Nervous Boyfriend - Rate My Asscher

[asscher4mybaby]

OK guys and gals, my girl really narrowed it down for me in terms of size and cut. I've been searching for over a month and recently found an asscher which faces up significantly larger (more like a 1.75) due to, i think, its depth. the stats:

1.41 carat asscher
6.59x6.46x4.16
table is 65%
depth is 64.4%
color: F
clarity: VS1
excellent polish
very good symmetry
no fluorescence
medium girdle
no cutlet
laser inscribed
Price: $8,800

What do you think? For a picky girl that likes big clear white asschers, do you think this will do the trick? What about the price? (it looks like a steal to me, anyways...im sort of pinching myself....) Am I missing something? I know everyone is going to say "you have to see it"- well hopefully i will soon but its online, so its kinda hard to loupe. Do you see any problems in the pics?

 

[SB621]

Just my .02cent. This doesn't look like an asscher to me as much as a square shaped emerald. An Asscher should have more of a stop sign outline. I also prefer fatter windmills.

I have no comment about the depth etc as I know little to nothing about what proportinally makes a great asscher cut. I can only tell you what preferences I have for the asschers cuts I like, which veer heavily towards the classic asscher.

EDIT- Did a quick search so I can give you a visual of what I was talking about. Square shaped EC is on the left with a classic asscher on the right.

EDIT #2- Regardless I think it is a lovely step cut and I hope you don't see my post as negative, just being honest on the style of the cut. I really doubt 99.7% of people out there would notice the difference though.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

i hear ya and i appreciate the input. she has not indicated any real preference for the larger cropped corners vs the more emerald look. in fact she was going back and forth between emerald and asscher for a while, so i know what she likes is the steps, not the corners.

as a side note i am going to have it set with the prongs in the middle of each side to show off the cropped corners instead of hide them, so that should help.

but what about the price vs what it purports to be? i hadn't been able to find anything around that size or that faced up that large under $10k, so imagine my surprise when i found this one...seems too good to be true...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I consider it an asscher because the windmills meet in the center and it is almost square. Some asschers just have wider corners than others. The table is larger than I like and it does show some camera obstruction so we really can't tell about how good the light return is without an idealscope image or ASET. If it is through a PS vendor, I'd ask for idealscope or ASET images.

Who graded this diamond? If it is GIA, I will agree that it is a good price!

 

[SB621]

I consider it an asscher because the windmills meet in the center and it is almost square. Some asschers just have wider corners than others. The table is larger than I like and it does show some camera obstruction so we really can't tell about how good the light return is without an idealscope image or ASET. If it is through a PS vendor, I'd ask for idealscope or ASET images.

Who graded this diamond? If it is GIA, I will agree that it is a good price!

DS- A square cut EC would have the windmills meet in the center just like in the left hand picture above.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

it is through a pricescope vendor but i dont think they have aset images to send me.

it is however gia cert and laser inscribed, which makes me feel pretty comfortable.

i think i'm pulling the trigger tomorrow morning.

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!! LOL

 

[diamondseeker2006]

SB, yes, but all asschers as far as I know (with the possible exception of branded Royal asschers?) are called square emeralds on the certs.

Example:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/2.01-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-sku-216839

 

[diamondseeker2006]

it is through a pricescope vendor but i dont think they have aset images to send me.

it is however gia cert and laser inscribed, which makes me feel pretty comfortable.

i think i'm pulling the trigger tomorrow morning.

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!! LOL

Did you ask them to do an ASET or idealscope image? Who is the vendor?

Here is a price comp and you are right that yours faces up larger for the weight. But I'd not want a dud stone that has a lot of leakage, either. So I would need more info.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

its through union diamond but the same stone was listed with b2c as well. i decided to deal with union since they are in atlanta, ga.

in other words, close enough that if there is a major issue i can drive a few hours up from fl and get face to face with someone..... =P

i have not asked for an aset but the rep i spoke with indicated that she did not have aset images. is this something all vendors should have? i think she said that they "dont do aset images" or something.

 

[SB621]

SB, yes, but all asschers as far as I know (with the possible exception of branded Royal asschers?) are called square emeralds on the certs.

Example:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/2.01-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-sku-216839

Hold that thought! I'm searching through Richard Sherwood's posts. I know I stole that picture from him that I attached a few years ago where he did a great explantation of square cut emeralds vs. asschers. We both know that Royal asschers have patents on them, however I'm pretty sure you can call square cut emeralds as asschers though there is an obvious difference. I have only seen vendors like JbEG and ERD do otherwise.

I might have to find it later as I'm in a meeting right now so I can't type and search at the same time.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

SB, yes, but all asschers as far as I know (with the possible exception of branded Royal asschers?) are called square emeralds on the certs.

Example:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/2.01-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-sku-216839

Hold that thought! I'm searching through Richard Sherwood's posts. I know I stole that picture from him that I attached a few years ago where he did a great explantation of square cut emeralds vs. asschers. We both know that Royal asschers have patents on them, however I'm pretty sure you can call square cut emeralds as asschers though there is an obvious difference. I have only seen vendors like JbEG and ERD do otherwise.

I might have to find it later as I'm in a meeting right now so I can't type and search at the same time.

Sure! I know that Royal Asschers are a thing of their own, but everything here that we call generic ascchers are graded square emeralds. That is really all I meant.

(Here is their explanation of why square emeralds are not asschers, but we know the name has been adopted regardless...kind of like kleenex is used for all tissues regardless of brand. http://www.royalasscher.com/en/page/48/the-royal-asscher-cut.html )

 

[diamondseeker2006]

its through union diamond but the same stone was listed with b2c as well. i decided to deal with union since they are in atlanta, ga.

in other words, close enough that if there is a major issue i can drive a few hours up from fl and get face to face with someone..... =P

i have not asked for an aset but the rep i spoke with indicated that she did not have aset images. is this something all vendors should have? i think she said that they "dont do aset images" or something.

Hmm, B2C will do either an idealscope or ASET image and the diamond is likely in NYC. I guess it depends on how much you have talked with Union about the stone. If they have already called it in, then there isn't much more you can do. But if they haven't, I'd definitely have B2C call it in or pick it up so they can do the idealscope or ASET.

 

[SB621]

Ok found the post. It is from 2004 and Richard refers to asschers shape as classic or true asscher. I took it as NOT meaning Royal Asscher. And square cut emeralds as generic asschers. You were totally right DS. My version of a classic asscher would be more in line of the royal asscher type.

Link to Richard's explantation on what to look for in an asscher cut: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-is-the-ideal-asscher-cut.19989/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-is-the-ideal-asscher-cut.19989/[/URL]

I am going to pat myself on the back through because I remembered it from 2004 when I was just a lurker. Wow has it been that long!

 

[Gypsy]

I don't care for it. The center is dark, the steps aren't well arranged. If price is your main consideration then... it's okay.

 

[kenny]

What I don't like about it is the lack of alternating light and dark layers.
Better-cut asschers have more alternating layers.

Contrasting layers maximizes the asscher look, and are the result of the stone reflecting different areas of the environment.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ok found the post. It is from 2004 and Richard refers to asschers shape as classic or true asscher. I took it as NOT meaning Royal Asscher. And square cut emeralds as generic asschers. You were totally right DS. My version of a classic asscher would be more in line of the royal asscher type.

Link to Richard's explantation on what to look for in an asscher cut: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-is-the-ideal-asscher-cut.19989/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-is-the-ideal-asscher-cut.19989/[/URL]

I am going to pat myself on the back through because I remembered it from 2004 when I was just a lurker. Wow has it been that long!

Lol!!! That is impressive! I think we understood each other. Just didn't want to make the OP any more confused!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think it might be bad photography, too. I really think he needs the ASET or idealscope to really how good or bad it is. But the low price might have to do with poor cut.

 

[Lula]

All royal asschers have five steps on the pavilion, I believe, and a very small table.

 

[kenny]

I think it might be bad photography, too. I really think he needs the ASET or idealscope to really how good or bad it is. But the low price might have to do with poor cut.

Good point.
Let me elaborate.
At maximum enlargement different macro lenses need to be different distances from the diamond.
More distance is better because less of the black lens/camera is reflected back by the diamond.
Think of a mirror ... stand close to it and your head is big ... stand on the other side of the room and your head is small.
A diamond behaves like a mirror, actually several of them angled to direct many paths of light.

When we see a dark center it's really about where in the environment each facet-layer of that stone is cut to reflect.
It's just a directional thing.
Think of one mirror being held at various angles ... various places in the room will be reflected.
Asschers have 4 layers of mirrors, well actually 8 if you include the windmills.

The problem is the macro lenses that work best are the most expensive.
You can get a true fine macro lens from Nikon or Canon for around $500, but the one that works further from the diamond is $1800.
Many pros get the $500 ones, or off-brand copies for $300-ish.

It is not the asscher's fault it was shot with a cheaper macro lens.
OR it's not the asscher's fault that it happens to reflect the lens in front of it at that particular distance.
The distance between the lens and the diamond has zip, zero, nada, nothing to do with how that asscher will look/perform in person.
Your head is much larger than the diameter of a camera lens and in person you move the diamond around.

Sorry, but every time someone says, "that asscher is dark in the center" I cringe.
It may not be the asscher, it may be the camera/lens is too close because the photographer didn't want to spend big bucks for a better macro lens.
Sad, and a pain in a butt for evaluating asschers by pics, but true.
I'm sorry this muddies the waters of acccher selection by pics, but it is just true.

FWIW, it is the focal length that determines the minimum working distance.
50 or 60mm macro lense are the cheapest and need to be a few inches from the diamond.
200mm are the most expensive and can be 1.5 feet away from the diamond.
The lens being further away means the diamond reflects less black, just as with your head being across the room as you look into a mirror.

 

[kenny]

I welcome responses from KarlK and vendors to my post above regarding judging the 'darkness' of the center of an asscher from one pic.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

maybe these pics will help you make up your mind.



of course last night dbof said they have a 1.41 f vs2 Royal Asscher (laser inscribed/gia) with vg/vg polish and symmetry, faint fluorescence, small cutlet, thick girdle, 56% table, 69% depth, measures 6.27x6.26x4.32mm. i indicated that the diamond to beat was the first one i posted, for $8,800, and when they emailed back dbof said that this royal asscher was available for that price. of course after tax even with a wire discount its going to be $9300 or so, but...what do you all think?

to be honest, my gf does not care about the corners or the table height, etc. we've seen both styles and she hasnt indicated a preference. in fact, like i said, she was leaning towards emerald for a while, and likes the larger table and square shape. she might actually dislike it being too octagonal. the strongest preferences she has expressed so far are size and color. =( which is why the 6.5mm dimensions of the first stone look so attractive, but it would be awful nice to have a real royal asscher for her.. dilemma!!! are those .3mm noticeable?

 

[SB621]

The .3mm won't be noticable. Can you ask your jewelry to take head on shots of the diamonds next to each other.

For me I would much rather have the RA, however from what your GF has said to you and show preference for I would stick with your first option. They are two very distict looks.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

OK so at the risk of feeding a monster here, i'm going to post some info about Royal Asschers vs. Original Asschers vs. Generic Asschers.

DESIGN PATENTS: There has been some talk about the forums regarding the enforceability of the Royal Asscher patent. They most certainly are enforceable. To quote wikipedia, since they have some nice summaries: "In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear). Design patents are valid for 14 years from the date of issue. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar." If anybody followed the Apple v. Samsung debacle, the giant fines imposed on Samsung were due to a determination that they had violated Apple's...what? You guessed it! Design patent! That said, I think design patents on minor variations of preexisting ideas or designs which are barely unique are rubbish. Really, what's the difference between an asscher and a royal asscher? As you will see, its only a few extra facets. But what do I know, I'm just a lawyer.

1) "Royal Asschers" Here is the patent for the Royal Asscher granted January 22, 2002. There are no angles or percentages specified. This is just a design patent. From the drawings, however, we can see that there are in fact 5 facets on the pavillion, 3 on the crown, a rather thick girdle, smaller table, larger corners, and a tiny cutlet. In my opinion the patent doesn't even emphasize as high of a crown as i have seen. The patent is only 2 pages and that's all she wrote. Or he, I guess.



2) "Original Asschers" I could not find the images for the original patent. It appears to be a French patent applied for on August 28, 1902 and granted on March 23, 1903 by Joseph Asscher titled "nouveau mode de taille de diamants" or "new method of cutting diamonds." If anyone could find the images of that patent it would be interesting to see.


3) My understanding is that the differences between Royal Asschers vs. Generic Asschers are much more pronounced than the differences between Original Asschers vs. Generic Asschers. One might even make the claim that Generics resemble more closely the Original Asscher than does the newer Royal Asscher.

My opinion: Even more shocking would be if the original Asscher patent revealed what many call a square cut corner step or square emerald and in fact is nothing incredibly unique. Remember the original asscher cut was very unique in 1902, but a hundred years have passed, for 86 of which the original patent has been expired, so that cut is no longer unique and has been duplicated ad infinitum. Thus, the Royal Asscher company made some modifications to restore the uniqueness of the family's cut that their name is associated with, to "take it back" in a way, and to inject some excitement back into the brand after Sex in the City gave them a nod in an episode which aired in the late 1990's. Combined with exponentially growing retro-revival, the revamped cut is no surprise. But is it necessarily THAT unique? I don't think so, especially when we are talking about Original Asschers. The Royals have a more distinct look, but that look is unique to the Royal Asscher and does not share as much with the Original Asschers as some would have you think. I may be completely wrong. Who knows. If anyone has some pictures of pre-2000 Asschers, or better yet real vintage asschers, it would be great to see them and compare to the old patent.

I have too much time on my hands.

 

[lovebug1031]

it's a shame GOG doesn't have more Octavias in stock...man that'd really blow her out of the water!!!

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/8866/

 

[Christina...]

The simplest way I've found to measure such small increments is with a sheet of plain copy paper. each .1mm is the equivalent of a sheet of paper, so .3mm = 3 sheets of copy paper. Will you visually see the difference...I think so, however, it's important to consider that a well performing diamond will always look larger and brighter than a comparable sized stone with poor performance. So, it's possible that the smaller Royal Asscher will appear larger in person than your non branded choice. Of course without ASETs we don't know how your stone performs, so can't make any predictions.

I think there is something very special about a Royal Asscher though, so I can appreciate your dilemma.

 

[delight]

Videos would be much better and helpful over using pictures to help make a decision.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

SB, yes, but all asschers as far as I know (with the possible exception of branded Royal asschers?) are called square emeralds on the certs.

Don't forget about the ole GIA named "cut cornered square step cut"

 

[diamondseeker2006]

OK so at the risk of feeding a monster here, i'm going to post some info about Royal Asschers vs. Original Asschers vs. Generic Asschers.

DESIGN PATENTS: There has been some talk about the forums regarding the enforceability of the Royal Asscher patent. They most certainly are enforceable. To quote wikipedia, since they have some nice summaries: "In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear). Design patents are valid for 14 years from the date of issue. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar." If anybody followed the Apple v. Samsung debacle, the giant fines imposed on Samsung were due to a determination that they had violated Apple's...what? You guessed it! Design patent! That said, I think design patents on minor variations of preexisting ideas or designs which are barely unique are rubbish. Really, what's the difference between an asscher and a royal asscher? As you will see, its only a few extra facets. But what do I know, I'm just a lawyer.

1) "Royal Asschers" Here is the patent for the Royal Asscher granted January 22, 2002. There are no angles or percentages specified. This is just a design patent. From the drawings, however, we can see that there are in fact 5 facets on the pavillion, 3 on the crown, a rather thick girdle, smaller table, larger corners, and a tiny cutlet. In my opinion the patent doesn't even emphasize as high of a crown as i have seen. The patent is only 2 pages and that's all she wrote. Or he, I guess.



2) "Original Asschers" I could not find the images for the original patent. It appears to be a French patent applied for on August 28, 1902 and granted on March 23, 1903 by Joseph Asscher titled "nouveau mode de taille de diamants" or "new method of cutting diamonds." If anyone could find the images of that patent it would be interesting to see.


3) My understanding is that the differences between Royal Asschers vs. Generic Asschers are much more pronounced than the differences between Original Asschers vs. Generic Asschers. One might even make the claim that Generics resemble more closely the Original Asscher than does the newer Royal Asscher.

My opinion: Even more shocking would be if the original Asscher patent revealed what many call a square cut corner step or square emerald and in fact is nothing incredibly unique. Remember the original asscher cut was very unique in 1902, but a hundred years have passed, for 86 of which the original patent has been expired, so that cut is no longer unique and has been duplicated ad infinitum. Thus, the Royal Asscher company made some modifications to restore the uniqueness of the family's cut that their name is associated with, to "take it back" in a way, and to inject some excitement back into the brand after Sex in the City gave them a nod in an episode which aired in the late 1990's. Combined with exponentially growing retro-revival, the revamped cut is no surprise. But is it necessarily THAT unique? I don't think so, especially when we are talking about Original Asschers. The Royals have a more distinct look, but that look is unique to the Royal Asscher and does not share as much with the Original Asschers as some would have you think. I may be completely wrong. Who knows. If anyone has some pictures of pre-2000 Asschers, or better yet real vintage asschers, it would be great to see them and compare to the old patent.

I have too much time on my hands.

I think you have made an outstanding point that the generics may be closer to the original asschers! I just have a small 1 ct asscher in a right hand ring. But it is a beautifully cut asscher and has a small table. I do really love smaller tables on both asschers and emerald cuts because it shows more of the crown facets.

This is a huge dilemma for me, unless the stone is to be set into a halo. Asschers face up small. So every tiny bit of diameter counts. A halo would add size and allow you to go for the RA, but if the first stone was well cut, I would probably go for it just for the extra size. We still need an ASET or idealscope image to have an idea if it is ok, though. For that matter, you can't be certain every RA has ideal light return, either.

Look at my video that Good Old Gold made me when I was looking for my asscher and you can see that there are distinct differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7SBfNGxTFE&list=UUEV7slr-i-VduBBnfv9MxhA&index=2

 

[diamondseeker2006]

SB, yes, but all asschers as far as I know (with the possible exception of branded Royal asschers?) are called square emeralds on the certs.

Don't forget about the ole GIA named "cut cornered square step cut"

You forced me to go look at my GIA report on my asscher!

That one looks more like the Royal Asscher in that it has 5 pavilion facets. But it unfortunately has a huge table. Mine is a generic asscher with 3 pavilion facets but it has a really nice 58% table.

And for the original poster, the more I think about it, you are not really going to appreciate the extra pavilion facets unless you go to a larger stone. More pavilion facets would be a waste on my diamond. If you looked at that video I posted, I bought the second stone. It is beautiful and would not have been better with more facets due to the size. I know you are looking at a slightly larger size, but still, I don't think the additional pavilion facets would mean the RA had a huge advantage. If it was a 3 ct asscher, then we might really see the difference in the two styles.

 

[asscher4mybaby]

I am so excited- the diamond is here!!!! It looks awesome. This pic does not do it justice. keep in mind this shot is with it still in the little plastic case.



it looks huge in person (for its weight) and it really sparkles (for an asscher).

turns out, it actually has 5 pavillion facets. i read some more interesting information here http://www.bespoke-gems.com/SacredGeometrics_Gemstones_Designs_Squares_Asscher.php where a gemcutter describes classic asschers and references some "literature." One day ill find someone that can explain it properly.

Again, I found this stone through Pricescope, purchased it through Union Diamond for $8,884, and could not be happier.