depth / table question sqr emerald or asscher

[Cynthia]

Can someone give me a visual of what a square emerald or an asscher (my preference) looks like with a large depth and a small table and visa versa?

Is it possible to give a visual of this ?

tks

Cindy

 

[Cynthia]

Can anyone help me or is it too difficult to provide photos for this type of question?

 

[windowshopper]

sorry i think unless you have some sort of photoshop ability and pix to manipulate them yes ...............very hard..........

 

[strmrdr]

I looked around and didnt find much.
To really tell anything they have to be in the same type of lighting when the pictures were taken.

 

[valeria101]

My favorite diamond story

Thanks for asking !

I must have a trunk load of these... just a minute to shift through

 

[strmrdr]

val,
Please see if you can find an asscher pic. in your collection that shows the asscher 10 mile deep look.

 

[orange_horse]

3.42 carat branded royal asscher with 65.1% depth and 60% table.

 

[valeria101]

The mile deep look is an optical effect (like the H&A pattern), that doesn''t mean that the stones are 10 miles deep

There is a free version of the Gem Adviser for step cuts (call that Providential, or what). So it is readily feasible to analyze what looks how...

That RA (as any, as far as I know the breed) seems to have great optics - surprise, surprise

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/23/2004 10

7:43 PM
Author: orange_horse
3.42 carat branded royal asscher with 65.1% depth and 60% table.

awesome!
even in that bright of lighting it still looks deep that will be 10 miles deep looking in the right light.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/23/2004 9:25:57 PM
Author: strmrdr
val,
Please see if you can find an asscher pic. in your collection that shows the asscher 10 mile deep look.

Not that sure what you are talking about... somewhat, but could you show me, say, the Gem Adviser way ?

Gem Calc Source

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/15/2004 95:19 PM
Author:Cynthia
Can someone give me a visual of what a square emerald or an asscher (my preference) looks like with a large depth and a small table and visa versa?

There are lots and lots of slightly different versions of each breed. Once one decides to look into as much detail as customary for ideal rounds, there is no bottom to the pit

Anyway, here's a couple of diamond videos :

A square step cut with table 68% and depth 68%

same numbers but a high crown and different outline

68% depth and 73% table...


This is half of the answer you ask for. Here's the other:

73% depth, 55% table


I couldn't find a more square Ec of the small-table breed presented this way for the life of me. The Gem Adviser files put up by Jonathan for the Asschers at Good Old Gold come close, but, well it will take a few upgrades of the GA software to make the display look close to nature

Here's one such piece (look for the Gem Adviser model) of one of the stones. The one stray picture exemplifies the breed

link to Asschers at GOG


Before hitting extremes (near 50% and near 80% respecively), depth plays with light allot and determines size, basically. Leaving brilliance aside (depth & table do not do much to explain it anyway), I think that the cut of the crown (table, crwn height) and the outline (more square versus more octagonal) do allot to determine the "look". The examples above show what different crowns (flat & large table versus high & small table) look like.

Speaking of extremes: how does 48% depth and 73% table sound ? Here's what they look like link


All IMO, as usual. Hope this helps a bit.


(PS: the source of the pictures appears clearly under "properties' on the right click menu. I hope this is appropriate form of citating a source, since there is quite some amount of citation...
PSS: no endorsement for the respective sources in particular - aside the inspired display)

 

[orange_horse_fiance]

They all look beautiful! That is where my biggest confusion comes in as I search high and low for our asscher......We have been given all the specs. of what a "square emerald" should be, and I by know means have any sort of trained eye when it comes to these things....

BUT is there really anything bad with a table greater than the depth? OR maybe a table and depth that are equal?

Especially since the video you show doesn''t look "bad" at all to me.....

Thanks,

OHF

 

[strmrdr]

This one shows a nice 5 mile deep look but it fails the concentric squares look.
The large table is one of the reasons for the huge gap between the squares.

 

[strmrdr]

This one is better and has more of the classic step look but this image has too much back light washing out the squares.

 

[orange_horse_fiance]

Thank you stmrdr....

That clears it up much better in my own mind and gives me a non-moving picture of what we are talking about....the smaller table/larger depth the more concentric the squares are ANd the better the "windmill"......

That is what I need.

OHF

 

[strmrdr]

Your welcome.
It also helps with the deep look but like the larger tabled one above the large tabled ones can look deep but they dont look right to me.
Finding a good picture is hard because everyone wants to post sparky pictures and not ones under indirect light.
Crown height over 10% will add sparks but that is a lot easier to find than one that has the rest of the package.

 

[Cynthia]

Thank you everyone who posted to this question. It has really helped me understand the ''making'' of a nice gen. asscher. If I ever win the lotto .. I''m getting a nice Royal one

Happy holidays everyone.


Cindy in Canada

 

[strmrdr]

I feel like talking about asschers and this thread seems like a good place to do it.

One of the things about asschers is that they have so many different looks depending on the lighting.
In bright light the edges throw a ton of fire as do the edges around the steps.
In other light conditions the windmills throw off a ton of sparks.
In indirect light the steps make the stone look 10 miles deep.
In comparison a normal RB is a one trick pony and an h&a RB a 2 trick pony.

Thats why I love asschers but its hard to find one that has all the emements in one stone so many of them are cut in such a way that in one of the light conditions they may look awesome but not in all of them.
Then there are a lot that are just plain duds and have none of the elements that make the cut work and look awesome.