diamonds may look okay even when remarkably deep, but you must give up visual size to have a super deep diamond. This is a fact that cannot be altered.

The usefulness of total depth is especially reduced when referring to diamonds with long length and narrower width. Tradition and the GIA system dictate using only the width as the reference to depth when the reality of performance is a blend of length to width, faceting style, pavilion depth, girdle thickness and crown height. And of course, all the angles, polish, symmetry, etc need to be examined, too for a final understanding.