Help with an asscher please

[therealj]

I''m looking to get an engagement ring shortly and have decided on an asscher cut, my gf likes anything square and also likes antique style rings so this shape seems perfect. I''ll be setting this in a tacori setting. The setting is about $1800 (not willing to change the setting) and I''m trying to stay under $3800 for the total price, I''m in Canada so that price is more like $5000 for me. My question regarding this diamond is about the depth, I like the fact that the depth % gives this diamond a very similar spread of asschers normally around .75. Is there any disadvantages I should know about for the depth being this low, and overall the opinion of this diamond. Thanks a lot

Asscher

 

[katbadness]

----------------
On 10/3/2004 8:30:33 PM therealj wrote:

I'm looking to get an engagement ring shortly and have decided on an asscher cut, my gf likes anything square and also likes antique style rings so this shape seems perfect. I'll be setting this in a tacori setting. The setting is about $1800 (not willing to change the setting) and I'm trying to stay under $3800 for the total price, I'm in Canada so that price is more like $5000 for me. My question regarding this diamond is about the depth, I like the fact that the depth % gives this diamond a very similar spread of asschers normally around .75. Is there any disadvantages I should know about for the depth being this low, and overall the opinion of this diamond. Thanks a lot

Asscher----------------

This is quite interesting that there are 2 threads going on about Asschers at the same time!

If you want to ake a look at the other thread here is the link.

Generally a stone that displays the classic Asscher look will have more depth and smaller table than the stone you're considering.

Here's a write up from Nice Ice regarding the numbers on a stone that displays a more classic Asscher look.

However, the stone you're considering may be nice indeed. Have you seen the stone in person?

 

[valeria101]

I would not hold high hopes for that 55% depth. It is way little for any cut, let alone a step with rather large table. The piece ma not have a window (that is hard to get in diamonds due to high RI) but, well, it may happen.

On the other hand, a smaller stone will definitely not show allot of color. That one sounds like one diamond with high color and clarity and a rather debatable cut. To get that size, I would definitely look at G-VS2 rather than E VVS.

If you can actually tell the difference given no magnification in those 5mm stones, well, I'd like to hear about the rare event

Anyway, joke aside, about 70% depth and (way) less than 60% table are more likely to yield a "classic" lookng stone. At least as far as I can tell.

 

[valeria101]

Here's the 'look' I was talking about (and it could be lower grades, this is just one stone that happened to come with a picture - something I would never do without!)

 

[valeria101]

The listing above comes from among Stuller's "Red Box Diamnds". There are no quotes (you need to ask a jeweler with a Stuller account to get you the stone if you really, really want one of those) but the pictures make greta refs for proportions, shapes and cuts.

Here are a couple of diamonds listed with prices and all you might find interesting. Some would be listed by more than one seller (just look onto the database) so these notes are about the diamonds, not the sellers:

0.8cts, (5.2mm) G-VS2, 68.5%depth/54%table - VG/VG finish (by proportions this would be my winner so far)

and a matching 0.77 G/VS2 with strong fluorescence.


The cut grading at DCD is matching emerald cuts not aiming to turn up stones like the one in the picture. On this basis, I did not look at all at their label for cut - just the finish grades by GIA (VG and Ex), table, depth and girdle (trying to avoid thick ones).