Rad_Fan
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,173
Exactly!!! It was like frame with no picture. A fine emerald has microscopic inclusions that give it a more overall velvety appearance. This was more like a dark green aquamarine if that makes sense. It had color and RI of an emerald, but not the depth of one.I also saw a flat Zambi once and it almost liked a portrait cut but did sheen just around the sides.
That Macy's one looked much "better" than EEFY ones. More blue.
If anyone saw my post in the “Emerald Education”Thank you for your inspiration. Went to T&Co and saw 2 Zambi. emerald rings. The smaller one is about 1ct and is asking for $27K. I am pretty sure that they are in med. dark tone but just strong saturation only. Under the table still looks semi flat. Glassy but definitely no Rockefeller! The one at your T&Co looks better and costs more $$$.
If anyone saw my post in the “Emerald Education”
thread, I compared the Rockefeller to a synthetic emerald. Fine emeralds, while clean, have a hazy appearance due to micro inclusions. This makes them look more beautiful. The Tiffany&Co emerald I saw had sharp looking back facets when the light reflected off of them. It was not velvety, or glowy, but very much like a synthetic. I didn’t like it at all, despite the duck neck color, and it’s eye clean appearance. Honestly, if I saw it in a case at Costco with the synthetic emeralds I see there, I wouldn’t have questioned it as being fake.
I’ve seen superfine emerald in estate pieces and they are truly a sight to behold, the Tiffany stone was disappointing, “Glassy” and “flat”are good descriptions.
Sure, unless you want to start a new thread????@T L, do you mind if I ask your opinion on blue sapphire here?
I finally finished reading this thread. @T L Thank you! This is so educational.
There are concepts or details I just understand what has been said but not the essence. I will come back to this thread again after some real experiences.
Probably something like this
https://www.instagram.com/p/Brmx-ZJH_NQ/?igshid=1w2a6wv8scz78
Medium dark tone and vivid blue or very slightly violetish blue satutation/hue with some silk, but not too much to overwhelm clarity. There’s a reason why stones such as these command the highest prices. The cutting could be better on that stone, but in terms of hue/saturation/tone, it’s up there.
How about this? Do they look flat?I also don’t know if everyone can see it, but there’s a slight hazy effect that f you look at the Rockefeller emerald’s back facets where they’re reflecting light. I’m posting an up close photo. Look at a synthetic in comparison, see how sharp those back facets look, That hazy appearance, yet still clean, is what you want.”
I don’t think either set of emeralds look “flat.” A typical flat looking emerald looks like a synthetic. Both sets of emeralds look natural to me. They both have a hazy appearance, but the fact that the top set appears to have been photographed in diffused natural light and/or is in a box under glass, detracts from the sheen. The second gem, which may have more full sunlight or direct lighting on it, gives off more of a sheen.How about this? Do they look flat?
https://www.instagram.com/p/By0raMIDtMR/
I think there slight haziness, but far less than this one below.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BysbDn5lJHJ/
But maybe the lighting in the second one would showcase that quality better?
Sacrilege!!! I hate when they drill holes in pearls to hold diamonds as well.Check this out, this is the first time I saw setting like this...imaging what kind of stress the emerald went through?
FUNKY
...I hate when you have to "DM for price"