Asscher from JamesAllen

[strmrdr]

the .83 is yucky.
GOG, WF and niceice and others will call them in for you and take pictures.
My favorites for asschers in order are GOG, niceice, Pealmans, JA, WF

 

[Gwyn]

Date: 1/20/2007 10:50:52 AM
Author: belle
i put a HUGE black line (''inclusion'') in this one so you can really see how obvious it is on the big picture.
keep in mind, an inclusion this big would never ever, ever be an ''si''. not even from a less strict lab!

For some weird reason i still cant see the inclusion. I do see that an inclusion just like the one you drew on appears in this diamond james allen has up

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862556

I am so scared to purchase/evaluate a diamond when i cant even see a flaw in an SI2, lol. Is there some place people go for training or something

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Storm I do not agree with you about the inclusions and asscher thing.

I buy and sell many asschers with SI inclusions that are eye clean.

With this stone I would be more concerned that the cloud was a grade maker - and then could dull the stone - but I just looked and the Feather is announced before the cloud - so it should be ok.

I would ask for an ASET - or someones opinion of the ASET.
Or better still - have it sent to an appriaser from the list under resources in the upper right.

It looks good to me.

I have not looked at the others.

 

[Gwyn]

One other question.

People say that they would not recommend going below very good for symmetry and polish.

In laymans terms, can some tell me how the above stats affect an asscher. Online it says symmetry relates to the facets on the diamond, is that a light reflective thing? And polish, I thought all diamonds were shiny.

I also really like the pattern on this particular asscher, though it looks as thought the stone is a little deep. Is this a drop step?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=859967

 

[Gwyn]

what do you guys think of these below? I can see little dots almot look like bubbles with the magnifier. I assume those are inclusions. How would those, being on the table and all, affect the diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862575

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862607

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862579

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2007 2:46:38 AM
Author: Gwyn
what do you guys think of these below? I can see little dots almot look like bubbles with the magnifier. I assume those are inclusions. How would those, being on the table and all, affect the diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862575

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862607

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862579

first 2 are worth getting more info on.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2007 2:32:09 AM
Author: Gwyn
One other question.

People say that they would not recommend going below very good for symmetry and polish.

In laymans terms, can some tell me how the above stats affect an asscher. Online it says symmetry relates to the facets on the diamond, is that a light reflective thing? And polish, I thought all diamonds were shiny.

I also really like the pattern on this particular asscher, though it looks as thought the stone is a little deep. Is this a drop step?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=859967

good good might or might not be an issue.
When shopping in person its less of an issue than waisting money having them called in.
That one is deep and not that well cut.

 

[belle]

Date: 1/22/2007 1:22:45 AM
Author: Gwyn

Date: 1/20/2007 10:50:52 AM
Author: belle
i put a HUGE black line (''inclusion'') in this one so you can really see how obvious it is on the big picture.
keep in mind, an inclusion this big would never ever, ever be an ''si''. not even from a less strict lab!

For some weird reason i still cant see the inclusion. I do see that an inclusion just like the one you drew on appears in this diamond james allen has up

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862556

I am so scared to purchase/evaluate a diamond when i cant even see a flaw in an SI2, lol. Is there some place people go for training or something

you can''t see the inclusion because
1. it is white
2. it is ''well placed''
3. it is probably very small

again, if you have to look that hard for an inclusion in a magnified, disproportioately large, unmoving pic, more than likely you will not see it in real life. size (which i illustrated) and scintillation/movement have the most impact on what you see (or don''t). relying on info from just the picture, without talking to someone who has seen the diamond is hazardous. it''s hard enough to find great asschers without subjectively narrowing the field, much less with it.

there are eye clean si stones out there as garry, who actually sees diamonds, has told you. i still think that the first stone that you liked has great patterning and should not be dismissed until someone who has seen the diamond can verify whether or not it is eye clean. i say it looks like it is. a simple phone call will let you know.

 

[strmrdr]

If you ask about it ask if its 20 min staring into the heart of the asscher eye clean.
Iv seen over a dozen si graded asschers and not one passed the test.
At a glance eyeclean doesn''t cut it like with rounds because that''s not how an asscher lover looks at them.
It will fail the test.

 

[Gwyn]

Is 66 too high a table percentage for an asscher. People usually say look for high 50s low 60s. This one''s patten looks real nice to me
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=983944

 

[Mara]

garry gave some great advice as one of the resident experts...especially as someone who is very experienced with asschers.

in terms of eye-clean...you might have to ultimately determine that yourself, but i have seen a few eye-clean SI asschers in stores locally so i wouldn't just toss anything with a 'small, white inclusion' out of the running without checking into it a little further. good luck!!

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 1/22/2007 3:09:40 PM
Author: Gwyn
Is 66 too high a table percentage for an asscher. People usually say look for high 50s low 60s. This one''s patten looks real nice to me
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=983944

Gwyn, I prefer to defer to Storm because he is much more discerning than me, but this looks nice to me too. My asscher has a 65% table and I am quite happy with it.

I noticed this one is a 5-step. I don''t have much of a feel for how the number of pavilion step cuts affect the range of table and depth %''s that are acceptable.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 1/20/2007 9:04:07 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/20/2007 8:50:59 AM
Author: belle
w

w

i think that stone looks awesome!

great find! who says you can''t get an eye clean ''si'' graded asscher!?

well done.

who said it was eyeclean? there is a big booger of a feather on the edge of the table thats going to reflect all over the place.

I couldn''t find it at 20x.... and considering the entire stone is 5mm I doubt I''d find it in person lol

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2007 3:47:07 PM
Author: starryeyed

Date: 1/22/2007 3:09:40 PM
Author: Gwyn
Is 66 too high a table percentage for an asscher. People usually say look for high 50s low 60s. This one's patten looks real nice to me
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=983944

Gwyn, I prefer to defer to Storm because he is much more discerning than me, but this looks nice to me too. My asscher has a 65% table and I am quite happy with it.

I noticed this one is a 5-step. I don't have much of a feel for how the number of pavilion step cuts affect the range of table and depth %'s that are acceptable.

link isnt working for me...
66 is borderline I prefere them under 64 but 65 and 66 can work,,,
This is again one of those areas where if someone sees a 66% tabled asscher in person and loves it then way kewl but buying online it might be better to stay 65 and under tops.

edit: came up when I tried it again... too much tilt in the photo to tell anything about it.
edit 2: # of steps dont change the number ranges at all.