Newbie needs help with Emerald Cut vs. Asscher

[Ice]

I have just started my diamond research and have viewed many of the posts regarding emerald cuts and asscher cuts but still need help to compare the 2. I really like the emerald cut because it is simple and clean. However, many of my friends (and previous diamond purchasers) say I should avoid the emerald cut because it is very dull and therefore would not be value for money. They suggest the square cut emerald (asscher type but not Royal Asscher) because it is still simple and clean but has more WOW factor. Is this true? Does the square cut emerald/asscher have more brilliance than an emerald cut?

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Robyn12]

I agree that asschers have more of a WOW factor. I think part of that comes from the fact that not many people have them -- and many people have never even seen or heard of them. I also think when side by side with an emerald, an asscher will look more alive, and "sparkle" more... I am not sure why that is, but I'd go for asscher over emerald any day!

Good luck!

 

[niceice]

We like the Asscher cut diamonds much more than the emerald cut diamonds, they are much prettier and even a bit mezmerizing (sp?). We don't like the extra facets on the Royal Asscher, they make the stone a bit unsettling in terms of the pattern of light return.

 

[valeria101]

Yeah, it seems that square stoens are more trendy... but what makes the "WOW" for you, I cannot know from this side of the screen.

It is true that quite a few ECs (square or not) are not cut to obtain the best brilliance or proportions at all - hence the load of 'dull' stones out there. The usual factors making these stones unappealing are cut proportions - probably shallow depth and lareg tables, maybe poor symmetry on top. There is no hard rule to say what exact proportions give a 'sparkly' square or rectangular EC.

However, some proportons would fail to impress more often than others, and this is why a set of guidelines, a standard for cut quality could be developed in the industry (did you see this ).

Oh, and you may want to inspect such stones onlyne. I guess the sites of Niceice, GoodOldGold, Whiteflash (their expert sellection) would make a nice intro in the matter

Does this make sense?

 

[Demelza]

Along with the round brilliant, emerald cuts are my favorite shape. I think they are so elegant and so lovely when cut well. The problem is, it is very difficult to find an EC with the proper proportions. There seem to be a lot of short, stubby stones out there with severely clipped corners and excess weight in the pavillion. A poorly cut EC is ugly and lifeless. But, when they are cut properly, they are exquisite (to my eye). I'm sure I'm wrong about this, but it doesn't seem like there are a lot of EC fans out there. I think, for now at least, asschers are more trendy.

 

[Hest88]

I couldn't disagree more. There's nothing dull about a well-cut EC. It's elegant and mesmerizing in a understated way, and always tasteful. Also, a basic square EC isn't going to be any more brilliant than a rectangular EC--it's just the "It" shape right now so has more of a cachet.

Now, if you find a square EC that is truly cut to resemble a Royal Asscher as closely as possible--giving it a distinctive octagonal "stop-sign" look, then you'll have something rather different.

Either way, the important thing is what you like. I'm not an asscher fan, though I admire the look, but my heart skips a beat when I see a gorgeous rectangular EC--and no one's going to tell me I should feel differently!

 

[caratgirl]

Hest, I sure agree with you. Maybe it's because a rectangular cut seems to fill my long fingers just right. If I didn't love the sparkle of my round, I would absolutely go with either a rectangular radiant or emerald cut, just because I love the shape so much more.

 

[Ice]

Thank you all so much for your advice. I have found an emerald cut diamond that looks really good - that is it looks white and shiny and not as dull or grey as some others I have seen. But, I wanted to get your opinion on this diamond and so I have provided all the details I have below. Is this a good quality and balanced stone? Also,if there is some info that is missing that I should ask about then please do let me know. Lastly, how much should this diamond cost? Or put another way, how much would you be willing to pay for this diamond? Thanks again for all your help!

Emerald cut, 2.47 carat, H color, flawless, 65% table width, 12% crown, girdle medium, finish very good, fluorescence zero, proportions is 9.09mm by 7.23mm by 4.23mm deep

 

[katbadness]

----------------
On 3/17/2004 10:07:54 AM Ice wrote:

Thank you all so much for your advice. I have found an emerald cut diamond that looks really good - that is it looks white and shiny and not as dull or grey as some others I have seen. But, I wanted to get your opinion on this diamond and so I have provided all the details I have below. Is this a good quality and balanced stone? Also,if there is some info that is missing that I should ask about then please do let me know. Lastly, how much should this diamond cost? Or put another way, how much would you be willing to pay for this diamond? Thanks again for all your help!


Emerald cut, 2.47 carat, H color, flawless, 65% table width, 12% crown, girdle medium, finish very good, fluorescence zero, proportions is 9.09mm by 7.23mm by 4.23mm deep


----------------

I run the numbers of your EC on the AGA DIY's Cut Grading to see what grade it falls into. Numbers don't tell the whole story on fancy cuts though. A visual inspection is the only way to know for sure.

Cut: Emerald
Weight: 2.47 carats
Table % 65 Grade: 2A
Crown Height % 12 Grade: 1B
Girdle Thickness Medium to Medium Grade: 1A
Total Depth % 58.5 Grade: 2B
Polish / Symmetry Excellent Grade: 1A * Not a primary determining factor.

Final Grade: 2A (2A and 2B are both International Fine Trade Cut)

I also seem to remember that Oldminer mentioned that 2A for ECs are quite pretty. The 1As are really far and few between. But I'll let the experts give you a more accurate information in this matter.

So it seems like you have a good-looking stone. Does it look good to you?

 

[Hest88]

With the caveat that numbers are not the end all and be all with fancies, those numbers look pretty good for an EC. If the price is right and especially if you can get a good appraisal, I'd go for it. It's not easy finding an EC with those stats.

 

[Ice]

Your comments are very encouraging. The diamond does look very good to me

. Orginially, I had anticipated going for a H color VVS or VS quality. However, this came along and then I thought WOW! Since the quality factor has gone up so have the $$.

Now I am wondering if it is truly worth going for Flawless quality with an EC? Will the flawless-ness of the quality deteriorate after many years of wear? I plan this to be an engagement ring so it will be worn every day.

 

[valeria101]

Flawless is and it will remain so until it falls to pieces! At worst, chips may affect the grade, but once polished off, you will have the flawwless mark back. Inclusions do not grow... internal fractures are unheard off.

Not sure if these higherst clarity grades are worth more than their symbolic value, but it may take a while to find a stone with equally good cut and appearence (as oposed to 'dull and gray' as you say) and a VS2 grade. Most would not go lower anyway - although I would, based on appearence alone.

 

[mhtv]

the difference between an asscher and an emerald cut is not whether it is square or more rectangular. it is the proportions and stylistic details, such as the width of the corners, that determine the proper use of the asscher designation.

unfortunately, for the sake of sales, many vendors commonly refer to any square emerald cut as an asscher.

fact is, an asscher is a type of emerald cut, and can be either square or rectangular. and square emerald cuts are BY NO MEANS automatically asscher cuts.

bottom line is, buy what appeals to YOU, and don't fret so much on what others call it. it's silly to be more concerned with the name then the actual look. but of course there's no law against being silly.

 

[Ice]

Thanks again to everyone here. The one question I still have is 'how much should a diamond with these characteristics cost?'. The seller says he is giving me a deal but I really don't have a clue on prices. I have checked the websites recommended on this site to try and find comparable diamonds and the prices but some of the prices don't make sense to me - for example, I have seen stones of good color, high quality that are less expensive than a worse color, lower quality one and they are comparable carat size. I would think it would be the other way around. Maybe I am missing something? There has to be more to pricing than the 4Cs

For this diamond (details provided below), what should the price be? If you can provide a range I would really appreciate it. I just want to make sure I am not being had.

Emerald cut, 2.47 carat, H color, flawless, 65% table width, 12% crown, girdle medium, finish very good, fluorescence zero, proportions is 9.09mm by 7.23mm by 4.23mm deep. Per katbadness, AGA's DIY cut grading tool rates this a 2A (katbadness, thanks for doing that for me!)

 

[diamondsman]

The trend is for asscher cut diamonds ,that is true , but the EC. diamonds still outsells the asscher by far!!!
The asscher cut doesn't show the actual size of the stone, Due to the cut, you need to get a larger stone in order to have the same look as a similar stone in an EC. diamond, therefore paying more money.
The price on such a stone in question(ec.) is around $16,500-17,000 .
Some advise ,I would have gone to a larger stone and drop in calrity, you can get a nice 3.00 cts. in HVS1 for that price.
VS1 is as close as you can get to VVS-IF ,without paying the price.

 

[Ice]

Diamondsman, the price you provided - is that wholesale price or retail?

 

[Ice]

In terms of due diligence on the EC in question here, I have seen the stone, obtained the HRD report on the stone, used the AGA Cut Grading Tool, and of course obtain your opinion on the stone quality and pricing which seems to be very positive.

I have read a lot about Sarins and other analysis from the other posts on this message board. Should I ask for these reports on this diamond? If the answer is yes, what in particular should I look out for that might be an issue/concern with this diamond?

Is the HRD report reliable? It seems most people on this board refer to GIA and AGA reports? But, I have not heard of any mention HRD reports. How do the HRD reports compare to GIA or AGA? Is there anymore due diligence I can do to make sure the diamond is good and the price is reasonable?

 

[valeria101]

This stone has very good 'spread' - it would by no means suffer from the AVERAGE sin of ECs (square or not) to be much deeper cut tha rounds and thus smaller looking. The cut of the diamond would justify some premium (this consideration and pure pricing policy does account for the price differences you have observed, BTW). There may not be enough H-FL in your size range out there to get an idea. However, it may be good to take into account the prices for other fancy shapes of the same color, clarity and weight. Rounds do command a premium, so their prices should be taken with a grain of salt if used for reference.

The lowest prices on PS account for discounts on less-than-GIA grading and poor 'makes' - so the lowest prices would not make a great reference for your obviously well-cut diamond.

There seems to be a premium on IF over the next clarity grade, so 17k sounds optimistic, at least to me. As for HRD... no complaints.