Does anyone find asschers too busy?

[beaujolais]

Oh dear, I know this is a risky question. Not looking to stir anyone up and I know there are lots of asscher lovers out there. I''m just looking to discuss and explore this idea, so please don''t get mad at me. Esp. no offense to Karl who I would never want to offend, admire to the utmost degree, a true diamond genius, innovative cutting-edge thinker and most helpful and cool guy.

(Enough disclaimers yet ? ?)

I used to love them but am lately thinking they are a bit busy and am more drawn to emerald cuts.

Again, do not get mad at me for this. Just looking for ideas. Thanks.

 

[gwendolyn]

''Looking for ideas?'' What you''re asking is personal preference, so it doesn''t really apply to you unless you only like what other people like. I''m confused as to the purpose of this thread.

 

[beaujolais]

Just throwing it out there and looking to see what others have to say. I''ve learned a lot through discussion here, even random questions such as this. People contribute ideas and thoughts I''ve never considered - it''s great. Thanks.

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

I don''t think they are too busy, but I also don''t think that they lend themselves to the settings that other shapes lend themselves to. I think that an Asscher is one of the only shapes that I would not put in a halo. I like the stone as a stand-alone feature. For inspiration, look at Lauren the Partier''s bezel set Asscher, and there was another one recently that was set in a simple pave band-- stunning! I think that they look better set with other step-cut side stones, like in this ring I found that I REALLY want an Asscher in!

 

[strmrdr]

busy? No with exceptions.
I find smaller RA style asschers to be rather busy and like the more prominent features of the drop style in smaller sizes.

Do some people prefer EC''s.. yes.
Anything wrong with that ... No

 

[strmrdr]

What I do find interesting is that if you cut the ends off each of these at the bottom of the windmills and glue the ends back together removing the center part you get the first one.
So I find it kinda hard to say one is busy and the other isn''t.

 

[emeraldlover1]

I love asschers and for a long time before PS I really wanted one. Then...I looked at one on my hand and said, no way. I have square emerald earings and they suit me perfectly there. However as a ring, its just not for me. I have an emerald and couldn''t be happier. Smaller stone its sometimes hard to differentiate the steps so I can see why it might look busy however for me I find asschers and emeralds the least "busy" compared to other types of cuts. Its specifically why I didn''t go the brilliant cut look. My eye can see those stones are beautiful but not being able to find definition in them would bug me. I guess my eye just looks for step cuts. This is totally personal preference though.

 

[neatfreak]

I don''t think the stones themselves are too busy, but I do think that they look too busy very easily when combined with a really ornate setting. Plain/sleek settings are what I like for asschers.

 

[lovewhitediamonds]

for me, RA''s are too busy in the smaller sizes... I saw a 4c RA and it was still too busy (for me).
But, if I saw an RA 6+ I might have a different opinion, as I believe asschers come into their own in larger sizes.

what I love about the asschers is that every stone is so different, size of windmills, corners, steps --- they are just mesmerizing. they each have their own personality, and the excitement is finding the "one" that suits you. I also love that I don''t see too many asscher e-rings (aside from PS of course)...

.. some people are step cut fans, some aren''t

 

[Moh 10]

Too busy?
You just need a larger one, honey.

Carat for carat Asschers are less busy (# of facets, virtual or actual) than a round, princess, oval, radiant, pear, cushion, or marquis.
Yes, the emerald would have the fewest facets per area of major cuts.

I think of each flash of light as an event.
For a given area you can have more smaller events, or fewer larger events.
Different looks are attractive to different people.

But for us over 40 folks, who naturally lose close vision, the larger events are more visible than smaller ones.
I'd rather look at fewer bold sparkles that I can make out than more that are small and blurry.
We all can't afford a large diamond but we can afford one with larger, more visible, events.

Also, ability to see small things falls off with distance for ALL of us, even those with perfect vision.
Let's say a person is wearing two diamonds, an asscher and a round with the surface same area as you look down from the top.
The flashes of light from an asscher will be more visible from a distance, like across the restaurant. (Not that any of us wear a diamond to be enjoyed by others.

)

Granted, everything I've written about Asschers applies, even more so, to the emerald cut.

 

[Rhea]

Date: 11/15/2008 9:53:17 AM
Author: neatfreak
I don''t think the stones themselves are too busy, but I do think that they look too busy very easily when combined with a really ornate setting. Plain/sleek settings are what I like for asschers.

I agree. I like asschers for their simple elegance, and get distracted when they are combined with too much.

 

[beaujolais]

--- as to the purpose of this thread ---

Once, again, I learned a lot.

Thanks dear PSers. O.K., I get it - larger asschers don''t look as busy and keep it in a simple setting. Makes sense. You are all the best ! ! ! Thanks for talking.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 11/15/2008 9:53:17 AM
Author: neatfreak
I don't think the stones themselves are too busy, but I do think that they look too busy very easily when combined with a really ornate setting. Plain/sleek settings are what I like for asschers.

Ditto Neat--I love asschers in really simple settings. I think the facet pattern is so mesmerizing that it should be the star of the show.

Sonoma, I love emerald cuts too, as the length is really elegant. I also love emeralds in simple/clean settings. I think they look really cool in an east/west orientation. I just really love step cuts right now in general!

 

[bgray]

i had an asscher and now have an EC. i find them not so much busy as blocky. i dont like the denseness of the look. however i do love step cut stones so it was one or the other for me. now i have a traditional emerald cut and i love it. i like the cleaness and subtlety............ and yes i agree the size of an asscher makes a different but i had a 3.28 asscher and now have a 5ct Ec and i still prefer the EC

 

[Miss Fortune]

I don''t find them busy but mesmerizing!

I agree with Karl that royal asschers can look a little busy and I prefer a non-royal personally. I''m getting ready to upgrade my current asscher and can''t wait! I also LOVE LOVE LOVE emerald cuts. They are so sleek and beautiful and classy. If I didn''t have an asscher, I would have an emerald cut for sure. probably set east west! Love it!

good luck on finding something that makes your heart go pitter patter!

 

[Moh 10]

Clearly the only solution is for each of us to have an Asscher and an emerald cut, both over 5 carats of course.

 

[Miss Fortune]

also... i think settings make a huge difference. I currently have an asscher with side traps - with my upgrade I''ll have a plain, classic, low profile solitaire setting.

 

[bgray]

Date: 11/15/2008 1:41:28 PM
Author: Moh 10
Clearly the only solution is for each of us to have an Asscher and an emerald cut, both over 5 carats of course.

absolutely--thats the ticket!

 

[bgray]

Date: 11/15/2008 1:43:03 PM
Author: Miss Fortune
also... i think settings make a huge difference. I currently have an asscher with side traps - with my upgrade I''ll have a plain, classic, low profile solitaire setting.

i think its easy for any side stones to distract from an asschers concentric ?? patterns. I like straight baguettes set into the band with an asscher

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 11/15/2008 12:40:22 PM
Author: sonomacounty
--- as to the purpose of this thread ---


Once, again, I learned a lot.


Thanks dear PSers. O.K., I get it - larger asschers don''t look as busy and keep it in a simple setting. Makes sense. You are all the best ! ! ! Thanks for talking.

Look, I wasn''t having a go against you; it just made little sense to me what other people''s preferences have to do with your own. I personally find asschers to be mesmerizing, not busy--their facets draw me down deep into the stone the way no other cut can. Emerald cuts (to my taste) don''t have enough going on. I want my diamonds to perform, and emeralds don''t do that for me--but of course, many others find them the most enchanting of all diamond cuts (and I think emerald cuts are wonderful for showing off coloured stones). I think they can look amazing in a variety of settings and that, again, it comes down to personal taste what looks good and what doesn''t. One of the most gorgeous asschers on PS is Musey''s which isn''t set in what I''d call a simple setting, yet it is absolutely breathtaking! And Lauren''s is also lovely, but it is bezel and sleek and completely different. I think what it comes down to is just wearing what you love and rockin'' it.

So, yeah. I doubt that was helpful, but those are my thoughts on asschers.

 

[LD]

Totally agree with Neatfreak.

I love Asschers with simple settings / side stones. I particularly like step cut sides. Anything else (for me) can look a bit disjointed. I''ve got a 1.02ct Asscher with side traps and it doesn''t look busy, in fact anything but!

 

[flowerladytoo]

Date: 11/15/2008 4:52:59 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
Totally agree with Neatfreak.


I love Asschers with simple settings / side stones. I particularly like step cut sides. Anything else (for me) can look a bit disjointed. I''ve got a 1.02ct Asscher with side traps and it doesn''t look busy, in fact anything but!

I really loved the look of asschers in pictures...until I tried one on a few weeks ago. It seemed crowded to me and yes, busy is the word I would use to describe it. However, after reading this thread, maybe it was because it was in a very ornate, antique style setting.I should try again with an asscher in a very simple setting instead.