help! going to buy my asscher on thursday!

[asscherfreaknyc]

I am sooo nervous. I previously posted and got some good info. So we went back and found a gorgeous stone that seemed a better value(the first ring was J color, VVS2, 3.34 cts and $21000). Here are the specs:

GIA certified
3.29 ct
I color
VS1
depth: 61%
table: 61%
Flouresence: none
Price: 18,000

Mounted in platinum with baguettes totalling .30 cts. I am happy with the stone but I admit to being sooo ignorant about buying diamonds. It''s a lot of money to us and I don''t want to get duped or make a bad choice. I keep reading about "light leakage?" What is this, and how would I know if my diamond possesses this characteristic? What else should I be looking for, or is it enough that I love how it looks

, and I plan to keep it forever (I never sell my old pieces, keeping them for my daughters)?

 

[DiamondExpert]

Loving how it looks is where you should be...however, make sure you have a reasonable right of return time, just in case you change your mind.

Good luck!

 

[Caratz]

----------------
On 12/16/2003 3:29:51 PM asscherfreaknyc wrote:

I am sooo nervous. I previously posted and got some good info. So we went back and found a gorgeous stone that seemed a better value(the first ring was J color, VVS2, 3.34 cts and $21000). Here are the specs:

GIA certified
3.29 ct
I color
VS1
depth: 61%
table: 61%
Flouresence: none
Price: 18,000

Mounted in platinum with baguettes totalling .30 cts. I am happy with the stone but I admit to being sooo ignorant about buying diamonds. It's a lot of money to us and I don't want to get duped or make a bad choice. I keep reading about 'light leakage?' What is this, and how would I know if my diamond possesses this characteristic? What else should I be looking for, or is it enough that I love how it looks

, and I plan to keep it forever (I never sell my old pieces, keeping them for my daughters)?----------------

Most asschers have a bit of a problem with light leakage. The reason is that they are cut for a different effect than round brilliant stones. The step cut that gives the "shimmering" effect of looking into a mezmerizing pool of light allows more light to leak out of the bottom of the stone. Having said that, some asschers are better than others when it comes to light leakage.

 

[valeria101]

ntire theory about the optical properties of cut diamonds, read the lesson at GoodOldGold or Dianomd-cut.com. There is really not much left aside by these guys (ecept the math, unfortunately for me

).

Emerald cuts (EC) and these generic asschers cuts (square EC, really) are not particularly brilliant cuts: they don't sparkle like a round brilliant does, but rather produce large flashes of light. A BrilianceScope analysis tries to quantify and place on a standard scale the 'light return' of diamonds. Such scaling is a pretty good aproximation of what anyone's perception of a diamond may be after sesing a few dozens for comparizon... If you want to see how an Ec-type may compare to a round brilliant in term of "light return" you may want to inspect the briliance scope reports for emerald cuts and for round cuts at GoodOldGold 9a mine of info, this place!). Asscher cuts (generic, square Ecs) with brilliance scope reports ypi may find at Niceice.com. The size of stones matters little, so those reports are fully relevant for a 3carat stone too.


These being said, I would prefer ECs (any shape, square or not) to any other cut for their class and elegance. Their best quality should be symmetry, light return being second. There is no excuses for a stone to be square-ish instead of square either. Stones with larget tables than depth appear somewhat acquard (and have poor light return, as a rule): from this point of vire, the stone you have chosen could be a great one. A table hight of 11-14% is desirable too (by industry standard, cited under "fancy cuts" on teh first page of Pricescope) and for the sake of common sense too unless you don't want any of your diamond aove the tip of the prongs (this hapens if the table is low and near the girdle, a strange look indeed).


Short of seing the stone, this is all I would look for in a step cut.
Hope this helps!

 

[Rank Amateur]

Is it a Royal Assher?

If I were spending that kind of money the stone damn well better have a perfect Assher look to it. I wouldn't settle for a somewhat modified square cut that is being peddled as an Assher. A stone that big should have a knockout pattern in it.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/16/2003 5:16:24 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Is it a Royal Assher?

If I were spending that kind of money the stone damn well better have a perfect Assher look to it. I wouldn't settle for a somewhat modified square cut that is being peddled as an Assher. A stone that big should have a knockout pattern in it.----------------

I am afraid that the branded RA will not cost this little... And, if one calls those generic 'asschers' quare-cut emeralds, than why not? The RC has not preceded thses squares on the market, but rather the other way around: so these are not knockoffs. Knockout? If you want to call them this way... most people would say that the added symmetry of the square outline makes the good old EC look even more elegant. So who cares about the name?

Either the branded asscher cut or the old, traditional cut are not all that common. The new, branded cut has it's own look, but does not carry the traditional big depth & high crown & small table receipe. So what the 'pattern' of an asscher (the respective 'hall of mirrors' effect) should probably be confined to poetry.

Is a branded asscher worth it? This has never been taken into discussion here... ut maybe it is time?

 

[Rank Amateur]

Oops. Royal Asscher.

www.asscher.com

They seem to think they cut a nice pattern.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/16/2003 5:58:29 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Oops. Royal Asscher.

www.asscher.com

They seem to think they cut a nice pattern.

----------------

They think, we pay... I actually feal that this RA cut is more far from the celebrated old asscher cut than your random square EC out there. Both the RA and the generic versions bank on the name, but what on Earth is left of it? And this leaves aside the fact that there was no well-defined pattern of the old cut. It's nice to know that the firm who charges you all that is a famous one, but, well, the brand guarantees little after all, beside a couple of extra facets (no light return, no resemblance with the name-sake, and given the alowed cariation of the cuting parameters, that celebrated hall-of-mirrors effect remains in the eye of the beholder). RAs are neatly cut though, but so are alot of square Ecs out there. i am definitely an advocate for step cuts anything. so I would really like to know what makes this brand special. However, until now I have yet to discover. Granted, it is tough to get to see more of these RAs without buying them. I would greately welcom some more insight in the definition of the RA for sure...

 

[asscherfreaknyc]

Thanks so much for the input, esp Valeria101. I'm going for it! I'm new here, but I'll post pics after Christmas anyway, if anyone's interested.

BTW, for my purposes, I don't like the Royal Asscher so it's not even a consideration. I got hooked on the square emerald during a trip to Harry Winston (it's "Harry's favorite cut") and decided to "assemble" the same ring (only w/o Harry's $65,000 price tag -- do I look like J-Lo?!?) I don't see anything knock-off about the cut at all, only that people like to borrow the fancy name...ASSCHER sounds as elegant as the stone looks!

 

[niceice]

Royal Asscher is a brand, nothing more. They added extra facets to set their production apart from the standard square emerald cut, that doesn't make everything else a non-Asscher, just produced by a different manufacturer. We don't like the extra facets of the Royal Asscher at all, the result is distracting to us, we prefer the traditional look of what the GIA insists on calling a square emerald cut for no other reason that they don't feel like getting into a legal battle with Royal Asscher, the GIA is very careful about such things... Even though it would be clear to any trademark court here in the U.S. that the term "Asscher" has become a term commonly used to describe any square emerald cut diamond which exhibits a distinct pattern of concentric squares within the table facet... The same concept holds true for the term "Hearts & Arrows" which can not be trademarked here in the U.S. because it has become common use although many companies have tried to do so over the years in an attempt to lock on to the popularity of the name...

The one thing that concerns us about the stone you've found is the 61% depth is a little shallow in our opinion, we have found that the total depth needs to be in the high 60's in order for the concentric squares that appear in the table facet to align properly, spaced evenly, and run the depth of the stone... Rules are meant to be broken, so take a close look at the stone you've found and determine whether the pattern is evenly spaced or not, if it is, buy the stone... If it's not, one of the on-line dealers here on PS should be able to help you find a comparable stone that has a complete and even pattern.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/17/2003 12:58:08 AM asscherfreaknyc wrote:

I'm going for it! I'm new here, but I'll post pics after Christmas anyway, if anyone's interested.
----------------

"If anyone is interested"?!!! You bet! I can't wait to see one more great ring on pricescope, and such input is usually very, very welcome here... Best of luck!

 

[asscherfreaknyc]

I got it!! I ended up picking it up on Friday, and I almost dropped dead. The whole world stood still.

It is soo much more fabulous than I imagined/remembered. I am glad I did some research so that I can be comfortable with our purchase, and I am soo grateful for the "education" you all have given me, but in the end, I really don't care WHAT the numbers, gradings, etc. say...MY RING IS GORGEOUS!! Thanks again to all, and I will put up pictures immediately after Christmas! Happy Holidays to all!