3 asschers....which one would you pick and why?

[jimmy25]

By the way, I prefer asschers that looks more like a square emerald (larger table) vs. the more Royal asscher look. I want it to have an ideal/excellent cut and it must be eye-clean.



#1:

Shape Asscher

Carat Size 2.02

Clarity VS2

Color H

Table 65

Depth 69.1

Girdle VTK

Polish EX

Measurements 6.99X6.95X4.80

Report GIA

Symmetry G

Flourescence N

Culet N




#2:

Shape Asscher

Carat 2.0

Clarity SI1

Color G

Table 68

Depth 64.7

Girdle Thin To Medium

Polish VERY GOOD

Mesaurements 7.28x7.06x4.57

Report GIA

Symmetry GOOD

Flourescence None

Culet None




#3:

Shape Asscher

Carat 2.01

Color H

Clarity VS2

Table 68

Depth 70.1

Girdle THICK

Polish EXCELLENT

Mesaurements 6.93x6.88x4.82

Symmetry EXCELLENT

Flourescence NONE

Culet NONE

 

[Beansy]

I am definately not an expert, but I've been researching Asschers/square emerald cuts for about 4-5 mos. I can give you my amature advice, and maybe more will goin in. PS, you must see these in person anyway, the precision of the faceting can make the best of numbers look like a dud stone. The numbers only help you narrow it down to personal preferences.

#1: I like this one best for 1:1 ratio. I also like how the Depth is larger than the table. This is another key rule for the way an asscher looks compared to regular square cut.

#2: I dont' think you should go with this one at all. Due to the stone's fantastic size, you will most likely see inclusions with the SI1. Even if you don't see them from the face up view, you will most likely see them from pavillion, I don't know if that bothers you or not? It did with us. Asscher/emeralds show their souls.

#3: I like this one for the excellent Polish and symmetry. I'd like to think that when there is great symmetry, the stone may show more life, but I can be talking out of my --- here. I think table and depth are right on, the deeper depth may give you a bit more "pool" like effect. I am not big on the proportions, though. That is your call.

I hope this helps. If I am wrong here, I hope the experts can clarify for you.

Best wishes. The hunt is on!

 

[jimmy25]

In general, what are your thoughts on H VS2 vs. G SI1? I have been told that a GIA rated SI1 can still be eye-clean.

 

[Raffi]

Hi jimmy25,

Thought I'd share my experience with you. I recently purchased an Asscher from Blue Nile. It was an SI1, and the cert. showed an inclusion under the table. I called Blue Nile's customer service # to ask if the stone was "eye clean", and was told that the inclusion was white, and yes the stone was "eye clean". When I received the stone I was able to easily locate the inclusion with my naked eye. Luckily, Blue Nile's customer service was very friendly and easy to deal with and I got a 100% refund with no problems. After that I started looking for VS2 and higher, because I didn't want to have to deal with sending a diamond back again. I ended up with a beautiful H VS1 Asscher from Abazias.com.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nicrez]

Jimmy25, when it comes to Asschers and emeralds, since they have less brilliant faceting, they are best purchasedeye clean, and rarely would I recommend an SI1 unless it was really eye clean and just a bunch of pinpoints at the girdle.Stick to VS2 or VS1. /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

As for color, the higher is better, but I think an H should be OK.That’s for your eye to determine.G is fine.I would always recommend to a purist an F however.My color preferences are basically because I am really good with color, so some may disagree with me.I’m a color snob, and proud./www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

That said, it’s a large stone, so you have to be in line with color, clarity and if you like the perfect square I say go with #1 or #3 ( #2 is 1.03, not bad but not perfect ratio.The others are 1.00).If you like the sparkle at a good depth, and cut is very important, stick with #2.It has the lowest depth, and according to AGA would be an excellent candidate for a good sparkle in an Asscher.Have you seen these?Based on numbers I would say:/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

#1 is a good second choice, #2 is my first choice, and then #3 is my last.The excellent polish and excellent symmetry are nice, but not necessary.CUT is more important, and According to the AGA charts http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fnc2.asp/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

This is how they rate:/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

#1: Table=2A, Depth=2B/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

#2: Table=2B, Depth= 1B/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

#3: Table=2B, Depth= 3A/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

But I would suggest seeing them and seeing which one is “it”.At this point, to me that’s the only way to see a shaped stone, because they are all pretty nice!!! Good luck and let us know what you do!!!

 

[valeria101]

Keeping in mind the rule than table % is better somewhat smaller than larger than the depth % and my own preference for stones below 70% depth, stone #1 gets my vote. It is impossible to say wether you will ever be able to tell that G from that H apart based on color... The SI should be plenty eye clean, bar some very bad luck. I would like VG symmtery in a larger step cut like this, ust because the "good" category is very wide and can hide some rather crooked cuts. The very-thick girdle is not exactly the best that can be (it does eat-up weight and can be so thick it actally looks weird - since this grade simply means "girdle thickness of the scale"), but it could be ok.

Of the three stones, #2 is a 'no go' for me, by the numbers: the depth is quite small, so the chances to get a washed out stone with little sparkle get bigger at this point, and the large table relative to depth just reinforces this prediction for poor optics.

Stone #1 and #3 are close contenders, from the data given. Can you see them side by side? Can you get a Sarin report on them otehrwise?

Also, the AGA charts would be very useful, but using them for reference without having all the measurements required is not all that useful: not only one would not be able to conclude on a grade for the stone (as Nicrez posted) but the charts are suposed to rate stones not separate aspects of them: a certain table % tells little of the stone if does ot have data on depth and crown hight to relate it to, for example.

 

[jimmy25]

#1 and #3 are from different vendors, so comparing them side by side is not possible. I did however ask both vendors for a Sarin report. Do online vendors usually provide that to customers?

By the way, as far as price....#3 is $800 more than #1.

 

[valeria101]

sarin is a usual treat - at least for "ideal cut" stones and their sellers. If a seller routinely providea sarins for his H&A/ ideal rounds, it would for other stones too - so this is not an outrageous requirement at all. I keep my vote for #1 so far. The Sarin report could say that stone #1 has a rather flat pavilion - this would definitely sway me towards #3 regardless of previous comments, since I really hate that "flat" look, when there is virtually no diamond showing above the tips of the prongs... However, given the smaller table, the chances that this happens are not all thate great. Given this consideration, it woulf be good to get the Sarins (or at least the pavilion and crown hights from teeh sellers) , I woudl think.

 

[jimmy25]

Regarding the girdle on #1 (which is VTK) - should that be a concern? How much does it depend on the setting?



I'm thinking of using a setting similar to this one:

http://icestore.com/rings/ring_detail.asp?ID=24

 

[oldminer]

Crazy maybe, but I'd take a long look at #2. I detest very thick girdles on diamonds. It adds weight, but no visual dimension. It is wasted, but makes you pay the 2 ct price for a truly below 2ct sized stone.

I can't predict about which looks best or if the SI1 is more visible than the VS's clarities, but I would be very careful of eye visibilty in a large diamond with the emerald cut or Asscher faceting style. You may well see inclusions even in VS stones... Depends on size, relief and location of what's in there.

In plain English, everyone may take a guess at which is best, but none of us could choose properly without seeing the stones.

 

[jimmy25]

I have the GIA certs that show where the inclusions are. Is there a way for me to attach images to a post? Would that help?

 

[jimmy25]

How does this one compare to the 3 diamods above? The specs look good. Should I be concerned about the Light Blue flouresence?



Measurements: 6.97x6.94x4.90 mm

Weight: 2 ct

Depth: 70%

Table: 61%

Girdle: Thin to Med

Polish: Good

Symmetry: Good

Clarity: VVS2

Color: H

Fluorescence: Medium Blue

 

[BearMan]

in

----------------
On 3/1/2004 5:57:39 PM jimmy25 wrote:





By the way, I prefer asschers that looks more like a square emerald (larger table) vs. the more Royal asscher look. I want it to have an ideal/excellent cut and it must be eye-clean.



#1:

Shape Asscher

Carat Size 2.02

Clarity VS2

Color H

Table 65

Depth 69.1

Girdle VTK

Polish EX

Measurements 6.99X6.95X4.80

Report GIA

Symmetry G

Flourescence N

Culet N




#2:

Shape Asscher

Carat 2.0

Clarity SI1

Color G

Table 68

Depth 64.7

Girdle Thin To Medium

Polish VERY GOOD

Mesaurements 7.28x7.06x4.57

Report GIA

Symmetry GOOD

Flourescence None

Culet None




#3:

Shape Asscher

Carat 2.01

Color H

Clarity VS2

Table 68

Depth 70.1

Girdle THICK

Polish EXCELLENT

Mesaurements 6.93x6.88x4.82

Symmetry EXCELLENT

Flourescence NONE

Culet NONE


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

How do you like this stone

from Dirt Cheap Diamonds

stock number 2080152

GIA cert

carats 2.01

G

VS2

DEPTH 67.4%

TABLE 60%

Polish EX

Symmetry EX

Culet NONE

Girdle STK-TK

Flour NONE

7.06 x 7.05 x 4.75

$15338

I have an asscher i purchased from Solomon Bros but Unlike you I went with the RA dimensions 59% Table and 69.7%depth...

And my stone is a TON smaller then yours

1.09 G VS2 5.67 x 5.74 x 3.95

Polish Ex Sym G

girdle stk-tk

GOOD LUCk

 

[jimmy25]

It's just a little high on the price range.

 

[Nicrez]

Hey Bear man, your ring was so Exquisite I ADORE IT! I am now thinking of Asscher earrings maybe!! How did you like Solomon Brothers? What was your experience, because I have recommended some of their stones, but don't know if they have good customer service...

 

[jimmy25]

After doing further research, I've decided not to go with the one with Med Blue Fluorescence - I prefer no fluorescence.


I found this one....what do you guys think? The 1.036 ratio in the mesaurements is the only thing that stands out for me as a potential negative



Asscher

Color: G

Clarity: VS2

Table: 60

Depth: 65.6

Girdle: Thin to Med

Culet: None

Polish: Good

Symmetry: Very Good

Fluorescence: None

Measurements: 7.39x7.13x4.68

 

[valeria101]

The last sounds nice ! I would not consider that non-square at all.

 

[Hest88]

The huge caveat with fancies is that you can't really tell by numbers along. The table and depth are lovely in the last one you posted, but that's not going to determine how much light return you actually get. It would be great if you can get a Sarin since crown height seems to be one of the primary indicators with emerald cuts.

 

[valeria101]

Ok... crown height is not sufficient condition for obtaining good light return in an EC, but it is the one extra number taken into account by the AGA cut quality charts... Small tables do imply - to some degree - higher crowns, 'cause the crown angle cannot get too flat 9so as to allow for a small table AND shallow pavilion). However, this is just a rule of thumb. I would not expect a square stone with 60% table to be extra shallow, for example.

Lining up the stones cited on this thread (below)… the last two seem the nicest. The last one could be called “best” from all data available – and is the biggest too. (possible detractions are marked red and the good points blue… no color just means “unremarkable”). There seem to be enough choices… IMO.

 

[jimmy25]

How would #6 (the "best" so far) compare to this one?



#7:

Asscher

2.15 ct

68.7 Depth

66 Table

Girdle: Slightly Thick To Thick

Culet: None

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Very Good

Clarity: VVS2

Color: H

Fluorescence: None



This one is more square than #6....girdle is thicker...but it's actually a little smaller....better clarity and polish though.

 

[katbadness]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 3:43:26 PM jimmy25 wrote:

How would #6 (the 'best' so far) compare to this one?



#7:

Asscher

2.15 ct

68.7 Depth

66 Table

Girdle: Slightly Thick To Thick

Culet: None

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Very Good

Clarity: VVS2

Color: H

Fluorescence: None



This one is more square than #6....girdle is thicker...but it's actually a little smaller....better clarity and polish though.----------------

What's the mm measurements for this stone?

 

[jimmy25]

oops...sorry...here they are:



7.06x6.97x4.79

 

[valeria101]

Neither #6 or #7 is particularly bad... but they are different. It would be great to actually see them, or at least their full profile based on Sarin, but what we have will ahve to do, I guess.

It might be a matter of taste to choose between these. So, in my view, #6 is still winner. As the pictures below are trying to show... at least to me #6 is square enough and 66% is quite a bit bigger - which at least I do not like (acolade to the good old "Asscher" concept).

Still puzzled how could diamonds be sold online without ANY decent representation of them !!!

Oh well...

 

[katbadness]

#6 and #7 are pretty close to each other in terms of numbers, and neither ratio are too far off from 1:1.

 

[jimmy25]

katbadness, is #6 your pick then....if you had to pick one?

 

[katbadness]

Here are reasons why I'd choose #6 over #7.

Here's how they compare using the AGA chart :
#6 : Table = 1A, Depth = 2B
#7 : Table = 2B, Depth = 2B

#6 carries somewhat less weight around the girdle compared to #7

#6 has a better spread than #7 (the measurements show that #6 looks bigger)

And to me, #6 also has the added bonus of having a smaller table (60%) which is what I thought a classic asscher should be like.

But in all honesty, I think the 2 stones need to be compared side by side. Because ultimately what *you* like is what matters.

 

[jimmy25]

Here's another one. This one is more square than #6, better polish, thicker girdle though...I can get a Sarin report for this one.




Carat weight: 2.06

Cut: Very Good

Color: H

Clarity: VS1

Depth %: 65.8%

Table %: 59%

Symmetry: Very good

Polish: Very good

Girdle: Medium to slightly thick

Culet: None

Fluorescence: None

Measurements: 7.35x7.31x4.81 mm

Length/width ratio: 1.01

 

[jimmy25]

Here are the Sarin numbers for the last diamond:



Width 7.28 length 7.33 L/W 1.01

depth 4.80 66%

crown 36.1' 13.9%

pavil 55.3' 49.8%

table 4.26mm 58.5%

culet 0.7% off 0.3%

girdle 2.2% (2.2-2.2)%




Any opinions?

 

[jimmy25]

Hello....anyone?

 

[jimmy25]

What do people here recommend I do after purchasing a diamond online? Should I get it appraised? Insured? The setting hasn't been purchased yet - I will be buying the setting in person and will take the stone that was purchased online with me.



Any advice?