Ring Sign Off, Are these Asschers or Square Emeralds?

[higgsnyc]

I''m very happy with the center stone on the ring I purchased, but the side stones seem more like emerald cuts than Asschers, as I was told I would get. I know GIA calls asschers "Square Emeralds" but I''ve seen a clear difference.

I understand that it''s tougher to appreciate the asscher below a certain size, but I keep looking at these side stones and thinking that they''re not the same cut as the center stone.

I actually think I like them, since they don''t draw attention away from the center stone, but still, it''s the principal of the thing.

 

[jenwill]

Well, the only ''real'' asscher cut stone is one that is either an old Asscher cut, or a newer Royal Asscher cut by the Asscher/Royal Asscher company. Anything else is a square emerald. So, it very well may be that your center stone is an old Asscher cut or Royal Asscher, and is flanked by newer generic asschers or square emeralds.

The term asscher (not capitalized A) is now used for many square emeralds, as the Asscher designation lost its trademark a while back. New stones cut by the Royal Asscher company are called Royal Asschers (tm) and contain a few more facets than the older Asschers. There are many variances in the generic asschers, and it is hard to find one that looks like a ''true'' Asscher.

Lovely ring by the way, what are the specs if you don''t mind my asking?

 

[FireGoddess]

I really like the look, and think that asschers and emeralds really complement each other because they''re both step cut...it''s a different glitter than other stones, and the two go together well. Anyway, I digress, since you don''t have any ECs in your ring! Are the sidestones less "square" than the center? Are they longer than they are wide?? It also seems the corners on the sidestones may have something to do with it...the diagonal steps do seem much thinner and less exaggerated on the sides than on the center stone, which would make them look more like ECs than asschers. I notice so much variation in asscher cuts (or non branded square emerald cuts, whatever!!) these days...the diagonals really make a huge difference in the look and some are so thin, some are so wide...it''s hard to acquire exactly what you want! But all in all...I do love the look of your ring, though I see what you''re commenting on.

 

[pearcrazy]

It appears that your side stones don't have the deeper clipped corners like your center stone so I can see how you notice the difference. I think the ring is gorgeous nonetheless!!

 

[MrsFrk]

Jenwill is correct about the trademarked Royal Asscher cut, and I agree with Pearcrazy. The sidestones have the windmill, but not the deeply clipped corners, so they don''t have that stop sign shape.

Regardless, your ring is DELECTABLE.!!!!!!

 

[widget]

Hi, Higgsnyc...

I think your ring is just gorgeous.

I always think of asschers (generic, or otherwise), besides having snipped corners, as having extra concentric facets around the pavillion, making the the stone pudgier with a smaller table.

Here''s a closeup of my ring, with generic asscher center and traditional EC sides...

widget

 

[strmrdr]

The sides are a different cut than the center.
Are they still asschers... depends on who you ask.
The center is what id consider an asscher and the sides EC''s.
imho the culet should be square to squarish on an asscher and they arent.

That said they look great and its all a matter of opinion.
Finding asschers with decent patterns in any size is a very hard task and in the smaller sizes even harder.