Asscher cut specs

[cb08973]

I''m in the market for an "Asscher cut" (not a "Royal Asscher, which so far as I can tell is a marketing gimmick). Nobody seems to agree on the "ideal" specs for this cut. I''d be grateful for anyone''s views on this.

First, the shape. Must a "Asscher cut" be square? I''ve seen a few step cuts that are certainly not emerald cuts, they have the corners cut like an Asscher, but they are rectangular like an emerald, not square. I''ve been told by the jeweler that at least one of these is pre-1940 but that the other is a new cut.

Second, the depth. One of these has a depth of 72.5. This is far deeper than the specs for an emerald, where I''ve heard 65 is ideal. It makes the diamond look slightly smaller as well, but the cut is beautiful. Is this depth off and should that affect market price or brilliance/reflection?

Third, table - I''ve heard that step cuts ought to be in the mid-60''s. Anyone have a view?

Fourth, does it matter in terms of market value whether the stone is truly a pre-1940s authentic Asscher or a recent cut, other things being equal?

I''m being quoted $21,500 for the following:

- 2.24 ct
- D
- VS1
- 7.78 x 6.71
- Depth = 72.9
- table = 61
- girdle = thick
- polish - very good
- culet - small
- summetry - very good
- flourescence - faint

I''m also being quoted $19.5 for the following:

- 2.05 ct
- F
- VS1
- 7.29 x 7.18 x 4.78
- depth = 66.3
- table = 45
- girdle = medium
- culet = none
- polish - vg
- symmetry - vg
- flourescence - none

I''d be grateful for thoughts from anyone who knows something about "Asschers".

 

[Hest88]

It took me a long time see the difference b/t a Royal Asscher and the others. Once it "clicked" though, I couldn't believe it took me so long. I'm not a fan of brand-names, but if I wanted an Asscher only a Royal Asscher would do.

It's a big mistake to think in terms of a cut-cornered square emerald. An Asscher has a very distinct octagon appearance, and the extra steps give it a deep, pool-like effect that is unmatched.

I'd hate for you to pay asscher prices for what could essentially be a square emerald (especially since emeralds are the cheapest of the common fancies). There *are* generic asschers out there that look better and simulate the RA more closely than others, but even then they're nowhere near the same. Still, if you don't want to pay that RA premium, you've first got to understand how different a RA is visually to see what approximates it best.

Re: the vintage asschers. I'd choose a vintage hands down. The a RA. Then, I dunno. Depends on the generic.

The revived market for asschers, though, is so new that I don't know if there are any stats as to what has more market value. Just for scarcity's sake, though, I'd guess a vintage would.

Lastly, I've heard of vintage rectangular ones, but I'm obviously not an expert--just a diamond lover. The question, I guess is if it has the look you want. People don't choose asschers for the asscher name, but for the look. So, only you know if the rectangular suits your needs.