four tsavorties

[prettypenny47]

Looking at purchasing one of these tsavorites. Any opinions would be welcome.

#1 - 4.07 carat emerald, 11.3 X 7.7 x 5, lightly included, very good cut.

#2 - 4.58 carat oval, 10.5 x 9 x 6.4, eye clean, very good cut.

#3 - 4.31 carat emerald, 10.6 x 7.7 x 5.6, eye clean, very good cut.

#4 - 4.61 carat cushion, 9.2 x 9.2 x 6.7, eye clean, excellent cut

Eric says all four stones are very close in terms of color and saturation, and are not yellowish green, but pure green. The oval is slightly deep at the culet, and #1 is slightly lighter than #3.

 

[T L]

Looking at purchasing one of these tsavorites. Any opinions would be welcome.

#1 - 4.07 carat emerald, 11.3 X 7.7 x 5, lightly included, very good cut.

#2 - 4.58 carat oval, 10.5 x 9 x 6.4, eye clean, very good cut.

#3 - 4.31 carat emerald, 10.6 x 7.7 x 5.6, eye clean, very good cut.

#4 - 4.61 carat cushion, 9.2 x 9.2 x 6.7, eye clean, excellent cut

Eric says all four stones are very close in terms of color and saturation, and are not yellowish green, but pure green. The oval is slightly deep at the culet, and #1 is slightly lighter than #3.

Man, it is difficult to tell from a photo since all are so close, and I have to account for my monitor. Based on what I see, I would discount #4, I don't think the color is as fine as the other three, based on the photo. You might want to ask him about that though. The other three are a toss up for me. They are really too close to call, so perhaps go with the one that has the best cutting out of those. It seems like #1 has the most face up based on the dimensions and the size. It's a smaller carat weight than #3, but it faces up larger. #2 might be cut a little deep, and it might have some extinction in the middle IRL. Therefore, if #1, #2 and #3 are all equal color, I would probably go with #1 for the face up size and the apparent lack of extinction.

 

[chrono]

I had to think really long and hard about this one and still don’t know what to write. They are so close in terms of colour in the picture that I cannot say with any certainly why to choose one over another. At this point, only Eric who has the stone in hand can really advice if one stands out among the rest. I’m concerned about the shallowness of #1 which I calculated to be close to 53%. Cut to the correct angles, it probably doesn’t have a window but he might be pushing it close to the envelop. Again, I do not know this with any surety as this is only my guess. My calculations for the oval gives me a 65% depth which is within the normal range so I do not consider it a deep-ish stone. What is his explanation for the “very good cut” of #1, #2, and #3 compared to #4? Also, with stones 2 and 4 facing the camera at different angles from the other two, it makes it more difficult for me to form as accurate an opinion as I’d like to.

ETA
I wonder why Eric said #2 is slightly deep at the culet.

 

[movie zombie]

#1.....based on what my monitor shows.

MoZo

 

[MakingTheGrade]

I'm partial to emeralds, and of the two, the 3rd looks better to me.
I don't know if it's the type of cut or the dimensions, but #1 just seems shallow compared to 3 in my opinion.

 

[T L]

Good points made!! You should ask if there's a window on #1.

 

[movie zombie]

re window: ask about all of them while you're at it.

MoZo

 

[prettypenny47]

First of all, thank you for all of your responses. For a while, I thought no one would respond to my post and I appreciate everyone's input.

So, I am having the same dilemma trying to chose a stone. Which one?

Eric said "The two emerald cuts are quite close. #1 is very slightly lighter. It is the one on the left of the group picture. The proportions are not exactly the same." Is he referring to weight or color I wonder now.

He said , "The oval is slightly deep at the culet (tip). It is absolutely not a deep stone though, I was referring the culet only. We may recut the culet, but I'm not sure that is really necessary." Not sure what he means here.

Also, #4 does not appear as yellow as it does in the photo, and all the stone are similar in saturation and color.

I will email him regarding the window in #1 and what he means about the culet in the oval. In a way, I just want him to pick out the best one. Personally, I am leaning towards #3 emerald and #4 cushion.

 

[jleb]

Aside from cut style, I think one should ask what is the distinguishing characteristic of a green garnet? In my opinion it's all about sparkle and fire. You want the flash. #4 has the highest crown, hence it's going the throw the most flash. The added saturation is due to the depth of the cut. If you look at that crown, it's got the most facets on it. That's the one I'd go for. It's also how I would cut it as well. The slight difference in the brightness I don't think matters at all.

 

[TravelingGal]

I like #4.

 

[CharmyPoo]

On my monitor, all 4 stones look identical in color. I love cushions so I vote #4.

 

[movie zombie]

Aside from cut style, I think one should ask what is the distinguishing characteristic of a green garnet? In my opinion it's all about sparkle and fire. You want the flash.

a very good point re this or any other garnet. thanks for the reminder.

MoZo

 

[T L]

True Jlieb, but I think it's the combination of sparkle, flash and color. Some green garnets have poor color. Hopefully, IRL, these all have very nice color. The high crown was something I ignored in #4, glad you brought that up.

 

[arjunajane]

My eye went straight to #4 for colour and cutting / shape.
So, #4 than #3.

Lovely choices!

 

[chrono]

I am also attracted to number 4 but then again, I have a strong bias for square cushions. I wonder if #4 is considered to have a Portuguese cut pavilion? My tsavorite from Swala has a “busy” pavilion which takes advantage of the garnet’s natural sparkly characteristic.

 

[prettypenny47]

No word from Eric yet, but he gave me an interesting fact that I don't think he would mind me sharing. The 4 tsavorites were found in a small pocket at the tanzanite mines in Mererani, which is considered uncommon.

Everyone's input has been very helpful. Thanks Chrono for figuring out those percentages, because it kind of rules out #1 emerald for me. Right away I felt #1 emerald was a little too long for my tastes. My fingers are small and are often bothered by rings that bump my knuckle, so I would prefer a squarish emerald cut, versus a long emerald cut, and #3 seems least likely to bother me. I do like the more bang for your buck theory with #1,however, with the larger face up size, as I'm always in favor of bigger.

So far #4 is the front runner. I prefer a more squarish cushion, although this one is a rounded cushion, kind of a combination of both round and square, it seems good. I'm not sure about the pavilion, but I agree it will probably have more dispersion than the emerald cut. There's something about being asked if your emerald cut "green stone" is a true emerald, however. Um, why yes it

 

[jstarfireb]

I like 4 best provided the color is as nice as they say. The squarish cushion is definitely my favorite of these shapes.

 

[JewelFreak]

I'm for No. 4 too. From these photos, though it's almost impossible to catch RL color in pics, it seems to have better saturation. I love an emerald cut best usually but the cut on #4 looks like it will engender better brilliance. Let us know which one you decide on!

--- Laurie