about to buy asscher diamond, which to choose?

[kenny]

Due to the small table and large corners 'Octavias' face up in the same range as other well cut asschers.

Karl, thanks for clearing up the incorrect statement that Octavias face up smaller than generic asschers.

 

[woofmama]

Due to the small table and large corners 'Octavias' face up in the same range as other well cut asschers.

Karl, thanks for clearing up the incorrect statement that Octavias face up smaller than generic asschers.

My apologies to you both. Thanks for the correction. I'll research further before making a statement in the future.

 

[chrono]

Is a 75% depth in generic asschers what is to be expected? Is it possible to get a well-cut good performer in the 65% depth range? I know that a certain depth is recommended for good reason (too lenghty to explain here) but I thought shallower generic square ECs are possible.

 

[Gypsy]

I got an email about this thread. Was coming to help but you have Karl here already.

 

[Karl_K]

Is a 75% depth in generic asschers what is to be expected? Is it possible to get a well-cut good performer in the 65% depth range? I know that a certain depth is recommended for good reason (too lenghty to explain here) but I thought shallower generic square ECs are possible.

Great Asschers are possible from ~55% depth to over 100% depth.
In general for a generic asscher the trade considers anything over 70% as deep which is why you see a lot of 68%-69%.
In many cases I agree but there are exceptions.
With clipped corners and a small table a 75% depth stone can have the same spread as a well cut 68% depth stone.
A stone with a overly bulging pavilion at 65% depth can be smaller than one 69% and one 76%.
The bottom line is look at the mm measurements and go by spread not depth.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

21415 certainly appears to have the best ASET which runs contrary to what the recommendations are. So either ASET's are useless (which I don't believe), or something is very strange about the comments on the stones.

I do not like the ASET on the third one, but if you are setting the stone without a halo, I advise you to go with a larger stone rather than a small D-F VVS stone.

 

[james007]

I agree with you the 21415 ASET looks better, but I'm not an expert. I prefer the shape of the 21415 because I like larger windmills. Most people in the forum recommend the larger one 211740. In the 360 photos I agree 211740 looks better, the 21415 was dirty. Also, the gemologist gave points to the larger one. 21415 has the most windowing and asymmetric according to the gemologist. 21415 symmetry and polish is VG compared to 211740 which is EX (does this make a difference?)

In this forum, I would like to hear expert opinion so I can make the best informed decision prior to spending so much money.

About the questions from Karl, if the dark areas flashback with slight tilt, the answer was a yes.

Hello Gypsy, I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks

I asked James Allen for this other diamond, still waiting for the ASET image. What do you think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/1.30-carat-h-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-204796

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I like the size but it has kind of skinny windmills. But my preference is for wider ones.

 

[james007]

Hello guys, that's the aset image for the last diamond. What do you think? I dont like it.

I'm about to do the purchase, should I take diamond #2 or #3??? Please last advice !!


I like aset image 2, but all other recomendations point to #3.

 

[gregchang35]

LAte to the topic, but what did you go with?

I prefer the ASET of 2 if htat is any help? larger windmills are more what i like.

 

[chrono]

Diamond 3. Diamond 2 has too much tilt windowing.

 

[gregchang35]

Diamond 3. Diamond 2 has too much tilt windowing.

yes, just re read what the gemologist has said.