What is the difference between Royal Asscher and Asscher

lawers have no spare time - they are too busy out spending money!!!

----------------
On 9/18/2003 7:02:12 PM Cut Nut wrote:

---

lawers have no spare time - they are too busy out spending money!!!
----------------

Ha! That's the last time I spend my spare time answering your questions!

he he he
i love lawyer jokes.
A friend (lawyer) collects them. Hang on, lawyers have no friends

That LawGem is an encyclopedia.

Where does he come up with all this stuff?...

Ya gotta love a lawyer who does does diamonds for fun. I'll bet his wife does.

You mean we are getting it for FREE

(be careful LG or the law society will have to lock you up or kill you)

Hi!

There are more facets to the newer version or Royal Asscher. And truly it changes the look of the stone. The original Asscher cut, patented in 1902 by Abraham Asscher is more subtle, classic and refined. The newer "Art Deco" Royal Asscher is simply an overhaul and revamp of an already wonderful cut. I've seen both. I understand the draw to each stone. But, bottom line???? Why would you want a revamp of an original? Much like a classic soda that we all love, the first, the original will always be the best.

Hi!

There are more facets to the newer version or Royal Asscher. And truly it changes the look of the stone. The original Asscher cut, patented in 1902 by Abraham Asscher is more subtle, classic and refined. The newer "Art Deco" Royal Asscher is simply an overhaul and revamp of an already wonderful cut. I've seen both. I understand the draw to each stone. But, bottom line???? Why would you want a revamp of an original? Much like a classic soda that we all love, the first, the original will always be the best.

Sorry, first time poster. I sent post twice and don't know how to delete first one. Okay, okay, I'm a post board rookie!!!!

----------------
On 9/3/2004 11:19:28 PM QualityOnly wrote:

---

Why would you want a revamp of an original?
----------------

... so you can patent it ? for example You will find a few diamond cut patents that only vary by very little: those arguably use barely there details of cut to qualify for a patent. At least the RA is differnt from the ancestor and in defendable ways, as far as I understand.

I am not very familiar with the make of the early asschers, but it seems that to respect that standard would no longer be in line with modern technology and a sound economic decision. I could definitely be wrong, but the old model had much worse yield and was suitable to produce larger gems (one per piece of roungh, with only top quality rough usable) so it would be untenable for relatively high volume production these days. Some other modern branded cuts maintain exclusivity in this way (by being uneconomical) but they are not nearly as widely recognized

Just my educated guess... There seems to be an interesting story about yield and the survival of diamond brands, and I happened to look into it these days

Any thoughts ?

Yes, I seem to be full of thoughts these days. Usually, I keep to myself. Still . . . this Asscher debate???


As I've stated . . . Asscher is a patent. The Asscher cut is not. If you'd like to purchase an original Asscher cut (1902-1935 approx.) you'll have to frequent Estate sales or auctions. The "old" Asscher is my most perfect cut of stone. It's elegant, original, exclusive and a little bit spunky.

My engagement stone is a 1.52, D Vs, Very good cut and very good polish stone. The stone is wonderous. As sad as it sounds, I may be willing to let it go. I bought my most perfect stone, but neglected to account for the fact that I'll never wear it.The stone is perfection, I am not, Michelle

For heaven's sake, why don't you wear it?

----------------
On 9/4/2004 3:35:45 AM MrsFrk wrote:

---

For heaven's sake, why don't you wear it? ----------------

Or show it to us, at least