Opinions on my Asscher (Sq. Emerald)

[aaftabj]

Hello,
I recently purchased a square emerald cut diamond, after reading many of the helpful posts on the site. I received the Sarin report today, and I''d like to know what people here think. I''ve seen the stone, with the eye and under a scope, and I like it. The appraiser didn''t give me his personal opinion, though, (said he wasn''t that familiar with Square emeralds...

This is my first post to this forum.
Thanks,
aaftabj

GIA information:
Square Emerald cut
5.83 x 5.78 x 3.80mm
1.03 carat

Depth 65.7%
Table 65%
Girdle Medium to slightly thick
Culet None
V. good polish and Symm
VS1
H
No Fluorescence
(The appraiser agreed with the GIS cert in terms of Clarity and color.)

Sarin Report Details

Shape: Rectangle,
L/W/ ratio: 1.01
Measurements: 5.78 x 5.82
Crown angle: 28.6 Degrees
Crown height 9.9% (0.57mm)
Pavilion Depth: 50.9% (2.94mm)
Culet: 1.2% (0.07mm)
Table size: 66% (3.80mm)
Total Depth % (65.6% (3.79mm)
Girdle Thickness 1.7% (0.10mm)

 

[strmrdr]

The only way to judge an asscher is with mk2 eyeballs either in pictures or in person.
My ideal would have a slightly smaller table and a slightly higher crown but they are close enough it could be kicken.

How are the patterns?

 

[diagem]

I agree, the numbers look fine!!!, but only your eyes can judge your likings and taste...

I too prefer a table from 55% to max. 62%

And in my opnion a higher crown % is a must, but you would have to sacrifice the "spread".

the numbers you just posted sound like a spreadier Asscher, and some people are crazy about spread...

 

[aaftabj]

Hmm, ''spread'' and ''patterns'' I am a little unfamiliar with the terms... the stone looks great, and the concentric step cut facets on the inside give it great character...Is that what you mean by spread? Or do you just mean that the table would be smaller, and the ring would look smaller with the higher crown?
I''ll have a picture to post once the setting is done and the jeweler sends me the jpg...The setting is something special too... split shank with tiny rounds running up the shanks, onto the prongs. I could post the picture that inspired the design, but I''d rather use my picture and not violate copyright.

Incidentally, the stone cost me $4300, which I am happy with.

 

[strmrdr]

info about patterns is here:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/all-about-asschers.24689/

There are also some other asscher threads in the FAQ.
I really need to get everything together and in one place but havent had time yet.

spread is the size in relation to its weight.
1 ct diamond with more spread is a bigger diamond.
That isnt often a good thing with asschers.
The way most of them are cut today with some exceptions they work better a little on the deep side.

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/2/2006 4:34:50 PM
Author: strmrdr
info about patterns is here:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/all-about-asschers.24689/

There are also some other asscher threads in the FAQ.
I really need to get everything together and in one place but havent had time yet.

spread is the size in relation to its weight.
1 ct diamond with more spread is a bigger diamond.
That isnt often a good thing with asschers.
The way most of them are cut today with some exceptions they work better a little on the deep side.

"more spread is a bigger "look", is not a bigger diamond, right?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/3/2006 12:13:37 AM
Author: DiaGem


'more spread is a bigger 'look', is not a bigger diamond, right?

He, he... I wonder if the difference survives among onlookers who cannot guess the actual weight of a diamond at arm's length (not that I can).

big = big looking. Whatever that means. Probably not just diameter, otheriwse something like this... would be the most popular thing.

And this one, has been catching dust for a long time.

With a big database on hand, it takes two button clicks to see how size and weight play out independently in prices. I would think anyone who ever sold one diamond knows that, to me ... if makes a cool little find on the other side of the data flow.

I wonder if it would not make some sense that in this numbers-prone environment someone to work out what is 'good size' for weight. It looks like practice has it nailed somehow - otherwise prices wouldn't reflect this. Looking at what.. say... AGS decided to call 'spread' the topic holds a nice tapu aura. Strange thing that.

 

[cymbrie]

Wow Val that''s a cool cut what is that a marquemerald cut? LOL

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/3/2006 12:13:37 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 3/2/2006 4:34:50 PM

Author: strmrdr

info about patterns is here:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/all-about-asschers.24689/


There are also some other asscher threads in the FAQ.

I really need to get everything together and in one place but havent had time yet.


spread is the size in relation to its weight.

1 ct diamond with more spread is a bigger diamond.

That isnt often a good thing with asschers.

The way most of them are cut today with some exceptions they work better a little on the deep side.

''more spread is a bigger ''look'', is not a bigger diamond, right?

more spread would be a bigger diameter diamond in a round.
ie:
6.5mm 1ct round has a bigger spread than a 6mm 1ct round.
Translating into other shapes is a bit harder.