esumsea
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 144
Strmrdr,
Let me ask you, what specs would you look for in a square to 1.30 Emerald cut? There does not seem to be any ideal standards, like there are for round cuts. All I had was Cuellar to go on, and apparently that is rubish. I will post here a list formed from posts you made in the threads I pasted above that deliniate what you looked for in an Asscher back in 2005. I hope you don''t mind:
"The numbers:
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% 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.
stong and even windmills?
Are the squares well defined and concentric?
Does it have the 10 mile deep look under indirect lighting?
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.
The question of color and clarity comes up often.
An eye clean si1 is possible if the inclusions are light enough but vs2 or better may be safer.
This is another area where you have to rely on your vendor until you can see it for yourself.
In an rb im comfortable going down to an i or some j''s and think they will face up white enough more so with some flourecence.
In an asscher I think you might notice some tint in anything under H with G or better being a very safe bet.
All of the J asschers Iv seen have had some noticible to me tint.
There are really multiple groups of cutting styles in asschers that have there own rules.
In general the best no matter which style will have a crown height of at least 10%.
the best of the modern interpretations will have roughly 10%-12% crown height, med range girdle, table under 61 and and a depth of %60-%65.
The cutting on these has to be spot on or they bark.
The classic style with have crown heights 10% to 15%+ ,tables under 61% with mid to high 50s being better, and total depth of 68%-75%
There is a little greater variation tolerance in these and they can still look awesome.
Then there is the large table cut that I don''t like.
Tables larger than 65% , depths from 60%-80% barkers one and all as far as im concerned.
Then there is the royal asschers which is a story in itself.
As my research continues im adding to this thread:
GIA vg/vg fpr sym/polish is fine in all the cases iv seen there wasnt an eye visible problem caused by it.
While ex/ex does show greater care in cutting that doesnt always equal a better asscher.
I would not drop down to good in either
Do you think these apply to emerald cuts that are not perfectly square (i.e., 1.2 and above proportioned ECs)? How about for square EC''s?
I thought one of the benefits of an emerald cut is that it can be cut more shallow with the same amont of light return, which allows one to produce a stone that looks bigger because a greater proportion of the weight is alloted to length and width. Please correct me if I am wrong on this It seems that, from what I read that you may disagree with this. Let me know and thanks for your contribution, I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Mario
Let me ask you, what specs would you look for in a square to 1.30 Emerald cut? There does not seem to be any ideal standards, like there are for round cuts. All I had was Cuellar to go on, and apparently that is rubish. I will post here a list formed from posts you made in the threads I pasted above that deliniate what you looked for in an Asscher back in 2005. I hope you don''t mind:
"The numbers:
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% 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.
stong and even windmills?
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 3 tests
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.
edited: it was an older version I pasted in the first time.
The question of color and clarity comes up often.
An eye clean si1 is possible if the inclusions are light enough but vs2 or better may be safer.
This is another area where you have to rely on your vendor until you can see it for yourself.
In an rb im comfortable going down to an i or some j''s and think they will face up white enough more so with some flourecence.
In an asscher I think you might notice some tint in anything under H with G or better being a very safe bet.
All of the J asschers Iv seen have had some noticible to me tint.
More numbers but keep in mind that numbers dont tell you much:
There are really multiple groups of cutting styles in asschers that have there own rules.
In general the best no matter which style will have a crown height of at least 10%.
the best of the modern interpretations will have roughly 10%-12% crown height, med range girdle, table under 61 and and a depth of %60-%65.
The cutting on these has to be spot on or they bark.
The classic style with have crown heights 10% to 15%+ ,tables under 61% with mid to high 50s being better, and total depth of 68%-75%
There is a little greater variation tolerance in these and they can still look awesome.
Then there is the large table cut that I don''t like.
Tables larger than 65% , depths from 60%-80% barkers one and all as far as im concerned.
Then there is the royal asschers which is a story in itself.
As my research continues im adding to this thread:
GIA vg/vg fpr sym/polish is fine in all the cases iv seen there wasnt an eye visible problem caused by it.
While ex/ex does show greater care in cutting that doesnt always equal a better asscher.
I would not drop down to good in either
Do you think these apply to emerald cuts that are not perfectly square (i.e., 1.2 and above proportioned ECs)? How about for square EC''s?
I thought one of the benefits of an emerald cut is that it can be cut more shallow with the same amont of light return, which allows one to produce a stone that looks bigger because a greater proportion of the weight is alloted to length and width. Please correct me if I am wrong on this It seems that, from what I read that you may disagree with this. Let me know and thanks for your contribution, I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Mario
300x240.png)