Jump to content

Advise on this diamond - emerald cut


mrlakeside
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://info.stonehdfile.com/Online/Transaction/StonePktDtl.aspx?pktcode=819102007

 

I am having a hard time understanding pavilion and crown angle / depth.   I can't find an aset on it but from what I have read here they don't seem to helpful for this cut. 

 

Any thoughts / advice on this one would be helpful.  Thank you for your time. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pavilion and crown angles are of limited help for non-symmetrical (round or square) cuts because of necessity they vary a lot across the stone. ASET and more in general reflector images I find more useful - but the only valid test ultimately is seeing the diamond, especially in comparison with others.

FWIW, looking at the photo and video I would not recommend this diamond: it has a poor distribution of contrast; what you want ideally is alternating "rectangles" of light and dark that change as the diamond moves, not a very dark centre that suddenly becomes all white and then goes all dark again. However, angles of lighting and observation are key to getting (or not getting) either effect, so it may all be "in the photo". Also - and this is more objective - the crown looks very shallow, and that is usually a sign that the diamond won't have much fire, which is another reason for dropping it.

Hope this helps.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that ASETs are useful on emerald cuts but they can be tricky to interpret.  The pavilion/crown angles you've been given, on the other hand, are useless.  

I'll try to explain.  On modern round brilliant cuts, which is where GIA provides this data, there's a set of 8 facets on the pavilion that extend all the way from the girdle to the culet.  This is called the pavilion main and there's a similar set on the crown leading from the girdle to the table.  The angle of these in relation to the girdle plane is what we're talking about. Even that is a problem because we're averaging 8 numbers but look at the facet pattern on yours. There is no such equivalent. There are 40 facets on the pavilion and NONE of them cover the whole range.  None could reasonably be described as a main. The angles of these range over a span of at least 20 degrees.  Generating a number with an accuracy in the 1/10 of a degree is ridiculous (which is why GIA doesn't do it. Notice that neither of these is on their report. They were supplied by the seller).  

That said, I don't have the same complaints about this stone as Davide.  The lighting in those photographic systems, like the distance to the camera, can have huge effects on this sort of discussion to the point of making it useless. 

I"m really curious what "Table Inclusion - T2" and a few of their other statements mean. Do they give some sort of key to interpret their codes?

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - No Key  I don't know what the T2 is about.  It's frustrating.  - Thank you for taking the time to respond.  This has been very helpful.  You guys saved me a mistake.   I have a few more that I would like to bring to your attention as I find them.

 

Thanks for your help

Ryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one of the dealers that advertises here who is offering that same stone without the weird data added.  They may not know anything, it's obviously owned by a 3rd party, but they do have a phone number and their people are decently good at answering questions.  If you have other dealers that you have a preference for, give them a call even if they don't list it.  If two can get it, there's a pretty good chance that others can too.  

https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/12357188/emerald-diamond-D-color-VVS2-Clarity?sku=12357188&utm_source=diamondreview.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=diamondreview.com

 

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry - you are not taking up time that is not given willingly.

This one looks better in the video/photo than the first one - the caveats that Neil very clearly (and I less clearly) pointed out apply, but as far as these things are indicative of real life appearance this one is quite nice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...