Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Explanation for Asscher way outside of ideal cut range still appearing awesome?

Ugh, these rules are somewhat suffocating to the free flow of information! ;) I feel like my desired to learn as much as I can keeps getting smothered, though I really appreciate your efforts, @Karl_K

When you say "spread" above in "much better spread", to what are you referring? I have an idea, but want to be sure I'm understanding.
 
Spread = physical size, e.g. 5mmx5mm is a smaller spread than 6mmx6mm.
 
"A high crowned stone will more likely than not have much better spread" - @Karl_K

When you say "much better", I assume you're meaning a spread that is much nicer-looking or more going on? If that's the case, why isn't every stone cut for a high crown?

My local jeweler has one that is 10.3% crown that he thinks is the best he's been able to find. I'm going to take another look at that one this week. It's a 1.51 6.51x6.53. Meanwhile, the stone that is the subject of this post is 19%+ crown, 1.85, 6.81x6.83. Other than more carat weight being used by depth, are there any other cons to a higher crown that would put off cutters from going with higher crowns to end up with "much better spreads"?
 
Venzen007 said:
"A high crowned stone will more likely than not have much better spread" - @Karl_K
Click to expand...
You left off the important part for similar depth or sometimes even less depth.
A 69% depth stone could have better spread in mm than one with 62% depth.
Depth in the pavilion uses more material(weight) than height in the crown.
So 2 stones both 65% depth and the same weight and same table size one has a ch of 19% and the other a ch of 10%.
The one of a ch of 19% will be physically bigger in mm.
Many stones are cut with as much weight in the pavilion as possible which is not a good thing.
 
Venzen007 said:
"are there any other cons to a higher crown that would put off cutters from going with higher crowns to end up with "much better spreads"?
Click to expand...
Weight retention of the rough.
 
Ok, I see, I think, @Karl_K . I had to read about how those percents are calculated. With a given depth percent, more ch percent means less ph percent. Because crown angle is more acute than pavilion angle, less weight is taken up by ch than ph? So, considering two diamonds with the same depth, weight, and table, the one with the lower ch will have a narrower spread because the pavilion height is eating more of its weight?

So, again, why wouldn't all asscher cutters strive to have a larger rather than smaller ch percent, the 19+ rather than the 10? Just weight retention of the rough?

By the way, the one at my local jeweler is 10.3 ch, 54.3 ph, 34.6 ca, 49.8 pa. I'm going to get some images of it to share, but do those numbers, alone, suggest anything?
 
Last edited:
Also, just being sure I understand, a higher crown means more virtual facets? So, it's not just the potential of a larger looking face up stone, but a stone with more going on?
 
@Karl_K ( and anyone else with an opinion) the third stone in this video is the 19% ch stone this post was about. I have it coming to me this week to see in person. In the video, it shows up at the 1:21 mark.

 
Oh HELLO!! :love::love: I though the one before it was nice and then this one was like HEY YALL. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top