New Asscher to evaluate for Emmy

[emmy88]

Hi Everyone,

Denise from Brian Gavin has brought in a 1.05 HVS1 Asscher for me. I would appreciate any insights you can give me. I had posted an asscher (www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/please-help-evaluate-this-asscher-t172160.html ) several days ago from James Allen that I was considering, and I really appreciated the feedback that Gypsy and Karl gave me. So, all you asscher experts or lovers, please help me evaluate this one. Thanks.








I am still waiting for pictures for the F SI1 from James Allen that Gypsy recommended. The GVS1 that I posted several days ago is still under consideration. How would you compare that one to the current one?

Thanks for your help.

Emmy

 

[Karl_K]

Ask Brian if he can take a pic of it on someones finger in a ring holder.
Strait up
slight tilt both ways.

otherwise talk to him about center brightness and dark zones flashing under slight tilt.
I am not too concerned about the green center in the aset at this point as the regular picture looks good, sitting on the pavilion facet is making it look not as well as it should in the regular pic and even at that it looks good.
If it was me I would either get the pics or talk to Brian or both.

 

[emmy88]

Karl,
Thanks for your feedback. Do you think this is a better asscher than the one I posted a few days ago?

 

[emmy88]

Karl,

I forgot to ask, What do you consider to be the positives and negatives about this asscher? From a scale of 1 to 10, with "1" being a "kicken" asscher, how would you rate this one? Thanks for your help.

 

[Gypsy]

Oh. I like this one. Small table, yum. Great spread but still great depth to give you that miles deep look. Girdle's not too thin. Nice step pattern and that octagonal outline. YUM. AND 15% crown height too. Oh yeah!

Talk to Brian about what he sees under that table, or get a few different pics or both, but this one is my favorite so far. Love the spread.

 

[emmy88]

Oh. I like this one. Small table, yum. Great spread but still great depth to give you that miles deep look. Girdle's not too thin. Nice step pattern and that octagonal outline. YUM. AND 15% crown height too. Oh yeah!

Talk to Brian about what he sees under that table, or get a few different pics or both, but this one is my favorite so far. Love the spread.

Gypsy,

Thank you for your feedback. Since you think this asscher is better than the .90ct GVS1 that I posted several days ago. What do you consider are the advantages of this one over the other one? I am still trying to learn all I can to evaluate an asscher, so would really appreciate your feedback.

 

[Gypsy]

They are both lovely stones. Both are top quality potential. Both have nice specs, even patterns, great crown height on both. Color and clarity are great.

This one is bigger. That's what it boils down to. If they were both the same size, it would be a toss about about which performs better under the table. Both show darkness in their ASETs but as Karl has said, ASETs can be misleading sometimes and what you see when the stone is in movement is what you need to depend on. If they were the same size, I'd say get them both and see which you prefer if you can't chose. But they aren't. This one is much bigger. And that's going to make a difference is what you see in real life. Especially since you were a little disappointed about the appearance of the steps in person on the other one.

 

[SDplaya]

Good stuff Emmy, I too am working on a few stones from Brian as well. I was just about to post some of my recent finds as well to get everyone's expert input.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl,
Thanks for your feedback. Do you think this is a better asscher than the one I posted a few days ago?

I cant answer that, I can address technical issues, guide discussion, and or correct information but I can't recommend a diamond.
I do often agree with gypsy she rocks! if that helps.

 

[emmy88]

Hi Karl, thank you for your response. Are you still allow to rate whether an asscher is "kicken", "3/4 kicken", "1/2 kicken" or "not kicken at all"?
I really appreciate your feedback to the asschers I am considering. I have also read the journal article that you posted on Pricescope to help educate us on looking at an asscher. I think it will take me a while to understand and digest it. By the way, your "Octavia" asscher is really nice. Too bad it's out of my price range at this time. May be some day....
I will call Brian this morning and see if he is available and ask him about your suggestions. Hope I will have positive things to report. Thanks again for all your help.

 

[emmy88]

They are both lovely stones. Both are top quality potential. Both have nice specs, even patterns, great crown height on both. Color and clarity are great.

This one is bigger. That's what it boils down to. If they were both the same size, it would be a toss about about which performs better under the table. Both show darkness in their ASETs but as Karl has said, ASETs can be misleading sometimes and what you see when the stone is in movement is what you need to depend on. If they were the same size, I'd say get them both and see which you prefer if you can't chose. But they aren't. This one is much bigger. And that's going to make a difference is what you see in real life. Especially since you were a little disappointed about the appearance of the steps in person on the other one.

Gypsy, thank you for your response. This new asscher is about $900 more than the first asscher. it's bigger but a drop from a G to H color. Do you think it's worth the extra $900?

 

[kelpie]

I love the pattern. It looks like a 4 step? Maybe even a 5 step?

 

[Karl_K]

Hi Karl, thank you for your response. Are you still allow to rate whether an asscher is "kicken", "3/4 kicken", "1/2 kicken" or "not kicken at all"?

No, I can't sorry.

 

[emmy88]

Karl,

Thank you, I understand. On a technical note, is it actually better to have a deeper (70% and above) to get a more "mile deep" look to the asscher? Can you get that without a real deep stone? I notice that most of the Octavia ones have over 70% in depth. In addition, regarding the crown height, I saw that the guideline for asscher is 10 to 15%. Are ones with higher crown, say to 20%, actually a bad thing or the higher the better?

 

[emmy88]

I love the pattern. It looks like a 4 step? Maybe even a 5 step?

Hi Kelpie,

I think it is a 4-step, at least to my eyes, but I am not sure.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl,

Thank you, I understand. On a technical note, is it actually better to have a deeper (70% and above) to get a more "mile deep" look to the asscher? Can you get that without a real deep stone? I notice that most of the Octavia ones have over 70% in depth. In addition, regarding the crown height, I saw that the guideline for asscher is 10 to 15%. Are ones with higher crown, say to 20%, actually a bad thing or the higher the better?

Depth should be proportional to table size and CH for decent spread and appearance.
large table and deep with all the weight in the pavilion is generally bad.
Generally in my opinion if depth is much over 70 the table should be around 50% or under so spreed isn't impacted to much.
That is not to say a 65% table 72% depth is going to ugly, it can be totally wonderful looking with a high crown, the spreed is likely to be rather low however. Then again if it was priced lower......

It is a balancing act really.
In general the higher the CH and smaller the table the higher total depth that I would consider.

A 60% tabled 60% depth asscher can look 10 miles deep if well cut.
The actual depth of the stone has little to do with the 10 mile deep look.

edit: also spread is not proportional to depth so you have to look at the mm dimensions when comparing not depth %.

 

[Amys Bling]

Beautiful stone, at least to me, but I know nothing about asschers