Asscher (square emerald) Quest

[Hest88]

Okay, just thought I'd start a thread to document this.

My sister is looking for a generic asscher for her e-ring, somewhere under a carat. She started out drooling over the Royal Asscher, but, as you know, it's a tad pricey. Still we wanted to make sure it had the octagonal look of an asscher and was not just another one of those typical square emeralds, so as far as I was concerned our choice of vendor was *very* important. We needed someone who really knew the difference and could guide us accordingly.

I immediately thought of three vendors: Nice Ice, Good Old Gold, and Whiteflash. I'd seen good examples of gen. asschers from all three of them. Unfortunately, both NI and GOG had nothing on their websites that looked to be within our parameters. I'd seen Beansy's thread about her WF asscher, though, and suggested to my sister that she contact them.

She ended up talking to Bob at WF and at first he said he had nothing available but would do a quick hunt. The next day he contacted her and said he thought he'd found a great stone. I also thought it looked lovely and sufficently octagonal, even down to the center. She asked him to pull it. It should arrive tomorrow at WF for testing.

I'll add to this thread as things develop. In the meantime, attached is our initial, very bad picture of the current contender.

Specs (assuming I read the fuzzy GIA cert scan correctly):
.87 carats, G, VS2.
Table: 63 Depth: 66
5.39 x 5.38 x 3.66

 

[Hest88]

Table''s larger than I would like, but I figured it was not something to quibble about. I''m looking forward to the Sarin report and Idealscope picture.

 

[chrono]

It does look quite promising. Can''t wait for the Sarin and Iscope picture.

 

[valeria101]

There are quite a few charming things ... like this_F_VS2 (64/59, Ex/Ex) and this_G_VS2 (68/54, Vg/Vg) around. No pictures, no nothing though, as usual

 

[valeria101]

... as oposed to nice pictures with no price tag! (the high grades weren''t my idea, the cut of these three surely is

)

 

[katbadness]

Hest,

I seem to recall at one point there was a poster who bought his Asscher from Barry at Superbcert. His stone looks more Royal Asscher-ish than usual, and when he posted his plot diagram, the pavillion showed that it has extra faceting - 4 steps, so it''s in between your generic Asscher and Royal Asscher.

Oh and I remember NiceIce and Oldminer saying that to get that classic Asscher look, the stone tends to be deeper with higher crown and small table. The numbers that NiceIce uses is 68 depth, 59 table. And it seems the examples Ana posted are approximating that number.

 

[Hest88]

Date: 11/11/2004 9

7:46 AM
Author: valeria101

There are quite a few charming things ... like this_F_VS2 (64/59, Ex/Ex) and this_G_VS2 (68/54, Vg/Vg) around. No pictures, no nothing though, as usual

Thanks Valeria. I actually had an email exchange with DCD and they told me that they, unfortunately, usually deal in more squarish square emeralds.

 

[Hest88]

Uh, did my file from the first post disappear? How weird. Well, here it is again then. This is the bad picture of the current contender.

 

[Hest88]

Okay, here''s the stone.

 

[Hest88]

IS image:

 

[Hest88]

Sarin. Opinions and comments will be much appreciated!

 

[Hest88]

Oops. Hit the button too soon.

 

[strmrdr]

my opinion of the idealscope and the picture is yucky.

the steps do not stand out and it wont have that 10 mile deep look.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/11/2004 4:45:21 PM
Author: strmrdr

my opinion of the idealscope and the picture is yucky.

the steps do not stand out and it wont have that 10 mile deep look.

Ouch! What do you mean ? An example would do, I guess.

 

[Hest88]

strmrdr, you don''t think that''s just the photo and its lighting do you? My first impression was that it''s a very nice stone, but now I''m wondering if the table is indeed too big.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/11/2004 4:50

7 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/11/2004 4:45:21 PM
Author: strmrdr

my opinion of the idealscope and the picture is yucky.

the steps do not stand out and it wont have that 10 mile deep look.

Ouch! What do you mean ? An example would do, I guess.

compare the picture to the 3 diamond picture above it.

see how the steps stand out on those 3 and the diamonds look like they are deep.

This one doesnt have it. Now normaly Id say maybe bad picture but the idealscope image is the same.

The steps dont show and it doesnt look deep like an asscher should.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/11/2004 4:52:13 PM
Author: Hest88
strmrdr, you don't think that's just the photo and its lighting do you? My first impression was that it's a very nice stone, but now I'm wondering if the table is indeed too big.

That was my first thought but the idealscope agrees that its flat looking without the deep look.

I could be 2 bad images I dont know but it doesnt look good to me so far.

 

[Hest88]

I shrank both images a bit, but I don''t think they''re substantially different. I looked at other IS images from stones other people have bought, but the IS lighting is much brighter. I''m wondering how much of a difference it would make if the lighting had less dark. Hmmm...

 

[Hest88]

In contrast, here''s a much lighter IS of a Royal Asscher.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/11/2004 5:23:28 PM
Author: Hest88
In contrast, here''s a much lighter IS of a Royal Asscher.

That looks more like id expect.
Im thinking that the brighter light would make the steps stand out more.
The white areas are leakage and it stands to reason that the brighter the light behind it the more they leak.
The asscher needs the leakage to provide contrast which gives it the deep look.

I dunno...

 

[Hest88]

Okay, we decided to go for it. If it really looks as bad as Strmrdr fears then there''s always that 10 day return policy! Thanks everyone for your help and I''ll see if I can get ring pictures as well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Learning exercise for Storm

When the IS image is entirely red (almost) - it means the light is coming from the red reflector.

White meas it is coming from under the pavilion.

Black means from the lens area.

(I know you know that) So here is the lesson - because the light in that gorgeous ascher is almost all red - it means the light is coming from all over the red reflector - but not form all exactly the same place.

Of course it is not all coming form the same angle - so when you kool at the diamond in a room - you will have light being returned from all different parts of the room - a light here and there, a black bit of furniture, a dopey blonde like Hest (that is a little in-joke just for hest who is not blonde

) who is wearing hot pink on this particular day etc etc. So it will look anything but flat, unless everyone is white skinned, naked, with blonde hair in a white translucent tent on a cloudy day.

PS if all the observeres were black in a dark room, then the diamond would look very dull indeed. but if the balck people went into the white tent, the diamond would scintilate like crazy

 

[Hest88]

Thanks Garry!

Here it is, the final product. It''s in a temporary white gold setting so my sister can wear it while on the hunt for her dream wedding set.

I wish the head-on picture were bigger, but oh well. I just can''t wait to see it in person!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/13/2004 5:55:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Learning exercise for Storm

When the IS image is entirely red (almost) - it means the light is coming from the red reflector.

White meas it is coming from under the pavilion.

Black means from the lens area.

(I know you know that) So here is the lesson - because the light in that gorgeous ascher is almost all red - it means the light is coming from all over the red reflector - but not form all exactly the same place.

Of course it is not all coming form the same angle - so when you kool at the diamond in a room - you will have light being returned from all different parts of the room - a light here and there, a black bit of furniture, a dopey blonde like Hest (that is a little in-joke just for hest who is not blonde

) who is wearing hot pink on this particular day etc etc. So it will look anything but flat, unless everyone is white skinned, naked, with blonde hair in a white translucent tent on a cloudy day.

PS if all the observeres were black in a dark room, then the diamond would look very dull indeed. but if the balck people went into the white tent, the diamond would scintilate like crazy

Your point is?
What is an asscher without the leakage that causes the steps to stand out and it to look deep?
not much ifin ya ask me :}

The Royal Asscher has what Id expect an idealscope image of a well cut asscher to look like.
Not solid red.

Hest88 the in the ring pics look a little better as far as looking deep but still looks shallow.
Let me know what you think when you get it

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/15/2004 3:23:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Your point is?
What is an asscher without the leakage that causes the steps to stand out and it to look deep?
not much ifin ya ask me :}

I think the point is that you do not need to have contrast from light lickeage to show anyhting - depth, scintillation... whatever. White under the scope is just a bit of transparent diamond that does not do anything with light at all, RA or no RA.

On another line, I think that the depth you mention is made up of a series of reflections of crown facets onto the pavilion and back (as it happens between with mirrors set at an acute angle ) - feasible with a not too steep high crown that reflects onto a relatively deeper pavilion (not too deep, otherwise the center of the stone gets dark). If there is lots of lickeage, than those reflections cannot be but diminished. It''s much nicer to have contrast brilliance than lickeage. Cut diamonds are just little experiements of optics to me - especially those darling step cuts.

 

[Hest88]

Strmr, I'm trying to picture what you mean and it's hard for me to imagine light leakage being preferable under any circumstances. The steps of a RA are not due to light shining through, like an unplastered barn with sunlight shining in between the strips of boards.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/15/2004 8

1:29 PM
Author: Hest88
Strmr, I'm trying to picture what you mean and it's hard for me to imagine light leakage being preferable under any circumstances. The steps of a RA are not due to light shining through, like an unplastered barn with sunlight shining in between the strips of boards.

Remember that the i-scope shows the reverse of what it will look like mounted.
The clear areas will be dark because they arent returning light.
The red areas will be bright.
The contrast between the dark and the light areas give it the deep look with distinct steps.

 

[strmrdr]

this pic says it all

 

[strmrdr]

lets see if this worked this time....

 

[strmrdr]

...