Need help with an Asscher

[goscottgo]

Hi all -
I am in the process of doing research on an e-ring. My girlfriend really likes the asscher cut (at least 1 carrat) as a solitaire. My gameplan is to have a range for each category (carat, cut, color, clarity, depth, table, etc.) so that I can get something great for my budget (about 7-8 grand for the diamond and setting) and not by crap/get screwed by the jeweler. Can anyone provide me with ranges so that I can get a really nice Asscher? So far I have narrowed down the carrat to 1.0 - 1.25 and the color to E - G. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Scott

 

[diamondsbylauren]

HI Scott,


It's great to get info as to what will please you , and your intended. This is a good place to do that.


But I would say it's far more important to find yourself a jeweler you're comfortable won't "screw you".






Specifically speaking: I'd say an $8000 budget will allow quite a nice 1.00 Asscher in a nice platinum setting.

 

[coarchitect]

first things first...
welcome (and congratulations) !!!
asschers are my favorite too.

do a search on pricescope for asscher and you will find tons of information and (unfortunately) some fairly vague answers when it comes to depth, table, etc and asschers. It is just one of those things you need to see in person, but still if you search on here you will get a general idea of what is the more desired look for an asscher.

as far as color- you would be fine w/ "G" even in platinum and could afford higher clarity (important in step cuts) and size. i wouldn’t go lower than VS2 for clarity.

good luck!
oh and check out www.royalasscher.com for more info.

 

[goscottgo]

Thanks! Do things like girdle, polish, and symetry not matter? Is it really all about the 4 C's?

 

[strmrdr]

With asschers your better off working with a vendor and send them out hunting for one for you.
Then having it sent to an appraiser to see it in person.
My pick for that kind of thing would be www.niceice.com
I know they are as picky as I am if not more so and I trust them to find me an awesome diamond.
www.goodoldgold.com , www.whiteflash.com and www.winkjones.com would be exellent choices also.
Any of those 4 would do an awesome job of hunting one down for you and selling it to you at a very fair price.

 

[coarchitect]

well, for the look of a "true" asscher you want it to be square, so symmetry does matter. i did hear a topic a while back about someone choosing an asscher with a thick girdle and the remark on that being that you pay for extra weight if the girdle is thick. (b/c carat is a measure of weight, not size)... polish???

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Everything matters- but for me, the reason that formulas do not work is that there are so many different aspect that all affect each other.


If you must you must numbers, here:


stay between 58-74% depth


a smaller table (55-65%) is the tradtitonal look, and a larger table (up to 75%) can also yeild a wonderful look.


All kinds of people are going to call me crazy here, but that's a daily occurance for me anyway(heheh)




Remember, GIA does not refer to Asscher cuts on thier reports- it would be classified as a "square emerald cut"




The branded stones will ensure that you get


a) the beautiful big corners that MAKE this shape


b) a much higher price than you could find from a non branded srource.


Of course, then, you'd need to be very careful about making sure the personality of the cut is what you want.




Hope this helps!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/28/2004 4:39:36 PM coarchitect wrote:

well, for the look of a 'true' asscher you want it to be square, so symmetry does matter.
----------------

I think the "symmetry" word on the gem cert does not mean symmetry relatrive to a system of axis (like in a geometry book would). So you can have an off-square stone with Ex symmetry on the cert, and one with undesirable proportions and the same...

The branded Asscher would be "octagonal step cut" on a GIA cert, while most non-granded ones would be "square step cut". The question appeared on a recent thread... I guess the word on the cert says that the branded stones have deeply cut corners (or large corner facets if I may) whyle the other do not. Some non-branded do look octagonal, by all means.

 

[valeria101]

This is what I meant about the shape (below)...

Your plans sound right on target, I would say.

Weight may not make allot of difference: between a deep cut 1.2 cts and a more reasonable 1 carat stone, the difference in size would not be allot. From 65% depth to 75% depth (both considered acceptable, I guess), that fifth of a carat is lost.

Anyway. A few sellers present generic Asscher cuts selected for brilliance around here, and the largest inventory may well be listed by BlueNile (some in theor signature collection too). No shortage of material for price comparison !

 

[Hest88]

Valeria, that's a great comparison chart. Maybe we can stick it in the FAQs? So many people come on wondering why anyone would buy a Royal Asscher over a cheaper square emerald, and also why it's important to distinguish between a real "asscher-like" square emerald and the run-of-the-mill, and that think that picture really shows the differences.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi everyone,
AnA- great point - I had totally forgotten about the GIA classification
"Octagonal Step Cut"
I do not see those often.

Here's a stone which really looked like a branded one to me-

Here's the GIA report

I wish we had a photo of a stone with a GIA report classifying it as "Octoganal Step Cut"

 

[Hest88]

That's really gorgeous, David.

I believe that of the types of stones we're talking about, only the branded Royal Asscher is designated as an octagonal.

 

[strmrdr]

I actualy like the outside shape of the first one in the picture ana posted better than the octoganal shape of the others.


It could be cut better however it doesnt have the 10 mile deep look as much as the others.


Iv seen the 10 mile deep look in that outer shape however so it is just that stone or the lighting,




Its neat that all the options are available but you need to know what you want and what your getting.


imho asschers really have to be seen to be judged.




Which is why I recomend having a trusted vendor hunt them for you and look at them at an appraisers or be sure the vendor has a great return policy.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/29/2004 4:23:43 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:



I had totally forgotten about the GIA classification
'Octagonal Step Cut'
I do not see those often.
----------------

If you do not, how could I... Actually, the (very impressive) example you posted beggs the question "when does the word > appear on a GIA cert?". Obviously this has nothing to do woth the outline of the stone

The branded Asschers (RA) seem to come with the respective denomination, but they are NOT the only ones with large corner facets, and all others are labeled "square emerald cut". Could it be that the extra step on the RA's pavilion prompts GIA to consider it a step cut different from the "Emerald Cut"? It looks that way to me... Not that the extra row of facets could change the world, but it just does not fit the exact model of the Emerald Cut.

I know GIA does not call "princess" and "radiants" as such, why the "emerald cut" is treated differently ? All this words game

....

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/29/2004 8:10:43 PM strmrdr wrote:
Iv seen the 10 mile deep look in that outer shape however so it is just that stone or the lighting,

----------------

Maybe Jonathan can spare a sec on this. What do you think Strmdr?

I was wandering forever, what that "hall of mirrors" effect could be. The name is very mysterious, but the illusion of perspective is easy enough to explain. It can be that only the original Asscher makers know what the "hall of mirrors" is, but if one sees it, than there must also be explicable by some optical effect. And this is what I am after…

Anyway, Jonathan cared to post a couple of square ECs with all his usual charts and figures attached. The stone that shows "depth" reads "Poor Fish Eye" on the GemAdviser. Wasn’t that score supposed to indicate whether the girdle gets reflected onto the pavilion ? With a different index for each step on the EC pavilion, there must be more than one such reflections possible. (not a bad thing - just two names for the same effect of optics, really).

If this is right, than the progressively smaller reflections visible under the table would definitely match the way "perspective" is created in a 2D sheet of paper - nothing new there.




PS: the notes above are based on two examples. It appeared to me that THIS stone has more "depth" than THIS and it turned out that the greatest difference between teo two was the "fish eye" reading. Since this is about an inner reflection, it sounded like the explanation could hold