Does a 2ct Asscher appear smaller than a 2 ct Round?

[raw42]

Just wondering if a 2ct asscher on average looks smaller than other 2ct stones?

 

[VuittonGal]

Yes, I believe it does. I believe this is because a well-cut asscher carries much of its weight in its depth. Experts? Am I correct? Or crazy?

 

[jcrow]

i have been researching the same thing, comparing asscher to round to cushion. i have found that the round looks biggesst followed by the cushion and lastly the asscher.

 

[Mara]

yes it does...pretty much any other squarish fancy stone will appear smaller than a well-cut round basically.

 

[jcrow]

vgal- yes the wieght is in the bottom, which also gives it that drawn you in feeling.

 

[blueroses]

Yeppers--

but they sure are purty!!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

As with many aspects of diamonds- especially fancy shapes- it is difficult to generalize.
There are Asscher cut diamonds with depths in the low 60''s.
These can look quite large for the weight.

trying to generalize about cushions is even less productive.
I''ve seen nice looking cushions with depths ranging between 50-80% - no misprint 50-80z% and both can look good- of course an 80% depth stone will look small for it''s weight.

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

This should assist as a reference. I do not remember what size these are but I do believe they are all the same carat weight. I also cannot remember who posted. Hope it helps some!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Very cool Lady!
But my point is, that if the princess, for example, has a 74% depth, of course it''s going to look smaller than a 65% Regent- or cushion, which will in turn look smaller than a 60% round diamond.

Although it is generally agreed than round diamonds look the largest for their weights, generalizations do not work- each person buying wants to understand their diamond.
If most princess cuts look smaller, yet yours does not, what does the average matter?

 

[Mara]

obviously there could be that RANDOM asscher/princess/othersquareitem that is cut very shallow that looks as big diameter wise as a well-cut round. But would you want to buy it? I wouldn''t think so because for me a well-cut squarish stone needs to have more depth in it to get that ''look'' you really want or else you''d just buy a roud...but prove me wrong Dave. I know you want to!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

What- are you kidding Mara?
OK- here''s a secret admission- I have a crush on your finger.
Why would I want to make such a lovely finger "wrong"?

Seriously- I have seen nice looking square diamonds with depths in the low ''60''s.
One Asscher in particular comes to mind- it actually was in the high 50''s depth-wise- and really had a nice classic Asscher look.
I''ve also seen princesses in the low 60''s which looked sensational.
I agree that most squares need the depth to achieve the look- but again-most does not count if YOUR diamond does not fit the mold.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 8/16/2005 6:55:29 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
What- are you kidding Mara?
OK- here''s a secret admission- I have a crush on your finger.
Why would I want to make such a lovely finger ''wrong''?

Seriously- I have seen nice looking square diamonds with depths in the low ''60''s.
One Asscher in particular comes to mind- it actually was in the high 50''s depth-wise- and really had a nice classic Asscher look.
I''ve also seen princesses in the low 60''s which looked sensational.
I agree that most squares need the depth to achieve the look- but again-most does not count if YOUR diamond does not fit the mold.

My two cents: I have to say that I have often wanted to comment when Storm and other asscher "gurus" opined that Asschers needed to be deeper to attain the right look.............I have seen a few asschers in person that were not at all deep that were magnificent and priced accordingly. One was an antique, another a royal asscher and the other a new "asscher" /square em that was IDEAL in cut parameters. I was told that it was much harder to create a well cut asscher and required potentially more rough for the appropriate crown, depth, and corners . So in essence I believe that the assumption that depth is a necessary evil in an asscher just justifies a deeper stone and the premium price--whereas it would never bee accepted in a round............sorrry for the poor sentence structure--i am tired...........

 

[UCLABelle]

Hello!

I think it does...At least that it was my wonderful guy found out when researching my ring. I have a link to the pictures...It is almost 2ct and looks smaller than most 1.3+ rounds...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher-vs-round-h-a-vs-round.32249/

 

[sjz]

From what I remember from geometry class, shapes with curves always "appear" bigger than shapes with straight lines and angles of similar dimensions.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/16/2005 11:17:07 PM
Author: windowshopper

Date: 8/16/2005 6:55:29 PM

Author: diamondsbylauren

What- are you kidding Mara?

OK- here''s a secret admission- I have a crush on your finger.

Why would I want to make such a lovely finger ''wrong''?


Seriously- I have seen nice looking square diamonds with depths in the low ''60''s.

One Asscher in particular comes to mind- it actually was in the high 50''s depth-wise- and really had a nice classic Asscher look.

I''ve also seen princesses in the low 60''s which looked sensational.

I agree that most squares need the depth to achieve the look- but again-most does not count if YOUR diamond does not fit the mold.

My two cents: I have to say that I have often wanted to comment when Storm and other asscher ''gurus'' opined that Asschers needed to be deeper to attain the right look.............I have seen a few asschers in person that were not at all deep that were magnificent and priced accordingly. One was an antique, another a royal asscher and the other a new ''asscher'' /square em that was IDEAL in cut parameters. I was told that it was much harder to create a well cut asscher and required potentially more rough for the appropriate crown, depth, and corners . So in essence I believe that the assumption that depth is a necessary evil in an asscher just justifies a deeper stone and the premium price--whereas it would never bee accepted in a round............sorrry for the poor sentence structure--i am tired...........

shocker I agree with you.
Most need the depth.
1 company has shown that they sometimes can pull it off in a shallower stone.
Like any thing else there are exceptions.
Here is one of them:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heres-my-storm-worthy-asscher.31908/

The odds of finding a good one are much better with the deeper asschers.

 

[strmrdr]

We can argue size and ill give in most rounds will be bigger than most asschers for the same weight.
But I think a well cut asscher has a lot more presence than a round.
A round no matter how well cut is well just another round same with a princess cut.
An asscher is something different and something special.

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/17/2005 1:23:05 AM
Author: strmrdr

A round no matter how well cut is well just another round same with a princess cut.

I disagree, I think that all stones have their own personalities regardless of the shape.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2005 1:27:36 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 8/17/2005 1:23:05 AM

Author: strmrdr


A round no matter how well cut is well just another round same with a princess cut.

I disagree, I think that all stones have their own personalities regardless of the shape.

true also.
But if the average person saw a sparky diamond which would they be more tempted to take another look at. Another round like the one likely on their finger or something different and awesome like a well cut asscher? :}

 

[Mara]

HA HA Strm you are biased obviously...

I think it''s whatever floats someone''s boat. Honestly I am probably just as apt to want to take a 2nd look at a 3c round as I would a 3c asscher! Because I would love both.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2005 1:57:54 AM
Author: Mara
HA HA Strm you are biased obviously...

I think it''s whatever floats someone''s boat. Honestly I am probably just as apt to want to take a 2nd look at a 3c round as I would a 3c asscher! Because I would love both.

ah but your far from average in so many ways :}
so you dont count.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 8/17/2005 2:00:14 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/17/2005 1:57:54 AM
Author: Mara
HA HA Strm you are biased obviously...

I think it''s whatever floats someone''s boat. Honestly I am probably just as apt to want to take a 2nd look at a 3c round as I would a 3c asscher! Because I would love both.

ah but your far from average in so many ways :}
so you dont count.

NOTHING compares to a beautiful asscher except a beautiful emerald cut.................rounds to me just arent in the equation BY THE WAY .........are you two dating?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2005 7:55:01 AM
Author: windowshopper

Date: 8/17/2005 2:00:14 AM
BY THE WAY .........are you two dating?

WTH are you talking bout?
That would be the scariest suggestion Iv ever heard!

 

[valeria101]

Add one more vote to those of David from Diamondsbylauren and Windowshopper: step cuts look great with lower total depth.

Add to that that girdle thickness also has a large impact on size - a thick girdle eats as much ''material'' as several extra % of depth... and that would mean little if there wasn''t some cutoff applied at random selecting listings from some database. Say, 75% depth & thin girdle would likely has the same size as 65% depth with a thick one, all other things kept equal.

All in all: there are fewer such step cuts with lower depth and great brighteness. Windowshopper spent quite a bit of time looking for an emerald cut like that... and the same applies (twice over perhaps) for square step cuts.

Frankly, I have no idea where the myth about step cuts needing more depth to look goodcomes from. There could be some reasons, but none I can think of has much to do with the fesability of such a cut. Say, it could be that allot of step cuts have flat crowns and largetables - now, that combined with low depth results in not very good news at all

. Depth alone doesn''t hurt, aparently. Also, there is the story that the original asschers were deep and true enough the collectable old cut diamonds are defined that way by all sorts of sources (auction catalogs, expert advice given by insurers and what not), but that definition must have at least something to do with two unrelated things: for once, there was not possible to cut other kind but deep asschers in the days of lore, and then as technology became available shallower square step cuts turned up immediately. Some trully fabulous deco era jewelry carries such square step cuts. For some reason, that breed of ''asschers'' never quite made it in the history books, they are not as old and then some other contemporary cuts overshadowed them which was not the case with the first step cuts - the deep asschers.

Of course, someone who knows more history could overturn this argument. I would need to go though some formal research to make the case well enough. As is, it is my ''working hypothesis'' (=hunch).

On the other side, it is not too difficult to model the optics of the square emerald cut and see what it takes to obtain both spread and brilliance.

I''ve tried my hand at that a bit ago using a piece of free software put forth by OctoNus called GemAdviser. Not being a diamond cutter, the math of these models is allot clearer to me than their economics (sic!). I can''t say how economically sound those cut choices are - it may be that it pays to make more popular shapes out of the same material that would yield 60% deep step cuts with high crown, even pavilion and crown steps and allot of flash

(actually, there must be more conditions than that, as much as I can tell - AGS has been working on an ''ideal'' model so my findings will probably look silly and definitely redundant).

The cutters and sellers around here would know this a hundred times better. And they would have seen a thousand times more diamonds too!

... speaking of which: not a long time ago Whiteflash had a 2 carat D-IF square step cut on their list. A tremendously beautiful cut a hair less than 60% deep. Unlike the other similar examples, that one came with sarin and IdealScope (by the book, IS, btw.) ''Bet they keep records of what goes through the website. If the debate gets heated enough, you might want to ask John (aca ''JohnQuixote'') to chime in, precious example & all. Diamondsbylauren do not use the ''Scope (but I trust their word, blessed be).

Hope some of this makes sense

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/17/2005 9:10:32 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/17/2005 7:55:01 AM
Author: windowshopper

Date: 8/17/2005 2:00:14 AM
BY THE WAY .........are you two dating?

WTH are you talking bout?
That would be the scariest suggestion Iv ever heard!

I'm insulted!

Not really. I agree! He would expect me to be happy with a small diamond or colored stone, with no hope of an upgrade EVER, never buy any clothes, and drink Coke all the time with no ice! YIKES!

Luvya Strm!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2005 1:40:49 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 8/17/2005 9:10:32 AM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/17/2005 7:55:01 AM

Author: windowshopper

Date: 8/17/2005 2:00:14 AM

BY THE WAY .........are you two dating?

WTH are you talking bout?

That would be the scariest suggestion Iv ever heard!

I''m insulted!


Not really. I agree! He would expect me to be happy with a small diamond or colored stone, with no hope of an upgrade EVER, never buy any clothes, and drink Coke all the time with no ice! YIKES!

Luvya Strm!

Pepsi Pespi Pepsi not coke!
hehehehehe
This sure is like old times glad your back :}

 

[strmrdr]

Val,
Asschers need 10%+ crown height to look nice.
We agree about the girdle the v-thk is just to hide some weight it very easily could be med.
But it does take some pavilion depth to get the steps right.
It is easier to get it right with more depth.
The classic asscher is deep.
There are some modern interpretations that are awesome and less deep but they are rare.
The majority of the nice asschers out there will be deep right now.
Once ags gets there cut standard for SE''s going that will hopefully change :}

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Storm, I''m a jealous guy and I was telling Mara I had a crush first.....heheheh
Mara- come on!!! We''ll Drink Don Perigone, and you can pick ANYTHING form the store!!!( $399 or less)

Seriously Storm.
In general, yes you need above 10% crown height- BUT I have seen examples with extremely flat tops and tables in the 75% range- yet STILL had the lovely steps we love to see in Asscher diamond.
By demarking the steps below the girdle, the face up appearance is that of a small table and stepped up top.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/17/2005 4:00:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

It is easier to get it right with more depth.

Ugh... where's that bit of software when one needs it !

...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2005 6:50:16 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 8/17/2005 4:00:52 PM

Author: strmrdr


It is easier to get it right with more depth.

Ugh... where''s that bit of software when one needs it !

...

software dont have much to do with it its, limitations at the cutting wheel and skill.
its real easy to trash facets allready done when cutting step cuts.
Larger facets == more safety and easier to cut.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Storm- have you had these probelms yourself when polishing Asscher diamonds?