asscher question....

[jcslim]

I have been gathering info, on Asschers, from PS for months now. I am finally ready to ask a question for myself.
Based purely on numbers, which Asscher would you pick?

Choice 1- $4506

1.01 carat
Color: D
Clairty: SI1 (I know this is not the ideal, but the feather (and only flaw) is on the very corner, and I am thinking it might be covered by a prong)
Table: 59%
Depth: 70.1%
girdle:med
Polish: excellent
Symmetry: excellent
5.68x5.49x3.85

Choice 2- $4696 (I haven''t seen the cert on this one yet)

1.04 carat
Color: D
Clarity: VS2
Table: 62
Depth: 67
girdle: med-sl thick
Polish: excellent
Symmetry: excellent
5.67x5.66x3.79


I guess I am mostly wondering about the depth difference. Is 70.1 too deep for a table of 59? and is depth 67 too shallow for table 62? And of course... the VS2 vs. SI1?? It is so hard to buy a virtual diamond, so I would really appreciate any feedback from those of you who have been around the block

Thanks!

 

[lovewhitediamonds]

as the experts here will let you know -numbers do not tell the whole story with asschers. You need to show them pics so they can let you know if it''s "kickin''"... from what I have learned, from Strms posts that there is no "eyeclean" SI1 asschers. Just my 2 cents. Good Luck!

 

[jcslim]

Thanks for the 2 cents! I attached the only picture of the SI1 asscher I have ( I hope I attached it right) . I haven''t requested pics of the other one yet. I''m trying to decide if I should buy the SI1 so I can see it in person. If I don''t like it I can always return it. I was able to get a virtual showing of it, which was cool, but nothing beats seeing it in person.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

I'm not loving that picture - it looks a little . . . muddled. . . in the center, and the pic just doesn't do a thing for me.

My intial inclination just based on numbers is diamond #2, but because Asschers are so hard to call without pics, I would wait to buy either one before you can get pics of both.

Also, the depth/table numbers look a bit better on #2 to me, and I'm also one that goes for as exact a 1:1 ratio as possible with Asschers.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/6/2008 5:47:27 PM
Author: jcslim
Thanks for the 2 cents! I attached the only picture of the SI1 asscher I have ( I hope I attached it right) . I haven''t requested pics of the other one yet. I''m trying to decide if I should buy the SI1 so I can see it in person. If I don''t like it I can always return it. I was able to get a virtual showing of it, which was cool, but nothing beats seeing it in person.

Something is off either the picture or the stone, picture isn''t good enough to tell which.

 

[strmrdr]

70% is on the deep side and with a 59 table needs a discount in today''s market.
67% depth is fine, get good pictures.

 

[jcslim]

Thanks for the feedback. I agree, the picture doesn''t help much. Based on what I have heard so far, I think I will try and get pics of the second diamond.....

 

[jcslim]

strm (or anyone else who might know),

When you say that the 70.1% Depth is a little too deep for the 59% table, what does that mean in terms of how the diamond might look? Does the depth detract from the diamond, or is it mostly just a waste of carats? Thanks for clarifying.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/6/2008 10:21:17 PM
Author: jcslim
strm (or anyone else who might know),


When you say that the 70.1% Depth is a little too deep for the 59% table, what does that mean in terms of how the diamond might look? Does the depth detract from the diamond, or is it mostly just a waste of carats? Thanks for clarifying.

faces up smaller than it should and it can also indicate too much weight in the pavilion which limits performance to a degree.
My up coming journal article will cover it in detail.

 

[jcslim]

Thanks! When can we expect the article to come out? I will definately look forward to reading it.