1 carat asscher cut stone - question on measurements

[dln]

I have done a fair amount of searching for an asscher cut stone, and have come across one that is of interest. It is 1.00 carat.

Based upon the depth (71.4%) and table (74%), the overall stone measurements seem a bit high (5.77 x 5.70 x 4.07)? The GIA report is attached, and I would appreciate any feedback from the experts out there on this stone regarding the measurements or any other aspect of the stone.

Thanks.

DLN

 

[strmrdr]

Do you have a picture of the diamond?
It has a large table and I dislike large tables in asschers the smaller tabled ones pop more and usualy have a better 10 mile deep look.
Other than that need pictures to tell you more.

 

[Kaleigh]

It looks like this is a classic asscher having depths between 65-75% depth . The best have depths between 68-72%. I just bought a modern interpretaion and mine has a depth of 60.3%. For modern asschers the best have depths between 60-65%. My stone is .92 and the measurements are 5.83X5.82X3.51. HTH

ETA: Storm is right you really need to see a pic of the stone in question. He knows these stones like no one else.

 

[strmrdr]

For comparison here is a nice 1ct class asscher.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_09ct_f_vs1_asscher.htm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2005 12:04:29 PM
Author: kaleigh
It looks like this is a classic asscher having depths between 65-75% depth . The best have depths between 68-72%. I just bought a modern interpretaion and mine has a depth of 60.3%. For modern asschers the best have depths between 60-65%. My stone is .92 and the measurements are 5.83X5.82X3.51. HTH


ETA: Storm is right you really need to see a pic of the stone in question. He knows these stones like no one else.

Table is too big to make it a classic cut but otherwise i agree.
No matter what the numbers pictures are needed to judge them.
Nice asschers of an cutting style that look and perform properly are rare and hard to find.
GOG rejects far more of them than he accepts as do the other vendors that have moved towards the better cut asschers.

 

[dln]

Thanks for all the responses. No, unfortunately I don''t have a picture of the stone, but will see if I can get one.

DLN

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2005 12:39:38 PM
Author: dln
Thanks for all the responses. No, unfortunately I don''t have a picture of the stone, but will see if I can get one.


DLN

if you do post it here and we will let you know what we think.

 

[ko]

Hi DLN, I am a big fan of asschers and I agree that the table dimensions are too big to be ideal, I believe it should be <60%. The only other thing about asschers is that the dimensions don''t mean that much, and how it looks is more important. Good luck.

 

[valeria101]

There is this brand, the 'Royal Asscher' that does a good job at renedring the traditional shape. One just got potsed HERE and there is more about the Royal Asscher (or RA) on this forum.

However... many call any square emerald cut (generic) asscher and for better or worse the looks of these stones has become recognized as such. These 'generics' may or may not look anything like the brand or the old Asscher cut diamonds and there are nice and not so nice among them. Perhaps brilliance can be 'mneasured' as a treat of quality, but aside that, to each his own - shape remains a matter of taste.

Even by tradition I couldn't say that 'Asscher' means something with a small table, high crown, large cut corners (closer to octagon than square) and deep pavilion... etc. For what that matters, diamonds with these characteristics have become collectable, but all the Art Deco period revered some squares with flat crown and pointy corners (square 100%). Sometimes such stones are called 'Asscher' by antique dealers, are definitely rare and collectable too... So, there is allot in a name. I really o not know all that much about these - just enough to try and make just a tiny bit sense of the names and numbers

On a list of diamonds like the one here, or Blue Nile or anywhere on a jeweler's website, I would look for size first, then a rather loose range of depth and table, some range of color and clarity. Then reality check the price and ask the seller to provide some pictures. That probably sounds simple, but really, these stones need to be seen and looking over a database sounds like stabbing into the dark.

I've never tried this before (all those posts notwithstanding) but you might want to consier these search steps.
I only dare lay them out because this post will be under scrutiny by so many (professionals included).



Three step database shopping:

#1. If a shop has pictures, pick a couple of options for refference - there is no way table & depth numbers coul convey as much about a diamonds' looks than an image. These stones are only good if they look good to you. Some lab reports provide images (GCAL does and it is used by the 'Signature Collection' at Blue Nile). A few stones with pictures reported are listed iunder the 'search by cut quality' above and a few more (but without prices listed) on a wholesaler's website HERE. The last link makes pretty good refference because they list lots of stones so you can see what 'small table' and 'big table' look like atlest in picture.

#2. No pictures... than I would look for about 6mm size (allright, make that 5.5-6mm, but the larger the better), depth upwards of 55%, table downwards of 70%, very thin-slightly thick girdle, symmetry and polish good or better, and IMO it could have any kind ofculet except 'extremely large' whch is just out of scale and doesn't say much about the stone.
Of these, looking for table and size and girdle (just avoiding 'extremely thin') is sufficient, the rest is implied.

#3. I do not know if anyone can guess if a certain diamond would be brilliant or not based on table & depth (= all that's usually available). If brilliance is a priority, the one way to deal with it is to let a seller find the diamond for you.

END of story...



About that small table issue mentioned above... yes I agree that step cuts with high crown and small table have a distinctive look. Many like it and it is esirable overall. Also, it is farely easy to pick those up from a database because the relevant number shows. It may be that tables (loosely) around 55% also insure other desirable features (perhaps high crown ? but you might just find the one exception of the week too!) but I have no background for the claim - just an unprofessional hunch. And then, you might agree with the opposite camp that says that diamonds with large tables look larger, are cheaper because make better use of the material and have better spread. To each his own.

Try tosee somestones before using those databases, or at least browse a TON of pictures (at least that little database... until someone will care to make better refference available online) and give it good thought of what the stats on GIA certs say and what they do not.

Hope this is not too confusing.

This is pretty much all Iwould know to do facing online diamond listings instead of the diamonds themselves. Corrections are welcome

Just for fun... both these are non-branded. The one to the right lookscloser to the branded Asscher and the current understanding of the traditional Asscher cut. The larger table of the one to the right alsodictates the more square outline (not octagonal like the other) - but the implication does not work the other way around. There are 1001 nights worth of stories about diamond cut !

70% depth 54% table ... 70% depth 70% table.

 

[dln]

Valeria101,

Thanks so much for the detailed information. I will digest and continue my search.

DLN

 

[icekid]

Date: 7/26/2005 12:04:29 PM
Author: kaleigh
I just bought a modern interpretaion and mine has a depth of 60.3%. For modern asschers the best have depths between 60-65%. My stone is .92 and the measurements are 5.83X5.82X3.51. HTH

ohh kaleigh! i don''t remember hearing about this. have we seen this beauty?

 

[dln]

OK,

Another question regarding the Asscher cut. Just looked at many Asscher cut diamonds in the same .85 to 1 carat range on a certain web site. For the most part, they have larger overall measurements (in the 6.2 to 6.5mm range) over other Asschers I have looked at on web sites (in the 5.2 to 5.6 range). The trade off appears to be that while the overall measurements are higher, the depth is lower (in the 60-62%) range, and much of what has been said is to look for a depth range higher than this.

Is this an attempt to market stones that "appear" bigger in a setting, yet will not have the same brilliance and beauty?

Again, insights and information are appreciated.

DLN

 

[strmrdr]

The could be nice what I call modern interpretations of asschers or they could just be badly cut asschers without pictures it is impossible to tell.

There are really multiple groups of cutting styles in asschers that have there own rules.
In general the best no matter which style will have a crown height of at least 10%.

the best of the modern interpretations will have roughly 10%-12% crown height, med range girdle, table under 61 and and a depth of %60-%65.
The cutting on these has to be spot on or they bark.

The classic style with have crown heights 10% to 15%+ ,tables under 61% with mid to high 50s being better, and total depth of 68%-75%
There is a little greater variation tolerance in these and they can still look awesome.


Then there is the large table cut that I don''t like.
Tables larger than 65% , depths from 60%-80% barkers one and all as far as im concerned.

Then there is the royal asschers which is a story in itself.

 

[Kaleigh]

Icekid,
I am waiting to get it. I will start a new thread for it once I have it in my posession. Stay tuned!!!
Ok sorry, back to the asscher in question.