Anyone familiar with the Octagonal Step Cut?

[Raffi]

I was under the impression that any Asscher style diamond, other than Royal Asschers, was identified as a Square Emerald Cut by the GIA. Yesterday a local jeweler showed me a stone that had all the characteristics of a classic Asscher; very wide corners, high crown, small table, small culet, and a deep bulging pavillion. The GIA cert. identified it as a Modified Octagonal Step Cut. It looked quite different than other "asschers" I''ve seen. Is anyone familiar with these Modified Octagonal Step Cuts? And why haven''t I seen these anywhere else?

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Ryan

 

[asscherfreaknyc]

I don't know the answer but FYI, my GIA certified stone, which the jeweler and I called "asscher" is labeled a "square emerald cut" on the certificate.

 

[mdx]

Due copyright considerations GIA describes diamonds cut to Royal Asscher dimensional proportions as Modified Octagonal Step Cut. These dimensions are similar but not the same as a Square Emerald

Johan

 

[Raffi]

Thanks for the reply Johan. I know this particular diamond is not technically a Royal Asscher. I've been shopping for an Asscher style diamond for a while now, and this is the first one I've seen that is identified as Modified Octagonal Step Cut. Do you know if this distinction would add value to the diamond since there don't seem to be many available. And does anyone know anywhere else I could find this cut style? I liked the look of it more than most Square Emerald cuts I've seen.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Raffi, were the sides of the diamond of equal length, with it having the outline of a stop sign?

If that were the case, I could see it being descibed as "octagonal", rather than as a square emerald cut.

I would consider the octagonal shape a desireable characteristic.

 

[valeria101]

Did it look anything like the piece below? Lucky stone!

 

[Raffi]

Thanks for your replies. Yes, if my memory serves me right, it resembled the picture on the right. It wasn't perfectly equal sides though, I think 5.56 X 5.86 or something. A week ago this jeweler didn't know what an asscher was, but told me he'd see what he could find. Yesterday he showed me two 'square emerald cut' asschers with big tables, and this 'modified octagonal step cut' asscher. He couldn't believe he asked his suppliers for 'asschers' and got two totally different styles of stone. For approximately the same price.
Seeing as how this jeweler didn't even know what an asscher was, should I be careful about who I get an independent appraisal from if I decide to purchase this diamond?

 

[valeria101]

This is probably a good time to question what "Asscher" means for the seller and what it means for you. This is a generic commercial denomination, loosey describing square step cut diamonds (taking the words from GIA)...
Also, "Asscher" is a patented cut, as you know.

"Geometrically" speaking, none of these are "square" because of the cut corners but octagons with inequal sides. All comes down to what kind of outline you want. A few characteristics of the outline may influence the desirability of the gem: such as visble non-squareness and lack of symtry. The octagonal look is not a detraction. In consequence, all other details of the cut (polish, and dimentions: total depth, table, crown and paviion depth) are way more important and them alone will influence the evaluation of cut quality. The AGS standards for ECs still apply to this stone above, as for yours.

Of course appraisals are a good idea, and getting them from the seller a rather counter-intuitive way to go. However, I do not understand what your last question is about...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Yes, you would want to question the appraiser as to whether he is familiar with Asscher cuts or not. Many aren't.

These are the characteristics of a classic Asscher:

Octagonalish outline
High crown
Smaller table than norm
Deeper stone than norm
Slightly bulging pavilion
Wide windmill pattern
Square patterned house of mirrors effect
Excellent life for a stepcut stone

 

[nobodyb4]

With this cut ( modified octagonal step cut) how do you know the AGS EC proportions apply? On prior archived posts, the generic square emerald cut were described to not fit the classic criteria of the Atlas emerald cut for various reasons.
The cut is the hardest variable in the "Asscher" cut that we have been comparing especially site unseen because we can not find a true standard.
Any advice?

 

[valeria101]

No standard for Asschers: right! There isn't any (unless you take the patented cut as a standard). /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]>

The one thing on AGA standard that sure does not fit is the note about proportions (L x W), of course. Fortunately, this is not a strict standard even there, but rather left at your choice. AGA standards do get in conflict with the traditional expectation for the OLD ASSCHER cut to have that combination of depth-high crown-small pavilion. If you choose that look to be your standard "Asscher" than the AGA charts are not extremely useful since the tradition of the cut precedes them with a century or so./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]>

There isn't anything in the respective standard to warn of ECs with large corner sides (hexagons with equal sides rather than unequal, as the mainstream ECs). Given what the ACA standards stand for by definition, they should apply, in my view. The critical aspect remains your choice of interpretation of the commercial "Asscher" name as: "square EC", "hex. step cut", knock-off of the modern brand or imitation of the old Asscher cut./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]>

However, ACA does not treat light return considerations directly. if this is your concern, than I am afraid there is no standard devised to help translate Sarin data on a step cut into potential optical performance. I guess Jonathan did do some work on this (given his comments posted here and there on Pricescope about various non-round) but I have yet to see something posted/ published on this matter./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]>

Why do you need a standard? On a stone I already like, I would probably use it to ward off unwarranted price premiums, nothing more./www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>