Asscher decision, part II. Help, crunch time!

[bert1000]

Thanks Strmdr, EM1, and others who helped assure me that the 1st stone below is a real winner. I have seen it in person, and it is amazing.

I still do have a bit of a decision to make though. A second ~2ct asscher was at the store, and it actually looked pretty good in person too (see link below). Maybe not 100% as good as the 1st diamond but still pretty good. The decision is that the 2nd stone is almost 65% the price of the 1st! That''s a lot of money that could go to the wedding band, etc. If the 1st stone was only 20% more than the 2nd, I would go with #1 but this difference is big enough that I need to take a hard look at the 2nd stone.

The 2nd stone has some strange dimensions (compared to strmdr''s target #s) --67% table, 69% depth, 14% crown -- but it looked pretty good to the eye. You could see the steps nicely, and nice fire. Maybe slightly darker in the center than the 1st.

This is a tough call. Well from the experts, is the 2nd stone still kickin or just ok? I will likely have to decide tomorrow.

Thanks!

1st stone:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3598

2nd stone:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4599

 

[Dreamer_D]

I''m no expert but in this case you may be the only one who can decide if that price difference is "worth it", since you have seen them side by side and liked the looks of them both...

 

[bert1000]

Thanks. Yeah, I know it will come down to a subjective choice of budget vs. quality, but would like to know if the 2nd stone is on its own a good/great diamond according to the experts on the forum. I pretty sure the 2nd diamond isn''t as good as the 1st, but is the 2nd diamond good enough to get a "kickin" stamp... Stay tuned...

 

[LaurenThePartier]

I'm not an expert, though I do know what looks good to my eye in an Asscher.

To be honest - I adore stone #1. Stone #2 looks like it could be beautiful, and since you've seen it in person, you'll have a better idea of what that savings means to you. A tiny bit of darkness wouldn't bother me if it was lively enough and still had plenty of fire and brilliance.

Looking at the stones, and assuming I'm a tightwad, which I am;

And for the sake of ease of comparison, assuming stone #1 is $10k and stone #2 is $6,500 - I would go with stone #2 for sure.

But remember, I'm a tightwad.

 

[vespergirl]

I like both, but number 2 is actually spaeaking to me more. I used to have a 2.25 ct asscher that was 67% table, 69% depth, and I thought it was gorgeous. Here is a pic set in a ring in outside shady lighting:

 

[vespergirl]

Another

 

[vespergirl]

last one

 

[emeraldlover1]

As a lover of step cuts I agree with Vespergirl that the second stone speaks to me more than the first. Personally, I''d go with the second one and save the extra money for something else. We always say that you need to see step cuts in person and it looks to be the case with this one. Sometimes the numbers are just numbers expecially when a large price difference is a concern. I''m not an expert though.

 

[emeraldlover1]

BTW...I loved Vespergirl''s asscher and almost cried when she traded in for a RB. I never knew those were the dimensions of her stone and I doubt that it would have mattered because it was truly beautiful. The reason that I like the second stone more is because I personally prefer stones with larger windmills like that stone has. They are both beautiful but since there isn''t a large difference in spread or color I''d probably go for the less expensive one and save the money for something else. No one else IRL is going to ask you about the depth and table % of your stone so if it looks great and is easier on the wallet, go for it!

 

[decodelighted]

Agh. Tough one. Well, in a way. Not so tough in that they are both beautiful stones. But I understand why #1 is more expensive. EX/EX is super hard to find in an asscher ... its an "F" ... and it is over that magic 2ct. mark.

Proportion-wise, honestly they are very similar. Its not like #1 has a super RA-like 58% table or anything. Table mid 60s to 68% isn''t as dramatically different a look. (my own is 67%).

I''m sure we''re talking about a sizable chunk of change ... at a time you''ll be having many other expenses (wedding, bands, honeymoon, home, family). BUT its a once-in-a-lifetime purchase where, if you can afford it, you''ll probably want to leave knowing you got the best you could find. Agh. I''m no help right?

I''d kinda want the 2ct F ... but, if I had to make the choice myself, I''d opt for the more practical stone.

 

[bert1000]

Thanks for the comments guys! Hopefully Strmrdr will weigh in as well (not to make a decision for me of course, but rather rate/comment on the 2nd stone in his way)

Vesper, that''s a great ring! Why did you part with it? Btw, is that an x-prong setting?
Yeah, as ppl have said, this is a tough one in a good way! But still tough...

Here my latest thinking:
1.93 G
Pros: good patterns, more octagonal with fatter winmills, significantly less expensive
Cons: worried about more darkness in the center, slightly smaller (I could tell with my eye)
2.04 F
Pros: really white, great patterns (but narrower windmills), brighter center
Cons: very expensive -- paying the >2ct premium, etc.
Can someone interpret the diamxray and aset images for me? I am still learning. I know red is better, but is all the blue on the 1.93 aset a sign of a problem or just maybe a problem?

 

[Dreamer_D]

What was JOn at GOG's opinion on the two stones? His opinion should count for a lot too, I'm curious about his assessment. Storm has said that he thinks Jon really knows his asschers!

 

[tberube]

I like 2 better for its thicker windmills.

 

[bert1000]

Jon thought both were quality, with a "slight preference" for #1

 

[JoeNewbie11]

I like stone #2 as well. If you look at both DiamXray images, stone #2 appears to have more intense light return and stone #1 appears to have more light leakage. I think stone #2 is really going to pop in person. What a choice though!

 

[strmrdr]

In my opinion the second on is not a bad diamond but is a small step down from the first.
It is really up to you to make the choice if they were the same price the first one would be no brainier in my opinion.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/30/2008 11:14:19 PM
Author: bert1000


Jon thought both were quality, with a ''slight preference'' for #1

I agree

 

[bert1000]

RE: Diamxray, light leakage on #1 b/c of the white on the winmills, and the larger square outlining the center?

What does the ASET say to you? Thx.

 

[bert1000]

Date: 7/1/2008 12:55:32 AM
Author: strmrdr
In my opinion the second on is not a bad diamond but is a small step down from the first.
It is really up to you to make the choice if they were the same price the first one would be no brainier in my opinion.

Hi Storm. You mentioned previously that the 1st is one of your favorites. So are you saying that the 2nd is still kickin'' in your opinion, but the 1st is even more kickin''? Or is the 2nd "not bad" but you can do better if you look for other G,VS2, Very Goods? In other words, if you didn''t have the 1st to compare, would you be excited about the 2nd diamond?

What do you think of the Diamxray and ASET for the 2nd? Sorry for all the questions, but I am a natural comparer and data nut...

Ultimately, I''ll have to make the decision based on personal situation but like to have as much info as possible!

 

[vespergirl]

Emeraldlover - awww, thanks for the compliment on my ring! There are times that I miss the little guy. I''m sure that I''ll have another asscher someday, maybe in a ritani right hand ring.

Bert - I traded in my asscher because I turned out to be a sparkle & size girl after all (round stones face up over 1 mm squared bigger than square stones of the same carat weight.) I got tired of people asking me if my 2 ct asscher was "almost a carat." Also, step cuts are harder to keep clean & sparkly than brilliant cuts, so with a baby at home, I don''t have a lot of time to dedicate to cleaning my ring.

That said though, asschers will always be one of my favorite cuts, and if it''s what your girlfriend wants, she''ll be thrilled to have it!

Both stones are beautiful - I can''t wait to see the one you choose on her hand!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I thought this was an interesting thread and I think it just drives the point home that numbers are completely secondary to your own eyes when it comes to fancies.

I agree that #1 has the better numbers (smaller table and more crown height), plus it is spreadier, but #2 looks like a great stone to me. I''ve always been head over heels in love with Vesper''s old asscher with the 67% table. I always thought I wanted a table < 60%, but ended up with 63%.

I''m also super duper frugal and if it were me and the second stone were only 65% as much as the first, I''d go that route in a heartbeat, even if I loved the first stone a little more. I really do love the fat windmills in stone #2--I might pay 5% more for stone #1, but not 35% more.

 

[vespergirl]

Bert, BTW, because you asked, the setting is actually a Verragio solitaire, but it looks kind of like the x-prong.