Asschers...WHO KNEW? Sneaky little suckers....

[moremoremore]

Has anyone ever been turned off by an asscher only to see one in real life and be blown away? I was in the mall today and saw one (could have been a square emerald)..but WOW. Who knew? I was curious is anyone else had that experience

 

[moremoremore]

!

What is the diff in terms of characteristics of a square emerald and asscher. Some look more like a stop sign than others? Is that just a general variable in both?

 

[valeria101]

Since those generic Asschers have the same facet pattern as the ECs, why not? The short (or downright square) come more often with large corners. As far as I know this type is possible regardless of proportions (L/W). But cutting those corners is wasteful (in more than one way) so not an often sight.
Those "stop sign" corners that make a diamond more octagon than square also have somethig to do with the height of the pavilion, size of table and match of crown angles (on the two sides of a corner). All the right conditions are easier met in square than rectangular EC. There is a picture of one long octagon among the 'Cool and unusual' on the DBL site... And THIS at GOG may qualify for a less extreme case of cut corners

Step cuts are my one and only

but taking stills of those large facets make most stones look glassy. There are solutions to this, but I do not see any attempt often.

 

[reena]

i am LOVING asschers right now. esp those stop sign ones!

 

[Jennifer5973]

Asschers are gorgeous--and I love square cut emeralds too--I saw an eternity band once of 40 pt square emeralds and I almost passed out.

In trying to come up with a negtaive, it would be that they tend to look "small" for their weight but they are so gorgeous, who cares?

 

[moremoremore]

I agree that the cut corners are wasteful...and isn't taken into consideration when looking at diameter (so...it will have less surface area...pretty sneaky sis!) so a true square or more square will look bigger despitew the same mm measurements! I prefer only slightly cut corners...but man, they are beautiful. It's like little flashes all over. I wonder tho, if you need to have a pretty large stone to truly see its potential?

 

[reena]

1. how big would the asscher have to be to look fab in a pendant, and

2. why have i never seen asscher cut earrings, and

3. i want both of the above.

4. now.

 

[Jennifer5973]

I would think 1 ct, really....

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/2/2004 9:58:03 PM moremoremore wrote:



I agree that the cut corners are wasteful...and isn't taken into consideration when looking at diameter (so...it will have less surface area...pretty sneaky sis!)
[...]I wonder tho, if you need to have a pretty large stone to truly see its potential?
----------------

I am not sure surface alone is a very good measure of size - only better than weight, and reasonably simple IMO. Not sure if those cut corners make diamonds look 'small' even if they obviously cut off surface. Since that's where the prongs go, the whole issue is likely just academic

Surely heard about the sales pitch for princess cuts: "get them since the corners make them look big"... but never saw the point of that.

Now, the second statement of yours should be close to the absolute truth about diamonds

- Joke aside, I love them small and big as much. It seems that the contrast of those larger facest make small bits more eye catching fromm a short distance (over the table, rather than "accross the room") than the solid flash of a small round. More glittering icicles than self-powered light bulb. I'm really partial to Ec though

 

[QualityOnly]

Asschers are the bomb!!!! I've looked for the "perfect" cut for, ohhhhh, 20 years and finally decided that MY stone would be an Asscher. I prefer the original 1902 Abraham Asscher (Amsterdam) cut because it's the ORIGINAL. But, I've seen the Royal and have been mesmerized by it.

Bottom line? They are ELEGANT!!! You will not see them on your neighbor's hand. Everyone will ask you about it. AND they're still very hard to get. This makes the Asscher more expensive but it also makes it worth more. Your diamond is only worth what the market demands!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/3/2004 11:55:12 PM QualityOnly wrote:



I prefer the original 1902 Abraham Asscher (Amsterdam) cut

----------------

Does anyone make them in the old style anymore?

I am quite curious about the history of this cut. Did it start with a certain set of preffered proportios as are recignized now ?

 

[QualityOnly]

Hello fellow Oldstyler,

I, too prefer the older "original" cut. The only way to get an authentic "orignal Asscher" cut is through estate sales or auctions. Many gem lovers are now trying to duplicate the stone.

I have an "original", although not Asscher cut from a vendor in New Orleans. It's a very classy, elegant stone that every jeweler I've taken it to here has wanted to purchase. You can get stones from very select cutters that would meet the "Asscher" standard without paying thousand more for it.

My stone is a 1.52 D color, Vs quality with VERY GOOD CUT AND VERY GOOD POLISH. Other than color, cut and polish are what determines a diamond's brilliance and fire.

I'm in love with my "non-brand" very exquisite "Asscher". Buy Asscher, just realize you don't have to buy "Asscher" per say.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/4/2004 1:09:06 AM QualityOnly wrote:



You can get stones from very select cutters that would meet the 'Asscher' standard without paying thousand more for it.

----------------

What is this standard all about ?

The last time I heard about any descriptions of it some numbers were mentioned: depth 70%-80%, table below 50% and crown towards 20% plus, well, "the look".

Is there a better way to describe this "old Asscher" cut? It does not seem that this "receipe" was consistent even among the originals, but of this I am not very sure: most pieces I know of were made around 1920 or more recently.

Obviously one can have a diamond cut on order. There has been at least one on this forum already