Asscher Connoisseurs Help on Diamond Specs!

[Akasha05]

Hello!

I''ve been reading your forums for the last several weeks with great interest and appreciate all the assistance. I was considering a diamond from one of the e-retailers but happened to have come across this asscher/square step cut stone at a local jeweler that has a pretty high reputation. He happened to have a 2.0 carat asscher, which is what I was looking for that looked divine on this setting, although I would want something less elaborate. My main concern was that the proportions were off from everything that I''ve been reading at PS, meaning the table was greater than the depth%. Here are the specs:

Measure 7.16 X 7.14 X 4.62MM
Weight 2.0 carats
Symmetry VG
Polish VG
Depth 64.8%
Table 67%
Girdle Med to SL thick Polished
Culet none
Color H
Clarity VVS2
Crown 12%
Pavillion 49%

I didn''t get a picture but it was truly beautiful. Any thoughts??

 

[strmrdr]

looks good.
I was looking at a simular spec stone in person a while back and it was awesome.
When it comes to asschers there arent any hard and fast rules it is really about what looks good to you.
Not too deep and a great crown angle.
Did the squares look even and well centered?

 

[diagem]

Its not an Asscher, its a square emerald, The tables on Asscher Cuts are under 65%

But it seems like a beautifull square emerald cut...

 

[windowshopper]

the stone sounds gorgeous and it is in fact a square emerald but the term asscher is routinely used to refer to a square emerald. a real asscher cut is actually a BRAND that originally was a square emerald with some additional faceting ....you can buy an asscher but they are more expensive ....a gorgeous square emerald willl be every bit as beautiful as an asscher (many of which are verrrr deep). Fancy cuts have more of personal preference factor than rounds with some basic rules for what constitutes a well cut stone

 

[Akasha05]

Hey Guys!

Thanks so much for the replies. It gives me much needed reassurance. The squares/facets were perfect and the bow tie effect, I call it that, don''t know the technical term, but as you look at it from the top you see the points meeting in the middle and form a bow tie/ribbon effect outward to the edges of the stone, were very defined and looked great under the scope. Once I get a picture, I''ll post it for you to see. I should have them next week.

Thanks again!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/30/2004 5:14

3 PM
Author: Akasha05
Hey Guys!

Once I get a picture, I''ll post it for you to see. I should have them next week.

Until next week there is plenty of time for an Ideal Scope to ship in. Curious ?

 

[diagem]

And i thought this site was not trying to sell anything......,

 

[windowshopper]

what do you mean selling something?

 

[valeria101]

DiaGem, is this about my silly Iscope post ?

 

[diagem]

what is a iscope?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/31/2004 12:51:28 PM
Author: DiaGem
what is a iscope?

"Iscope" = Ideal-SCope (Garry''s)

 

[diagem]

Well, it seems to be for sale all over this site, I''ve been on this site for less than a week.

There are NO tools for fancy shape diamond. There is no such thing so-far as an ideal made fancy shape diamond......

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/31/2004 2:20:18 PM
Author: DiaGem
Well, it seems to be for sale all over this site, I''ve been on this site for less than a week.

There are NO tools for fancy shape diamond. There is no such thing so-far as an ideal made fancy shape diamond......

So, would you say there is no relation between what a diamond looks like and the proposed reading of it''s signature on the IdealSCope (or any related tool, there are quite a few versions) ?

This would be quite scary, since what you say is true - there are hundreds and hundreds of search results for "ideal-scope" on PS.

Along the same line, I do understand that there is no standard for cut grading fancies yet (wasn''t GIA preparing one ?). But there is no shortage of trials - mostly called "''scope" (Ideal Scope, Brilliance Scope...). Regardless of how nice each and every is, the general idea of making up some ''scope and related cut grades seems to be welcome. Garry''s version seems less restrictive - still a buying & selling accessory, but not totally linked to any given brand or product.
At least, this is what I was thinking writing that first post.

 

[diagem]

Show me examples of some readings please,....

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/31/2004 3:38:50 PM
Author: DiaGem
Show me examples of some readings please,....

"Reading" as in IdealScope images of diamonds or technicals about the 'scope ?

There is a reasonable amount of reading on Ideal-Scope.com including some account of what this toy cannot do.

Jonathan (GoodOldGold.com) uses his own type of 'scope that comes with a critique of the other kind.

Aside these, I am not aware of publicly available peer-review of the Iscope. Much as I like the toy, I could not claim to have made enough use of it to serve for formal research basis. Apparently Garry and perhaps Jonathan did just that. There is a wealth of Iscope images of most cuts on commercial websites. Since no standard refference exist for anything but rounds, there is some variety to the sample.
A computer model of the Iscope also exists - good to relate ranges of cut variations to Iscope 'readings' for any shape of diamond...

I can only imagine Garry would welcome any technical debate on what and how shows via his IScope. Such discussions did happen before, of course.



Perhaps bring this on another thread ? This one was supposed to be about a square emerald. It would be useful to open some discussion on what the 'scope can or cannot show about fancy cuts.

 

[diagem]

Be my guest, i will be more than happy to discuss,

 

[strmrdr]

I find ideal-scope type images less usefull for asscher type diamonds than rounds.
It can sometimes tell the story on the symetry of the squares but not always.
Getting it lined up just right is hard to do.
It is actualy something that the eye is good at but the camera isnt.
They usualy look a lot worse in the images.

imho:
asscher cut diamonds and clones are 90% about the pattern and 10% about having a high crown over 10% to give them some fire when the light conditions dont favor seeing the pattern.
I would never buy an asscher without seeing it or being on the phone with someone who is good at describing what they are seeing and have them look at it combined with a good return policy.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2004 12:28:12 AM
Author: strmrdr
I find ideal-scope type images less usefull for asscher type diamonds than rounds.

Hm... really strmdr ? How about the three guys below

There must be some story to be told there, IMO.

DiaGem, I would love to open a new thread like that, but since I do not stock diamonds myself, I would definitely not talk up or down somone else's stock unless I'd want to buy something. Or, well, someone else asks for comments.

 

[strmrdr]

val:
those all 3 are computer generated and not the real deal.
But if they were they all could be the same diamond (not counting the slight outside shape differences) they are much more sensitive to tilt than rounds when under the scopes.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2004 9:12:28 PM
Author: strmrdr
val:
those all 3 are computer generated and not the real deal.
But if they were they all could be the same diamond (not counting the slight outside shape differences) they are much more sensitive to tilt than rounds when under the scopes.

Hm... yes, but I can definitely tell you these are very, very close to the real Iscope pictures. Being models though, you can be sure these are three different stones with very nice numbers and literally perfect symmetry, all seen perfectly face down and in precisely the same setting, with mathematical precission

As for posting the other specs, I guess not. These are not mine

I was trying to make a point of what the ''scope alone can show anyway.