|
|
|
|
Yup, agreed - I''ve got Bob to bring in the first one and we''ll see what it shapes up like - big question is the difference between the two cut styles. The plot shows deeper cut corners on the Cut-Cornered Square Step cut as well as a greater number of steps in the pavilion.
Could one of the asscher experts perhaps let me know of the differences between this cut and the Square Emerald? Have got the CCSSC in for imaging etc but would like to know why GIA rate them as a different cut style. Thanks all. * I am REALLY not an expert in diamonds =] * |
|
|
|
|
GIA calls every step cut that is not strictly an EC by some different name... In this case, all it says is that the thing is square, has the corners clipped and is step cut. With recipe any numbers of looks is feasible. However, if the corners were extremely deep cut the stone would be called "octagonal step cut" - which is not the case. A Royal Asscher (or copycat) or an old Asscher might be called that way - and if this is the case, lucky you. The larger table does suggest this is not the case... but the number is not huge and another cut characteristics may still yield the coveted look. Honestly, I'd rather see this unusual one than yet another square EC. ![]() Oh... and the plot may be quite far from reality. More often than not they are no closer to the look of the real item than a subway map is to the shape of the real subway network... and that is never veru close. The clarity plots are just "maps" to help locate inclusions for anyone that might want to reality check the clarity grade. |
|
|
|
|
*Oh... and the plot may be quite far from reality. More often than not they are no closer to the look of the real item than a subway map is to the shape of the real subway network... and that is never veru close. The clarity plots are just "maps" to help locate inclusions for anyone that might want to reality check the clarity grade*
Excellent - I thought that was the case but wasn''t too sure, and I like the subway analogy - especially living in London! This one has nothing on the plot and "cloud" listed in the plot comments bit underneath. Thanks AnaNow, Bob has sent me through Sarin, picture and idealscope... I think it looks great, just the shape I wanted - as Bob put it, beautiful. Guess I should post them up here, huh! Worried that suddenly I''ll find out you all think its awful though... Odd given I haven''t met you all but you obviously know your stuff ![]() Here the images are them, by the way, crown height is 14.1%. Sarin shows different dimensions to the GIA which I found interesting - 5.52*5.63 (Sarin) vs 5.62*5.48 (GIA). Attached them as the insert image was having trouble (or more accurately I was...)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow -- I''ve just started looking for asschers myself and think this is a stunner! Would you be offended if I asked you the prices for these? The size is the largest I think I would go, and would love to know if it''s in our price range . . . good luck and I think it''s going to be a fantastically gorgeous ring!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Kimmbe,
I went to Whiteflash with a budget of USD5,000 for the loose diamond after seeing one on their list slightly under that. Both the diamonds I listed here were well within that budget - to Bob''s credit there was no "hey, here''s a nice one for $5,800" type malarky... And sorry but the one in the photo is now taken Strongly recommend dropping Bob or anyone there an email to get an idea of what''s around for the moneys (obviously with some specifics around the key measurements you''re looking at and letting them know if it''s just at research stage, but I almost guarantee they will still help out). I was lucky enough to want the first one I saw from them (although have seen many others elsewhere) and went from first email to purchase of diamond and then setting in about a week! So careful, its dangerous! Also go through their Expert Selection photos (and goodoldgold.com''s asschers) to see which style etc you like - as the folks here will say, there''s a huge range in looks on these things. Will attempt to "add to the knowledge" and post other photos etc once it gets back with the setting. Good luck with finding a good one - they''re out there and more reasonable than I initally expected
|
|
|
|
|
PERSONALLY I THINK THE FIRST STONE WILL HAVE MORE OVERALL APPEAL--THE SECOND MAY HAVE SLIGHTLY BETTER NUMBERS BUT CUT CORNERS WILL GIVE YOU A MUCH MORE ANTIQUE ASSCHER-Y LOOK EVEN W/O THE DEPTH. ALSO THE SECOND WILL LOOK VERY SMALL FOR ITS WEIGHT AS IT IS NOT ONLY DEEPER BUT IT HAS SUCH A SMALL TABLE.......
|