your thoughts?

[timmy]

Can anyone give me some thoughts on the following emerald cut diamond please?

Measurements: 6.76 x 5.60 x 3.44
Weight: 1.15 carat
Depth: 61.4% (OK?)
Table: 66% (OK?)
Girdle: Extremely thin to slightly thick
Culet: Medium (is this OK?)
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Fluorescence: None (OK?)

Price: $4800

I''d appreciate some thoughts, thanks!

 

[robbe]

timmy, length to width ratio is 1:1.20. this is considered slightly too short for em-cut.


what cert comes with it?


best of luck, robbe

 

[timmy]

It is GIA; what is the ideal length in your opinion, and will this slightly shorter gem lose its appeal? Thanks for your help!!!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/9/2003 11:15:32 AM timmy wrote:

Can anyone give me some thoughts on the following emerald cut diamond please?

Measurements: 6.76 x 5.60 x 3.44
Weight: 1.15 carat
Depth: 61.4% (OK?)
Table: 66% (OK?)
Girdle: Extremely thin to slightly thick
Culet: Medium (is this OK?)
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: VS1
Color: F
Fluorescence: None (OK?)

Price: $4800

I'd appreciate some thoughts, thanks!----------------

The price is not bad (there is cheaper though readily available). The stone is not a mainstream EC: it is relatively shallow and squarish. That the table is bigger than the depth (something the standards for ECs advocated here may point at) is not all that surprising whe depth is so much smaller than for your average 75%++ 'DEAP-sea monster'. The sqaurish shape looks good in the eyes of THIS beholder, just make sure YOU like it too. There was no discount for it.

Hope this helps!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/9/2003 11:35:55 AM timmy wrote:

It is GIA; what is the ideal length in your opinion, and will this slightly shorter gem lose its appeal? Thanks for your help!!!----------------

Ideal LXW should be your ideal, really. Some say 1.5/1 I particularly love 2/1. There may be some truth in the note that if an EC is just not square it is a failed asscher, and if it is toooo long, it is a failed baguette.

There is a site which allows you to model these proportions... let me look...

 

[Hest88]

I wish we had more data--crown height, etc.. It's hard to tell with fancy shapes if the numbers add up, and the more data the better. I'd prefer a depth greater than the table, but with an EC that's not conclusive either. If you haven't already, check out the AGA cut charts. (http://www.gemappraisers.com/) As to L/W, I actually think that's very much personal preference. I like my ECs to be a bit squat: at 1:1.35 or so.

Problem with ECs is that unless you've seen a great EC it's hard to tell if what you have is a stunner or not. I'd suggest you see if you can have it sent to an independent appraiser before final purchase.

 

[Giangi]

Like Hest, I love 1.35:1 ratio. Not too skinny nor too fat.

This stone is a bit shallow... You should ask the seller to provide you with a full OGI-Sarin, so that we can know the crown height (which should be >12.5%), the pavilion depth and which portion of the girdle is ex.thin.