Generic Asscher Comparison...which is

[orange_horse]

Which is "better" in your opinion and why? Does the price per carat raise any concerns on either?

Thank you.

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00523662

http://icestore.com/search/diamond_inventory_detail.asp?ID=306

 

[strmrdr]

Not enough info on the icestore one to comment.
The bluenile one is going to suck egg with that 70% table.

 

[orange_horse]

What is bad about the 70% table? I''ve actually seen this one and it looked good to me. But I''m not a professional...so please enlighten me.

 

[strmrdr]

they look flat.
once you see a properly cut one in indirect lighting you will know what im talking about.
Also a large table means a wierd crown angle or a low crown both of which kill fire in direct light also.

Rechecking the icestore one's info it will suck egg also at 70/70.
I missed the info at first glance.

 

[orange_horse]

So what do you recommend? Something closer to 65%/65%?

 

[strmrdr]

from another thread here is what I look for:

An asscher is one of the hardest diamonds to pick from without someone looking at it in my opinion.
Either a trusted vendor, appraiser or yourself needs to eyeball the diamond.

I look for a table in the high 50s very low 60s.
Depth between 65% and 75%
crown 10%-15% <--- very important to add fire.
LW ratio as close to 1 as possible.
clipped cornered square vs more octagonal is personal preference Iv seen some awesome ones both ways and like the clipped cornered square look better.
Then it comes down to all eyeballs.
Are the squares well defined and concentric?
Does it have the 10 mile deep look under indirect lighting?

Id say that better than 95% of them will fail the last 2 tests in my somewhat limited experience.

I also want to add that vg or better on polish and symetry is another thing I look for.
To me it shows that the cutter took better care in cutting it and there is a better chance of the rest being right.
That isnt always the case but its something to think about.

 

[strmrdr]

The odds of finding a good 4ct+ asscher on random websites are very slim.
You really need to work with a trusted vendor to find one.
Id start with:
niceice.com
and/or
goodoldgold.com
Tell them you want one strmrdr would appove of :}

 

[valeria101]

Shopping by numbers for such a thing boggles the mind...

There is no way, no way I''d call one in without pictures first. Applies to all purchases over 1k that are not books !

BTW, if you like computer gimmics, one may be just what you need for this purchase. A free version of the Gem Adviser (link to GemCalc download) models step cut diamonds. If you ever wanted to know what those numbers really mean, go for it.

It may happen that you still want to call a 50k diamond in based on table & depth measurements after. Somehow... I strongly doubt that...

 

[valeria101]

In partial

disagreement with what I just posted... I guess I''d give these cherrys (IMO) a try.

BN seems to have a bunch of squares with asscher-ish proportions and Ex-Ex finish grades. This being a large chunk, a better symmetry grade sounds encouraging - polish ? whatever...

Here''s one, a hair smaller than your target (8.5mm) but not allot. Not sure that 10k "savings" are attractive to you in any way, but the few numbers available sound more encouraging to me.

(LINK)
Carat weight: 3.59
Color: H
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 67.5%
Table: 59%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Medium blue
Measurements: 8.49x8.47x5.72 mm


There was another with about the same numbers, a hair larger and with faint fluorescence listed by Mondera (LINK) but to me, the one above sounds better, not in the least because of the fluorescecen. If someone could put these two buddies side by side... I bet they''d look good. It''s a looooooong shot by "numbers" though.

 

[valeria101]

Now, is this an "Asscher" diamond to you ?

If so, than really, that a 50%-ish table to start with and lots more detail needed to keep the stone bright instead of dark. That cut doesn''t happen too often (bar the branded Royal Asscher), but there is one stone listed that might ring that bell.

(see next post)

 

[valeria101]

Here the finds... there were a hoard of broken links to sellers. With these virtual listings, you can probably ask any seller to bring any stone in anyway.

 

[orange_horse]

Please give me the definition of table % and depth %. I want to make sure that I''m on the same page. Also, I''m currently operating under the impression that slight flouro is no big deal and shouldn''t be noticeable under normal light. Is that correct?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/19/2004 96:41 PM
Author: orange_horse
Please give me the definition of table % and depth %. I want to make sure that I''m on the same page. Also, I''m currently operating under the impression that slight flouro is no big deal and shouldn''t be noticeable under normal light. Is that correct?

Depth% = total depth / shortest diameter

Table% = table diameter / diamond diameter

Florescence, well... "faint" really is ignorable by all means (no effect on price, definitely nothing visible).

The debate on what this looks like starts with "strong", below that, there isn''t much to talk about. The word on the llab report shows times more than any hair-splitting slight effect of "medium" fluorescence on the looks of the stone and even that when the lighting is just so.

Just IMO, as usual.

There is one GIA panel study that amounts to about the same conclusion. The summary of their finds is HERE. Garry sent the whole thing to me way back.