calling any and all asscher experts!

[skimmy]

i know it''s hard to tell how nice an asscher is based on specs alone but i was wondering if someone could take a swing at this.

SHAPE square emerald
MEASUREMENTS 8.70 x 8.52 x 6.15mm
WEIGHT 3.06 carats
DEPTH 60.4%
TABLE 64.9%
GIRDLE medium
CULET none
POLISH very good
SYMMETRY very good
CLARITY VS2
COLOR G
FLUORESCENCE faint

i know the depth isn''t that great but it actually looks pretty deep inspite of it. the jeweler is quoting me $32,800. is this reasonable? or can i do better?

 

[windowshopper]

IT COULD BE AMAZING OR FLAT........................PRICE SEEMS OKAY TO ME


CHECK OUT THESE TWO FROM PRICESCOPE

Carat
Color
Clarity
Depth
Tbl
Lab
Gdl
Cul
Sym
Pol
Flr
Measurements
$/Crt
Price
Source

3.00
G
VS2
65.9%
63%
EGL
stk-tk p
no
vg
vg
no
8.23*8.13*5.42
$8518
$25555*S


3.01
G
VS2
68.1%
62%
GIA


vg
ex
no
7.97x7.93x5.40
$10824
$32580

 

[Asscher Lover]

I am sure the stone may look very pretty in person, but on paper it is not particularly striking, IMO, for the following reasons:

1) table 64% and depth 60% gives a very shallow diamond which, in general, reduces the optical effects of an "asscher cut". Most beautiful Asscher diamonds will have table 58-61 and depth 65-68 %, unless, of course you are dealing with a Royal Asscher. ALL RAC that I have seen are trully beautiful in cut/symmetry, even though their tables range from 54-59% and depth from 65-69

2) The measurements are not "square", try for as close to a square as possible.

On the plus side, I think a FAINT fluorescence may actually compliment a G color stone.

What is it about this stone that has made you interested: carat size, price, etc? Have you seen this diamond?
IMO for any given budget, there are a number of beautiful Asschers out there, you just have to look alot
Good luck

 

[skimmy]

a couple of different things stuck out...carat and price being the the largest. given that i''m talking about spending quite a bit for just a stone

(trust me, it''s not just a stone to me...

)

i''m working to keep it around 3 carats and around $30K. so i gave up a little on color (originally wanted an F) and clarity (originally wanted a VS1) b/c those priced out at closer to $40K.

thanks for the inputs...i really appreciate them!!!

 

[Hest88]

What Asscher Lover said.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi,
1) 60% is a desirable depth in most shapes- including Asscher type diamonds. Asschers can look nice up to 72% or more, but 60% is optimal because it will NOT look shallow, yet it WILL look large for it''s weight

2) Many Asscher type stones which are not square still look great- it''s all in the corners.

Of couse stones much be seen to be proplerly judged- and this goes double in cases of Asscher type stones.
Although there may be a lot of stones listed, it still might not easy to arrange the veiwing of such an important stone- because there are so few.

I can''t comment on the price this evening but I''ll be happy to take a look tomorrow.

 

[valeria101]

At least the old Asschers are not square by definition - and slightly rectangular (around 1.1:1 by numbers) and stones look very elegant, IMO. Matter of taste...

Between the guys above, in absence of pictures

I would be looking for crown height to decide which to call in. Based on the stats available now, it is only clear that these definitely deserve to be seen

 

[valeria101]

Taking the specs for the first stone (60% depth, 65% table), this is what one such stone might look like. It does not appear that the respective numbers alone are enough to proclame this one "shallow", "flat" or anything.

However, it is simply not possible to pinpoint the looks of it with just those two numbers and the range of possibilities may include far less pleasant ones (see below).

 

[valeria101]

But... the version below is more likely. This set of numbers does not show those concentric steps and "depth". Depth and table are still the same, but crown height is much less - quite flat, actually.

One detail makes me think that the actual stone may be closer to this version: weight. To fill in the high crown of the previous, total weight should be close to 3.5 cts. A flatter crown saves weight, so this here comes close to the given 3.06cts.

It would be nice if that large stone actually looks great though.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Very cool models Ana! The two images certainly give a good idea of how similar table depth can give you two completely different looking diamonds.
ALthough when judging an Asscher by the numbers, the one piece of info missing is the actual shape and profile of the corners- and this is absolutely vital to an Asscher type stone''s looks.

Here''s what I meant by a rectangular stone which looks quite like an Asscher

Skimmy- as far as price- if you love the diamond, and are comfortable with the dealer- the price seems reasonable to me.

Hope this helps!

 

[strmrdr]

Does it have the 10 mile deep look in indirect light?
Does it have fire in direct lighting?
Does it spark like crazy when you move it in direct light.
Is the shape pleasing to you?
By the numbers it isnt that great but an asscher more than just about any other shape has to be seen to judge it.

I havent seen one yet with those specs that passed all my tests.
Id pass and keep looking.

 

[skimmy]

here''s the second one i saw today...what would i do w/o all of you?!

SHAPE square emerald
MEASUREMENTS 8.08 x 8.00 x 5.50mm
WEIGHT 3.25 carats
DEPTH 68.8%
TABLE 72%
GIRDLE slightly thick to thick
CULET none
POLISH very good
SYMMETRY very good
CLARITY VS2
COLOR G
FLUORESCENCE none

even though this one has more depth, it almost looked as if it had fewer steps...like it went
"flat" half way down...i think.

 

[strmrdr]

Table is way too big on the last one you posted.
Thats likely why it went flat.