My asscher, good?

[oliviob]

OK! I finally chose a stone. It''''s an eye clean beautiful asscher. I don''''t have pictures, but wanted to get PSers opinions on the below:

Asscher
Measurements: 7.08 x 6.95 x 4.95
Weight: 2.03 ct
Depth: 70.9%
Table: 71%
Girdle: Medium to STHK
Culet: None
Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
Clarity: SI1
Color: G
Flour: None

Do these sound kosher? It looks gorgeous, but wanted to make sure these were somewhat ''''ideal'''' proportions.

I''''m getting this for about $14000. I''''m going with the Harry Winston micro pave look for the stone, custom designed of course.

Thanks!

 

[indecisive]

Honestly, it is not in the range of specs that I would want. I prefer the table to be upper 50s-lower 60s and the depth to be lower so that you get more spread. I also prefer symmetry and polish to be EX. There can still be amazing asschers outside those specs and the important thing is to look at the stone and check the patterns and fire/light return. Also, when asking about specs you will get more of a response in Rocky Talk.

 

[decodelighted]

What happened to the Daniel K??? THAT was gorgeous!

This new stone may also be lovely ... but I cannot say that it "almost Ideal" proportions. The GIA or AGS is going to publish "ideal" proportions for Square Emeralds/Asschers in February and I''d guess this stone is pretty far off from their specs.

I have a non-Ideal asscher & love it ... but don''t kid yourself about it being Ideal if you choose the 2ct. Gorgeous maybe, Ideal - not.

The Daniel K 1.51 is very likely Ideal. What happened????

 

[oliviob]

Well, I decided to sacrifice size with a little quality, and while the proportions aren''t ''ideal'', it was a gorgeous stone. I really do trust my jeweler, and don''t think he''d show me something he himself wouldn''t want. He''s a family friend. It was absolutely gorgeous though. The Daniel K, while stunning, wasn''t exactly what my girlfriend wants. I wouldn''t feel right going with the DK just because it''s a Daniel K, rather get her what she is dreaming of, which is the HW micro pave look. She REALLY wants the same that she saw at Martin Katz, but that''s just way out of my range.

So...make sense?

 

[decodelighted]

If it makes sense to you ... it makes sense! You know your gal! And I TOTALLY understand about sacrificing a little on the cut to gain size .. from personal experience!

However ... you're going even more outside the Ideal parameters than I did ... and that makes me a wee bit nervous on your behalf! Without pix or anything to judge on ... I'm just taking your word that it's gorgeous!

I wouldn't DEPEND on the fact your jeweler would choose that stone for him/herself because they're a family friend. Ultimately it's a business & they only have to believe YOU'll love it & be satisfied with the purchase .. you: a layman without much diamond choosing experience ... that bar isn't so very high.

My concerns:
* Table greater than depth ... not encouraged though stones can be lovely anyway
* Table over 70% ... could have a glassy look ... not be as firey as other stones
* Very deep ... so it appears smaller than most 2 carat asschers

Bascially ... you could probably find a 1.7- 1.8 ish asscher with similar dimensions.

Are you committed? Can you keep looking for an asscher with similar dimensions in your budget that is also better cut?

Ultimately if you love the looks of that stone you should absolutely buy it. If you have doubts or want to keep looking - pay attention to that too.

ETA:: Though -- I have to say ... 14K for a 2carat asscher is an excellent price. That counts for something!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Some people love the look of large tabled asschers.
The have a different look than the smaller tabled asschers.
No I wouldnt call them ideal but if its what you love then its kewl :}

 

[oliviob]

UGH! The more I read on the more I have issues. Yes, without pix it''s hard to really judge, but I do believe it was a stunning stone, once I get the finished product, I''ll post pix. I am SURE you can make yourself crazy trying to match the right proportions, but when it comes down to it, will anyone know that''s not a gemologist? It''s eye clean, that I assure you. I did have an option to go with a 1.75 asscher, F VS1 ex/ex for about 12,5. But together, the two stones were identical in color and clarity (minor minor minor), and I only noticed the size difference. I imagine the lady will too. Am I NUTS!? I''ve committed, but haven''t paid a cent yet.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/28/2006 2:10:14 PM
Author: oliviob
will anyone know that''s not a gemologist?

I did have an option to go with a 1.75 asscher, F VS1 ex/ex for about 12,5. But together, the two stones were identical in color and clarity (minor minor minor), and I only noticed the size difference. I imagine the lady will too. Am I NUTS!? I''ve committed, but haven''t paid a cent yet.

Why don''t you tell your guy you''d like the specs on the 1.75 asscher too ("to compare") ... the dimensions might not be as dramatic a difference as the difference in cut .. especially if you''re going with a halo? Did you say you were ... when I think of Harry Winston micropave I guess I think "halo" but maybe you just meant the band of the ring would be micropave ...

As to whether "regular folk" would be able to tell an ideal asscher from a less idea one ... I guess YOU couldn''t, right? You picked the 2ct after having seen a 1.5ct Daniel K and the other 1.75 stone. The differences are subtle & it totally depends on how discrimianting you are ... how used to seeing Asschers you are .. and personal taste, really. Some people are attracted to asschers BECAUSE of the "glassy" look that other folks LOATHE. Don''t drive yourself crazy ... just get enough info to assure yourself you''ve made the best decision for you guys & then get ready for some BIG TIME LOVIN''! ''Cause I''m sure your gal is gonna be over the moon for whatever you end up with!!

 

[oliviob]

You are correct, going w the halo design. Good idea, I will get the specs of the 1.75. All I know is that we both LOVE the look of an asscher.