A tale of two asschers

[asscherfan]

I now am the owner of two carat+ asschers and must send one back. Here are the stats on both.

Stone #1 - Measurements:  5.55 x 5.55 x 3.71
Weight:  1.04
Depth:  66.8%
Table:  61%
Girdle:  Slightly Thick to Thick
Culet:  Slightly large
Polish:  Ex
Symmetry:  Ex
Clarity:  VS1
Color:  H
Flourescence:  None
Price:  $5973

Stone #2 - Measurements:  5.72 X 5.71 X 3.97
Weight:  1.10
Depth:  69.5%
Table:  60%
Girdle:  Thick
Culet:  None
Polish:  Ex
Symmetry:  Ex
Clarity:  VS1
Color:  G
Flourescence:  None
Price:  5561

Both stones are lovely, far nicer than anything I was shown in the local jewlers stores. On paper, stone #2 is the superior choice, larger, same rough proportions, better color and cheaper by a little. And if you look at the stone it does have more play. It reflects light more like a brilliant cut would.

I kind of like the icier look of the first stone. You can see more of the steps of the step cut. The stone draws you in more to see the ripple of the steps. Anyway - my question is, should I trust my eyes on this and go with stone one? Is an icier look desired in asschers or to be avoided?

Thanks in advance.

 

[fuffi]

You are very fortunate to have both these stones in your posession to compare side by side. Have you looked at them in different lighting situations? Can you get your hands on an ideal-scope before the return period ends?

I can't really say what would commonly be more desirable in a step cut, but if one is considerably more pleasing to you, that's the one I would go for. Like you, I like to see the steps and dimensions in the stone, but also lots of white light reflected.

 

[valeria101]

Since light return in itself is not an issue, of course, there is no better method to choose among stones than to look at them side by side. And yes, I would go for the less brilliant step cut too: although I know this is not really what most people would want from a diamond. After all, step cuts (Ecs, square or not) are not normaly revered for their brilliance, although some can rival an average round for light return. Proportions, symmetry, clarity and color are more often mentioned as features that make the step cuts "elegant" rather than flashy. It seems that choosing between your two stones really is a matter of taste.

I would expect the first stone to have a somewhat "antique" look: not only according to your description, but also that larger culet is not something modern cuts usualy display. Of course, the stone could have been cut yesterdsy, but this particular feature is surely something I would expect from an older cut. This has also brought total depth down (despite the thick girdle), so the facet outline should be consistent with what a deeper stone without the flatened culet may he: all in all a nice profile of an older asscher cut. If so, it should be a nice encounter indeed

Pictures?

Soon ?

 

[asscherfan]

Valeria -

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it's a question of elegance vs. flashy. I wanted an elegant stone to begin with, which is why I'm attracted to the asscher so I think I'll probably stick with my initial reaction - the first stone is prettier to me.

The question of the culet is interesting. I think it adds another dimention to the stone - but others seem to disagree and think of a large culet as a flaw. Any thoughts on this.

I'm not sure I fully understand this sentance:
This has also brought total depth down (despite the thick girdle), so the facet outline should be consistent with what a deeper stone without the flatened culet may he: all in all a nice profile of an older asscher cut.

Could you elaborate?

Thanks and sorry for my ignorance.

 

[Mara]

How fun! In this instance, with a cut like an Asscher, I think that the icier look with more pronounced steps would be my preference. I don't know that I'd want the light return and look of a round brilliant for an Asscher. So I would probably choose the 1st stone. In this scenario, I definitely say go with your eyes, but also second the suggestion that you view the stones in all different types of lighting before making your final decision. The stones may look different in the lighting types, you don't want to find that out AFTER you have sent the other stone back.




Good luck and what a great opportunity!

 

[pqcollectibles]

It is great that you can compare them side by side at home. It sounds like one appeals to you more than the other. And that's the true indicator in the selection process. When all else is pretty much even, it's the diamond that calls to you, speaks to you.

Since you have them both there,.... Might I suggest you check out all types of lighting. Regular indoor light. Indirect outdoor light. Turn off the lights and look at them with candlelight. While you already have a preference, the performance of the diamonds in different lighting may just push you over the top in one direction or another.

Lucky You! Decisions, decisions! Drool!

 

[asscherfan]

Here's a twist to the tale:

Couldn't stand making the decision on my own, so I turned to an expert appraiser today. She took a look at both stones.

She says, they're very close in look, and even the color is very close to the point of being to hard to determine. She thinks the H may be a high H and the G a low G - but the GIA cert makes a difference.

Her appraisal - 4800 for stone 1, 6000 for stone 2.

Gulp - didn't expect that much difference. Stone 1 comes to a $1000 less than I paid. Feel a little gypped by Blue Nile who sold me stone 1. Stone 2 comes to few hundred more than I paid.

The rub is, looking at the two stones - I still like the look of the first one.

Is my eye that much off -

Think I might just have the first one mounted, and give her the choice afterwards?

Decisions, decisions. . .

 

[hoorray]

Since this is not a stone you plan to resell, the most important thingsis that you love the stone, and you don't overpay. In that order, in my opinion. Even more importantly, she should love it also. Maybe you should involve her in the decision. Since there seems to be a biger difference than you originally thought, she may have a preference between the two.

Also, have you talked to Blue Nile about the fact that it appraised for less than you paid? I think that would be a conversation worth having.

Good luck!

 

[fuffi]

Blue Nile prices are definitely higher than many other online vendors. I agree that you may want to speak to them about the appraisal coming in at considerably lower than the sale price. Perhaps they will work with you on that?

 

[Jax172]

I agree with the others that it might be worth talking to Blue Nile about the appraisal. Is there also a possibility (If they won't budge) on returning the stone you don't like as much and ordering another to look at from someplace other than Blue Nile? Maybe you could find one you like as much as the Blue Nile one but for a better price? If not, I'd get the one that you like best. Fancy shapes are pretty subjective in my opinion. Some people like some qualities while others like different qualities. If your comfortable with the price you paid and love the stone then keep it! But I would speak to Blue Nile first. And if you do keep it and cannot get them to lower the price, you'd definately want to make sure you can insure it for the price you paid. Good Luck!!

 

[asscherfan]

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I know a little color difference makes this market jump, but jimminy cricket. . .

I still think the first one looks like a better stone to me. But don't feel right about keeping something that appraised so much lower than I paid.

Is this a Blue Nile thing. I thought they'd at least be competitive with appraisal values?

Any thoughts on how to deal with Blue Nile ( when I first started comparisson shopping after I already had the stone, they didn't seem interested in lowering the price). I guess I'm still in the driver's seat with them, I have until January 15 to return it.

 

[hoorray]

I think I would just be up front with them about your concerns with the appraised value, telling them that you like the stone, but don't understand the pricing vis-a-vie the appraised value. If they are going to lose a sale because one of their stones doesn't appraise for the price, you would think they would know that that isn't good for business. Especially since the internet business is very sensitive to public trust. If they don't have a good response, then you have to decide if you are willing to pay a premium for the stone that the market can't support. (This happens in the housing market sometimes.) I would think that you can find an equally beautiful stone, given some time and legwork that is more apptly priced, but you have to decide if it is worth it to you.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/30/2003 1:17:22 AM asscherfan wrote:


I know a little color difference makes this market jump, but jimminy cricket. . .
I guess I'm still in the driver's seat with them, I have until January 15 to return it. ----------------

Whos is the cricket? You seem to be quite convinced that the first stone is the nicest.

TBC

 

[valeria101]

Just my 0.2:

If one takes all G-H, VS1 asschers listed on Pricescope (1.05-1.1 cts range) the average price per carat varies with less than 6% for color alone. Granted, the sample is small and does include the sellers of the stones themselves, but this may not be all that bad, since we are not judging them but two of their stones. Based on this, one may conclude that the appraisal has taken into consideration criteria that (statistically) few sellers have.

Otherwise, taking the list of all ECs instead of only the square ones, the respective price variation due to color alone is about 20%. All the numbers you have been quoted do not vary this much due to color... so, maybe the difference in appraisal value is not "large" compared to how uneven pricing is anyway.

All in all, it is up to you to judge wether you care about the quality criteria, whichever they are, the appraizer explained. The resale price of the stones will not be dictated by the appraisal and value is whatever you judge since you are the one who buys the piece.

Oh, and there was that note about the culet. I do not know how large this one is, but in stones like OMCs this flat, as oposed as piramid-like tip does reduce total depth a bit: just as one would take a normal stone with no culet and cut off the tip... The effect on depth is small indeed if the rezulting culet is small and large if large. Not much...


PS: where the numbers come from...
The samples were search results from PS's engine for either asschers or Ecs, 1.05-1.1 cts, G-H, VS1, default interval of cut proportions.

The sample of square Ecs (asschers) included 24 stones. For these, the average price/ct for Gs was $4490 and for Hs $4749. The 6% variation was computed as price difference over minimum price, among these two averages.

The non-square EC sample yielded the averages $4309/ct for Gs and $3574/ct for Hs (variation as above: 21%)

The combined sample of suare and non-square ECs yielded the averages: $4334/ct for Gs and $3564/ct for Hs (variation as above: 16%).

 

[Caratz]

----------------
Her appraisal - 4800 for stone 1, 6000 for stone 2.

Gulp - didn't expect that much difference. Stone 1 comes to a $1000 less than I paid. Feel a little gypped by Blue Nile who sold me stone 1. Stone 2 comes to few hundred more than I paid.
----------------

You might be able to use this to your advantage with Blue Nile, but before you jump to the conclusion that you were gypped by Blue Nile, you might want to read some of the old posts here about appraisals, their function, and how the numbers are determined. Most consumers are happy if they get an appraisal showing a grossly inflated price -- it makes them feel like they got a good deal, when it fact it only means that they are getting gypped when it comes to paying for insurance premiums. If in fact your actual out of pocket replacement value is $1000 less than what you paid, then you paid too much.