- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 5,207
Sure does, thank you!
Sure does, thank you!
@Matthews1127 Not sure what video you are comparing because that GOG link I'm bringing up does not have a video of the "actual diamond".
It just occurred to me that it might not be filthy, but I’m seeing the SI2 issues.
I am extremely opposed to OP’s Asscher. I believe he can do so much better for his budget. It’s obvious it was cut for size/spread. I agree: size isn’t everything, if it’s a dud.
The clarity plot is disturbing, and it will likely be cloudy and dark based upon clouds & its shallow cut.
Very disappointing, as, otherwise, it would be a “unicorn”.
His diamond will have a similar feel to mine... but I agree with you there are some red flag to qualify this as an unicorn. Mine is here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BaKdoMynM7W/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=i5flac4rqivx
Yours does not turn black, head-on. Very beautiful! Even if your clarity grade is SI, it’s clean, and isn’t dull. It’s quite lovely.
I firmly believe OP can achieve the same ring with better quality. Granted, it may be slightly smaller (GOG example is a difference of 0.14ct, which is minimal), but it’s worth it to get a higher quality center stone, with better clarity that doesn’t potentially compromise the integrity or the performance of that stone.
I think the OP’s choice is a great start, and a wonderful find, for a first-time attempt. He is obviously trying, and is studying to be informed, in order to get the best bang for his buck. In this case, he’ll sacrifice quality for quantity, and stretch beyond his preferred budget parameters for a lower quality diamond. If you’re gonna dig deeper into your pocket, make it worth it...lol!!
Compare OP’s Asscher to GOG’s...videos, photos, and ASET’s.
Then, decide which one is best for the buck!
@StephenK, please tell me you have reached out to GOG to inquire!
Mine is a VS1 J.... and it has a similar spread as the OP’s. Point is that shallow step-cut can be beautiful, but one has to see it to be sure it works for him/her.
+1 Good going.Shallow cut does work, as long as the other angles are cut in a complimentary fashion to give the stone life. Yours clearly is, and does, and it’s beautiful!
I do not see the same effect in OP’s diamond.
Just to clarify, I wasn’t making assumptions re: the clarity of your stone. I just said “if”....but it’s clearly clean, crisp regardless of its clarity grade.
It’s also very white, face-up, for a J.
Shallow cut does work, as long as the other angles are cut in a complimentary fashion to give the stone life. Yours clearly is, and does, and it’s beautiful!
I do not see the same effect in OP’s diamond.
Just to clarify, I wasn’t making assumptions re: the clarity of your stone. I just said “if”....but it’s clearly clean, crisp regardless of its clarity grade.
It’s also very white, face-up, for a J.
+1 Good going.
There are many many different looks in asschers, after different patterns, the primary difference is the balance of very large, large, med and small flashes.
Larger tables tend towards very large to large at the expense of med and small.
That means fewer and larger flashes.
A flat top further reduces the number of flashes per rotation.
Now you take that and combine it with being inefficient at returning light to the eyes and you have a triple whammy hit on life and fire.
Stunning diamond.I think my large spread stone and shallow cut (mine is 62.5% depth vs @StephenK at below 60%) has pretty good large and small flashes and fires... I particularly notice the “mirroring” effect of mine - it takes on colors from its surrounding lighting environment and I am having a lot of fun with it. I feel that’s due to the stone being flat so it acts like a mirror if well cut, so I’m not sure if a deep cut asscher will have this property? That’s a question you may know more about.
Literally just took this video in a sports bar today:
Stunning diamond.
The balance is towards large/very large slower flashes but it is very good at doing that.
Put the video full screen notice in the video the large flashes under the table and the smaller flashes outside the table.
That is the balance I am talking about between large and smaller/med flashes.
Your diamond does large flashes so well it works. That is actually pretty rare.
edit: large virtual facets do tend to take you on a tour of your environment(colors) as they are moved.
Actually all of them do but its more visible with large to very large virtual facets because of their size and slower flashes.
+1 Good going.
There are many many different looks in asschers, after different patterns, the primary difference is the balance of very large, large, med and small flashes.
Larger tables tend towards very large to large at the expense of med and small.
That means fewer and larger flashes.
A flat top further reduces the number of flashes per rotation.
Now you take that and combine it with being inefficient at returning light to the eyes and you have a triple whammy hit on life and fire.
Thank you for the technical info, Karl!Stunning diamond.
The balance is towards large/very large slower flashes but it is very good at doing that.
Put the video full screen notice in the video the large flashes under the table and the smaller flashes outside the table.
That is the balance I am talking about between large and smaller/med flashes.
Your diamond does large flashes so well it works. That is actually pretty rare.
edit: large virtual facets do tend to take you on a tour of your environment(colors) as they are moved.
Actually all of them do but its more visible with large to very large virtual facets because of their size and slower flashes.
Thank you for the technical info, Karl!
May I just check - am I correct in thinking that larger tables increase the size of flashes and reduce the number of flashes because the smaller crown facets do not split the light up from the pavilion mains so much, meaning the pavilion mains act more as direct reflectors to the eye than facets to bounce light towards the crown facets to create more events more often, and more dispersion?
Basically. Its a bit more complex because its just not more direct exposure to the mains its also fewer interactions between facets. Reduced 3d effect. Reduction in side view size appearance.
Drawing off axis light is a big part of it. Air cant draw light into the mains to be returned, where a high crown can.
That does not mean they can not be stunning if they have "IT"
I ask because I'm still trying to work out my personal taste in asschers TBH - I love the (fewer, slower...) long facets in the middle but having bought a CBI for my good lady, I'm also a massive fan of a very lively diamond with lots of coloured fire. Would it be fair to say that the two 'flavours' of cut are mutually exclusive?
They can be balanced in many different ways that create great looking diamonds that look very unalike both in profile, patterns and light return. People can and do have preferences and some like most or all of the variations.
Personally I can appreciate all the different well cut ones and hey even some of the less well cut ones.
That does not mean I would buy them, there is a difference between appreciating and putting money on them.
I think I know the stepcut design that would meet the latter of my criteria well and also give me some of the former, but I don't believe I can mention it here without you having to bow out of the conversation lol
@StephenK What are your and the wearer’s priorities in terms of the 5 ‘Cs’: cut (meaning performance/light return), color, clarity, carat, and cost (literally, in what order)? You have to understand that this forum is largely comprised of ‘cut nuts’, but if your priority is carat (face-up size), then that may influence the feedback you receive. Not everyone is seeking ‘perfect’ cut, and that is okay so long as you understand & prioritize the trade-offs.
Also, with Asschers, there are variations ... some are more square, some more octagonal ... what is your/your intended’s preference?
Addressing these items will help folks here better advise you.
Thanks for your question “the_mother_thing”
I wish I could rank the 5 C’s in priority (and I am making an educated/intuited guess at my beloved taste).
I’ve already learned so much from y’all that any attitude towards “Cut” I started with at the beginning of this thread has certainly evolved.
I know that I’m clearly drawn towards Asscher cuts (and Kaleidoscopes have been a theme in her life, so the hall of mirrors theme is evocative), and away from the round and brilliant cuts.
I now much better understand the goals of the Asscher cuts, and the examples (especially the video) and subsequent commentaries are incredibly helpful in showing what to look for.
If my budget was $25k for a center stone and then extra for the two side stones and setting, I’d be jumping the the GOG stone. But I can’t go above $18k all in.
I’ll see if I can get a video of this one.