Is this Asscher too Dark (attached images)
- Thread starter f4t3
- Start date
- Status
Shay37
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 3,343
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,743
starryeyed
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,398
Hi f4t3.
I would agree that this one looks like a nice stone. It doesn't look dark directly under the culet, so I would agree with Garry that the dark band may be good contrast.
Asschers are very dynamic stones, so what might appear to be a dark area at one angle, is very bright at a slightly different angle. What is important is that the stone has that hall-of-mirrors effect that draws you in, which is hard to see in a picture.
This one looks like it has nice windmills - they are a good width (in my opinion) and are straight. The contrast along the edges of the stone looks nice too.
Garry, any thoughts on the spread?
I know Storm was having surgery, but maybe he'll chime in....
I would agree that this one looks like a nice stone. It doesn't look dark directly under the culet, so I would agree with Garry that the dark band may be good contrast.
Asschers are very dynamic stones, so what might appear to be a dark area at one angle, is very bright at a slightly different angle. What is important is that the stone has that hall-of-mirrors effect that draws you in, which is hard to see in a picture.
This one looks like it has nice windmills - they are a good width (in my opinion) and are straight. The contrast along the edges of the stone looks nice too.
Garry, any thoughts on the spread?
I know Storm was having surgery, but maybe he'll chime in....
Thanks all for the great input.
For reference here is the other stone from before:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher-help-attached-sarin-and-images.54991/
I agree that this one definately looks better in static pictures however my girlfriend ended up liking the other one after seeing both in person.
Maybe its just personal taste but when seeing them both from up close and far away in multiple lighting conditions my girlfriend consistently liked the previous stone. So now she is thinking of maybe calling one more in to compare against the one chose today to be sure sure.
What I am trying to say is I learned that these pictures really only tell you a tiny bit of how the stone''s are going to look in person and am feel lucky we did not have to base our decision on the pictures alone.
For reference here is the other stone from before:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher-help-attached-sarin-and-images.54991/
I agree that this one definately looks better in static pictures however my girlfriend ended up liking the other one after seeing both in person.
Maybe its just personal taste but when seeing them both from up close and far away in multiple lighting conditions my girlfriend consistently liked the previous stone. So now she is thinking of maybe calling one more in to compare against the one chose today to be sure sure.
What I am trying to say is I learned that these pictures really only tell you a tiny bit of how the stone''s are going to look in person and am feel lucky we did not have to base our decision on the pictures alone.
starryeyed
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,398
Hi f4t3. That''s really interesting - great you could see them in person! I totally agree that it''s really hard to tell how an asscher will perform live.
I am really curious - did your GF say WHY she liked the first stone better? It looks like the windmills are a little thinner in the first. Does the first stone look deeper? Is there more contrast?
I am really curious - did your GF say WHY she liked the first stone better? It looks like the windmills are a little thinner in the first. Does the first stone look deeper? Is there more contrast?
I think there was definately more contrast in the first one and she said that brought out the patterns more in it especially at a distance.
Basically she said that it is true that the one above here did look a bit more sparkly close up than the other but she said the main reason she wanted the asscher was for the step and windmill patterns and both were much more evident and dynamic when the stone moved in the first one because of the contrast.
It is actually weird that the windmills are more noticeable in the first since in the static images they looked much thinner but the contrast makes them more noticeable.
My girlfriend said seeing them side by side the one that was slightly brighter overall actually looked dull and had less character in her opinion.
Basically she said that it is true that the one above here did look a bit more sparkly close up than the other but she said the main reason she wanted the asscher was for the step and windmill patterns and both were much more evident and dynamic when the stone moved in the first one because of the contrast.
It is actually weird that the windmills are more noticeable in the first since in the static images they looked much thinner but the contrast makes them more noticeable.
My girlfriend said seeing them side by side the one that was slightly brighter overall actually looked dull and had less character in her opinion.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
But based upon the 1st. image, something is visiualy bothoring me on the face-up appearance.
I think that a smaller table would add to the look, i would consider wider corner facets too.
yes, you are right, the #''s look good, but you know me...., i am not a great believer in #''s, especially on fancy-cuts.
Its more in the eye''s (observer!!)
But other than that, it looks like a white and a decent Asscher...
starryeyed
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,398
Hi f4t3. I think I can see what you are saying. When you look at the IS of this second stone, there isn''t as much contrast between the facets under the table and the windmills. If I squint my eyes, they definitely run together.
However, the first stone is much different. There is clear contrast between the windmills and the facets under the table. When I squint my eyes, the windmills stay distinct.
This is VERY helpful. Brightness under the table is important, but the contrast is key, especially for the windmills against the other facets.
So are you going to call in a 3rd stone or stick with the first? Keep us posted and good luck!
However, the first stone is much different. There is clear contrast between the windmills and the facets under the table. When I squint my eyes, the windmills stay distinct.
This is VERY helpful. Brightness under the table is important, but the contrast is key, especially for the windmills against the other facets.
So are you going to call in a 3rd stone or stick with the first? Keep us posted and good luck!
The plan is to call in one or two SI1s that are bigger but in the same price range and let my GF decide if we want to go that route. I had originally ruled out even looking at SI1s because I had assumed we wouldn't be able to see them in person. However when I was dealing with Whiteflash I noticed their phone number was Houston area code and as luck would have it we were driving home from Chicago to Houston for the holidays.
I have to say once again that before we went in to see them in person we were totally ready to just go with the stone above just from these images. After the seeing both stones without knowing which was which we switched. That experiment made me realize that specs and static pictures aren't everything to my GF and that is the reason why we decided to open up our clarity parameters a bit to see if the tradeoff between size and clarity is worth it.
I plan to try and get them to bring some in for us this week so we can make a final decision this week and I will post here with any updates.
I did have two questions for you guys though that if you guys would be helfpful in finding another stone to bring in.
How does depth effect this cut in particular visually? Both stones I looked at seemed to get the comment that they would like more depth but without really much explanation with what more depth would do visually to the stone.
I also have the same question about the table as I believe the tables here were judge to be too big?
Thanks so much guys!
I have to say once again that before we went in to see them in person we were totally ready to just go with the stone above just from these images. After the seeing both stones without knowing which was which we switched. That experiment made me realize that specs and static pictures aren't everything to my GF and that is the reason why we decided to open up our clarity parameters a bit to see if the tradeoff between size and clarity is worth it.
I plan to try and get them to bring some in for us this week so we can make a final decision this week and I will post here with any updates.
I did have two questions for you guys though that if you guys would be helfpful in finding another stone to bring in.
How does depth effect this cut in particular visually? Both stones I looked at seemed to get the comment that they would like more depth but without really much explanation with what more depth would do visually to the stone.
I also have the same question about the table as I believe the tables here were judge to be too big?
Thanks so much guys!
starryeyed
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,398
Hi f4t3. That''s so great that you are in Houston and can visit WF directly. I recently bought an asscher from WF, and they have been great. They told it to me "straight" and have a lot of expertise.
The table-depth thing is tough. On the one hand, there are the "Storm proportions", which are very useful. However, there are several people who have found stones that they like outside of these proportions. It really depends on preference and expectation.
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that there are so many possible combinations of crown/pavilion angles (depending on 3, 4, or 5 step cuts) that you can''t really rule out anytrhing definitively. Probably the more stones you see the better. If it''s 2-5% (or whatever) of the purchase price, it''s worth it.
Please keep us posted! I''m anxious to hear what you think of the SI''s!
The table-depth thing is tough. On the one hand, there are the "Storm proportions", which are very useful. However, there are several people who have found stones that they like outside of these proportions. It really depends on preference and expectation.
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that there are so many possible combinations of crown/pavilion angles (depending on 3, 4, or 5 step cuts) that you can''t really rule out anytrhing definitively. Probably the more stones you see the better. If it''s 2-5% (or whatever) of the purchase price, it''s worth it.
Please keep us posted! I''m anxious to hear what you think of the SI''s!
- Status
300x240.png)