Who has the biggest Asscher in PS?

[threepwood]

Anyone know who has the biggest asscher? I would love to see pictures..

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''m not sure about THE biggest, but I know one of the biggest and most beautiful belongs to orange_horse_fiance at 4.21 cts. in a gorgeous setting:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/thanks-for-all-that-made-this-possible-asscher.23556/

 

[neatfreak]

Widget has a 4+ carat honker...but it''s an old stone and a deeper cut so it doesn''t face up as big. But BOY is it gorgeous. Here it is on my hand at the last PS GTG in San Francisco:

 

[happyfeet1988]

I know the center stone in Evelyn''s three stone is almost 5 carats..... not sure if it''s the biggest though.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/25/2007 8:58:09 PM
Author: happyfeet1988
I know the center stone in Evelyn's three stone is almost 5 carats..... not sure if it's the biggest though.

Here is Evelynn's 4.98 carat ring thread https://www.pricescope.com/forum/basic-violations/evelynn-s-first-post-with-pics-hopefully-t70180.html


I love Widgets stone!

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Here I am sitting here asleep wondering who has the biggers Asscher. Then I wake up and realize - wait a minute, my EC is an Asscher! LOL! It is a 6.39 center stone. It is an estate piece and is an elongated Asscher:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-rings.72943/

 

[musey]

Date: 11/25/2007 9:08:33 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu
Here I am sitting here asleep wondering who has the biggers Asscher. Then I wake up and realize - wait a minute, my EC is an Asscher! LOL! It is a 6.39 center stone. It is an estate piece and is an elongated Asscher:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-rings.72943/

Well, beautiful, yes (VERY!!

)... but asscher, no.

Widget's stone(s) still take my breath away, biggest or no!

 

[Nicrez]

I always refer to the "Asschers" are the stones cut by Asscher himself in the 1920's. I see them in estate pieces and everytime I am floored by their light performance. I guess more accurately I would call most square cut stones,"square emeralds", because that's what they are cut as. Asschers will exhibit the "windmill effect" where the corners and sides meet in the pavillion. It's that sort of X pattern that completely distinguishes it from all other square step cuts.

I had actually gone to a very fascinating lecture hosted GIA on the differences between Asscher and Square cut emeralds a while ago. The speaker had perfect specimens to show the differences and effects of the pavillion facet arrangement, I wish I had picture to show what I mean...

But as such, size in an asscher is mainly in it's depth and crown. Back in the day, they did not cut for bling, but for an elegant look. That was usually achieved by the deeper pav and higher crown, giving the stone fire that would sear a cornea. Nowadays, the crowns are not as high (and clearly for marketability, since who would buy a 4ct stone that looked like a 3ct?) Plus the shallower the crown, the more caratage they can get from the remaining rough of the same octahedron. Maybe a larger Princess cut...But the "inefficiency" of the older cuts is what seperated the "asschers" from the modern "square emeralds"...

Bigger isn't always better I guess, because the most stunning Asscher cut (cut by the brothers back then), which I saw was in a pair of Art Deco earrings, and both were about 2cts each. They were cut to me literally flawless in proportion...

But I will say that those are some lovely stones posted...

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Date: 11/26/2007 2:06:52 AM
Author: musey

Well, beautiful, yes (VERY!!

)... but asscher, no.

Widget''s stone(s) still take my breath away, biggest or no!

musey -

What is it about my stone that caused you to say " . . . but asscher, no."?

Thanks,
DB

 

[Ninama]

Date: 11/26/2007 1:05:54 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu

Date: 11/26/2007 2:06:52 AM

Author: musey


Well, beautiful, yes (VERY!!

)... but asscher, no.

Widget''s stone(s) still take my breath away, biggest or no!

musey -


What is it about my stone that caused you to say '' . . . but asscher, no.''?


Thanks,

DB

Does it have 74 facets?


Asscher vs. Emerald Cut

Asscher cuts are also sometimes referred to as "Square Emerald Cut" diamonds. The asscher name technically refers only to diamonds cut by the Asscher brothers, however the name is commonly used referring to square emerald cuts that are cut today. Emerald Cut diamonds have one main difference from Asscher cut (Square Emerald Cut) diamonds, that is, they are not square, but rather rectangular. Asscher cuts have 74 facets, while emerald cut diamonds have 57.

 

[DiamanteBlu]

[/quote]

Does it have 74 facets?

Asscher vs. Emerald Cut

Asscher cuts are also sometimes referred to as 'Square Emerald Cut' diamonds. The asscher name technically refers only to diamonds cut by the Asscher brothers, however the name is commonly used referring to square emerald cuts that are cut today. Emerald Cut diamonds have one main difference from Asscher cut (Square Emerald Cut) diamonds, that is, they are not square, but rather rectangular. Asscher cuts have 74 facets, while emerald cut diamonds have 57.
[/quote]


No, it does not.

BTW, I'm not sure where you got your reference but whoever wrote it is mistaken.

It is the Royal Asscher, a parented square variant of the 1902 original, that has 74 facets, 16 more than the original Asscher. The Royal Asscher was released in 2001 and patented in 2002 [Asscher E. (2002) Diamond. U.S. patent D453,007, issued Jan. 22, 2002.]

 

[Ninama]

Date: 11/26/2007 2:55:49 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu

Does it have 74 facets?


Asscher vs. Emerald Cut


Asscher cuts are also sometimes referred to as ''Square Emerald Cut'' diamonds. The asscher name technically refers only to diamonds cut by the Asscher brothers, however the name is commonly used referring to square emerald cuts that are cut today. Emerald Cut diamonds have one main difference from Asscher cut (Square Emerald Cut) diamonds, that is, they are not square, but rather rectangular. Asscher cuts have 74 facets, while emerald cut diamonds have 57.

[/quote]



No, it does not.


BTW, I''m not sure where you got your reference but whoever wrote it is mistaken.


It is the Royal Asscher, a parented square variant of the 1902 original, that has 74 facets, 16 more than the original Asscher. The Royal Asscher was released in 2001 and patented in 2002 [Asscher E. (2002) Diamond. U.S. patent D453,007, issued Jan. 22, 2002.]


[/quote]


You''re right... I was referring to the Royal Asscher.

I''m sure that Musey will answer your question, but I was wondering... what qualifies a stone as an "elongated Asscher", as opposed to simply an emerald cut? As you mention, the original Asscher cut was patented - and square.

Your diamond is beautiful, whatever it''s moniker.

 

[musey]

Date: 11/26/2007 1:05:54 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu

musey -

What is it about my stone that caused you to say ' . . . but asscher, no.'?

Thanks,

DB

Just the fact that it is a rectangular emerald cut. Asschers (or square emeralds that are referred to loosely as asschers) are square in shape. I don't know the ratio cutoff offhand. Saying that an emerald cut is an asscher is sort of like saying an oval is a round. Same general idea, but different dimensions (and patterns, for that matter).

I know little to nothing of the ins and outs of this terminology, but I do know that when someone is looking for "asscher" pictures, they are referring to antique asschers, royal asschers, or generic asschers/square emeralds... as opposed to emeralds.

Hope that clarifies what I meant!

 

[BABYPUFFIN]

Date: 11/26/2007 9:42:32 PM
Author: musey

Date: 11/26/2007 1:05:54 PM

Author: DiamanteBlu


musey -


What is it about my stone that caused you to say '' . . . but asscher, no.''?


Thanks,


DB

Just the fact that it is a rectangular emerald cut. Asschers (or square emeralds that are referred to loosely as asschers) are square in shape. I don''t know the ratio cutoff offhand. Saying that an emerald cut is an asscher is sort of like saying an oval is a round. Same general idea, but different dimensions (and patterns, for that matter).


I know little to nothing of the ins and outs of this terminology, but I do know that when someone is looking for ''asscher'' pictures, they are referring to antique asschers, royal asschers, or generic asschers/square emeralds... as opposed to emeralds.


Hope that clarifies what I meant!

Elizabeth Taylor refers to the deep asscher cuts in her 33 carat diamond ring in her book "MY LOVE AFFAIR WITH JEWELRY". Her ring has a similar look to DiamanteBlu''s diamond ring. I wouldn''t say Taylor''s was all that square.

 

[Ninama]

Date: 11/26/2007 9:52:17 PM
Author: BABYPUFFIN

Elizabeth Taylor refers to the deep asscher cuts in her 33 carat diamond ring in her book 'MY LOVE AFFAIR WITH JEWELRY'. Her ring has a similar look to DiamanteBlu's diamond ring. I wouldn't say Taylor's was all that square.

I'm not sure that "Asscher cuts" means anything more than step cuts...

 

[Ninama]

The Krupp

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Date: 11/26/2007 9:42:32 PM
Author: musey

Date: 11/26/2007 1:05:54 PM

Author: DiamanteBlu

musey -

What is it about my stone that caused you to say '' . . . but asscher, no.''?

Thanks,

DB

Just the fact that it is a rectangular emerald cut. Asschers (or square emeralds that are referred to loosely as asschers) are square in shape.

Asschers are square in shape? Interesting. Perhaps you should inform the Asscher people of their error link:


"This flawless Asscher-cut diamond in a Van Cleef & Arpels ring, weighing 16.27 carats and with a D colour, was auctioned at Sotheby''s on 16 November 1995. It fetched US $ 1,067,000." [note that the ratio of this stone is 1.18:1, mine is 1.19:1]

 

[BABYPUFFIN]

Taylor''s ring has often been referred to as an Asscher cut. More antique then modern Asscher but Asscher none the less. I believe it was the Asscher family that cut the diamond.

http://www.preciousplatinum.com/output/Page1450.asp

 

[Ninama]

So, I guess this would be a good question:

At what ratio (if any) does a step cut diamond slip out of Asscher and into emerald? Provided of course is isn''t actually cut by Asscher...

The link also says "We have discontinued the production of the old Asscher Cuts as we think too many different shapes are in the market under that name."

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Thanks Ninama, I was going to mention the Krupp as not being square [note the long culet] but you beat me to it! LOL!

Actually, the orignal 1902 Asscher cut was square. It was subsequently modified and eventually became more rectangular [elongated] and then later morphed into modern emerald cuts, square or rectangular and which often look like giant baguettes to me.

What distinguishes an asscher [whether cut by the Asschers or not] is the incredible depth you see inside the stone - it looks like it goes on forever. Their personality is unmistakable. They can be square or more elongated [unless you are dealing with the patented Royal Asscher which is square]. It is the facets that count.

ETA To answer your question, I have only reen references saying that there is no cut off. They are square to short and fat [for lack of a better term]. The long skinny emerald cuts did not show up until later - 1940's to 1950's. Now the fashion seems to be going back to shorter and fatter and square.

 

[Nicrez]

As it was once explained to me:

Beyond being a step-cut, the stone must have the clipped corners to a 1:2 ratio to the length of the sides. This 1:2 ratio is what caused the "windmill effect" where the meeting of the pavillion facets create four windmills that project from the open culet (usually in the shape of the diamond's octahedral shape, ie: diamond shaped - when square) They are often prized for their equilateral symmetry.

It can be elogated, and usually the elongated stones that retain the "Asscher cut" are the stones most traditionally cut by the Asscher brothers and have the Asscher favored cut ratios. The crowns are higher (above 25%) with smaller tables (under 40%), percentages are generally not known as few of these stones where graded, and the depth which is greater (in the range of 70's and over)...

They had been cutting the "Asscher" since the easrly 1900's, but those stones are so difficult to find for rarity and recutting that the stones with further steps added in the 1920's are more commonly found. People often had recut the earlier stones to sparkle more for the Art Deco genre that made them popular.

To me, there is NOTHING wrong with having an Emerald cut. A beautiful cut stone is beautiful. But I call Asschers the stones I know are CUT by Asscher, are from the time of the Asscher, or a a branded Royal Asscher. If it was a reproduction copied as an Asscher I may call it that, based on nothing else but it fits the standards of the style...

Ahhh...what is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... no?

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Yes, an Asscher should only be called that if it was cut by that house. Perhaps the more correct terminology for a cut such as mine [since we have no idea who cut it] would be Asscher style. Based on what I know, my stone was cut during the "time of the Asscher".

BTW, what do we do about the other shapes cut by the Asschers? And what about the trilliant? I understand that they developed that cut too.

 

[DiamanteBlu]

So, I guess it's settled, then. Liz Taylor has the biggest Asscher in PS - even though it is not quite square [And was it cut by Asscher? I can't find anything conclusive.].

 

[Nicrez]

Date: 11/26/2007 10:34:31 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu
Yes, an Asscher should only be called that if it was cut by that house. Perhaps the more correct terminology for a cut such as mine [since we have no idea who cut it] would be Asscher style.

BTW, what do we do about the other shapes cut by the Asschers? And what about the trilliant? I understand that they developed that cut too.

You refer to your stone as an "EC", but then call it an elongated Asscher cut. Again, to me, the very clipped corners that produce the windmill effect would have to be there to differentiate it from an emerald cut as well as the crown height, pavillion depth and the equidistant and equal width steps from crown to pavillion. Usually on emerald cuts the crown steps are a bit thinner than those on the pavillion, which does not lend itself to the "Assher style" with windmills and geometric concentric squares within.

I believe the Asschers'' already named the trilliant cut "Trilliant", instead of the Triangular Modified Brilliant it would likely be called in the trade.

 

[musey]

Date: 11/26/2007 10:03:40 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu

Date: 11/26/2007 9:42:32 PM
Author: musey

Date: 11/26/2007 1:05:54 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu

musey -

What is it about my stone that caused you to say ' . . . but asscher, no.'?

Thanks,

DB

Just the fact that it is a rectangular emerald cut. Asschers (or square emeralds that are referred to loosely as asschers) are square in shape.

Asschers are square in shape? Interesting. Perhaps you should inform the Asscher people of their error link:

'This flawless Asscher-cut diamond in a Van Cleef & Arpels ring, weighing 16.27 carats and with a D colour, was auctioned at Sotheby's on 16 November 1995. It fetched US $ 1,067,000.' [note that the ratio of this stone is 1.18:1, mine is 1.19:1]

edited: because it's not worth it

I meant absolutely no offense (as I did mention your ring was "beautiful," no?) by my post, just that I wasn't sure it was what the OP was looking for. Like I said, it's about what people think of when they hear the term "asscher" that they're usually asking about, rather than what may technically qualify as an asscher cut.

 

[surfgirl]

musey, I totally understood what you were saying. To me, Asschers are square...you say poTAYto, someone else says poTAHto...

No offense to the OP but I could care less who has the biggest whatever. I just like seeing people's rings, any size.

 

[tberube]

I THINK I''m confused...but I''m not sure.

Well at least I know what kind of diamond I have. I think...

 

[fansynancy]

Well at least I know what kind of diamond I have. I think...

I know what kind of diamond you have, a fabulous, gorgeous awesome one~!