Asscher

[haunani]

Ok... I read through most of the other asscher posts and know that there isn''t really any "ideal" proportions for this cut, but I was wondering if there are any numbers or ranges that can help me seperate the asschers I see into two groups - the "no way" and the "maybe".

I think I read in one of the earlier posts that a true asscher cut will rarely have a depth under 60%. Guidelines such as that is what I''m looking for... like what''s a good minimum value for the crown height and table size? Nothing too specific, but a range just to help me out so I don''t have to request pictures and such of every single asscher that fits within my budget out there!!

Thanks!

Oh yeah - and what are the opinions on the A. Jaffe rings... BOTH personal AND professional (from the experts)... and ''no comment'' doesn''t count!!

 

[niceice]

Greetings, we answered your question in-depth via PM, but for those who are lurking, a 60% total depth is too shallow for a well cut Asscher, deeper is better, it allows the concentric squares to appear...

 

[valeria101]

Hi!

I guess the point really is moot about what an Asscher is (since the word is sooooo WIDELY used), but why not go to the source: see what the patented Asscher cut (the old or the new) should be and take a 20% variation range in any, but not all at once measure... As far as my eyes tell, small (50% or even less, a real flop for an EC) tables provide the 'hall of mirrors' effect even in rather common emerald cuts (square or not) from 65% to 70% depth. But we are talking about a visual effect which has not been quantified per se, so... this is as much as I can say.

I have not seen any estimate for what geometrical parameters result in the 'hall of mirrors', althrough I could immagine how to work this out. I would really welcome more technically informed corrections here.

As for the Jaffe line, the rings seem well crafted for manufactured goods. They keep the conservative style and dwell within the technical range of commercial jewelry. Some design elements seem inspired to me, but one can tell what kind of wire and metal sheet was used to make the things. All, in all: a decent buy which does not look like mass-produced, industrial sophistication... But, I have all my stuff custom made and I feel particularly harsh this morning.

 

[niceice]

Standard emerald cut diamonds, even when cut square do not produce clear concentric squares dropping down within the table facet... That comes from getting the depth right with a specific facet structure on the underside of the stone... This is kind of like the belief that all round brilliant cut diamonds exhibit a crisp and complete Hearts & Arrows pattern, they may exhibit some sort of hearts and some sort of arrows, but more often than not the arrows are faded and the hearts are more like warped V's... For the pattern to be crisp and complete, the facets have to be shaped and aligned just so and the crown and pavilion angles have to be within a very specific range... Name brand has nothing to do with whether a diamond is an Asscher or not, the facet structure and proportions are the deciding factor... Kind of like a duck can be a duck without being a Mallard if it is shaped like a duck and quacks