Shallow Asscher OK? (63% depth)

[amateur]

Just wondering if an Asscher with 63% depth and 68% table is to far out of Asscher range to be decent. Any opinions/recommendations welcome. Is sub-70% depth on an Asscher really bad? Is a table > 65% really bad? thanks!

 

[sciencegeek]

Words from someone much more knowledgeable than I:

A classic Asscher cut will usually have a total depth in the neighborhood of 65-70%, table in the neighborhood of 55-65%, and crown height in the neighborhood of 14 to 17%. In addition, it will have wide cut corners, a substantial "windmill" reflection pattern, a slightly bulging pavilion and a kaliedoscope effect of concentric square when veiwing through the table.

The above is from a post by Richard Sherwood and these are the numbers my fiance and I used as a reference when shopping for my Asscher. But even if the numbers look good I wouldn''t buy an Asscher sight unseen because there is such wide variation in the generic cut.

Sheesh, this is like the 4th Asscher thread today! What an explosion

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It could be a bit ''plain'' looking - but an ideal-scope photo would be very handy

 

[aronsh]

My Royal Asscher has 55% table and 66.9% depth and it looks AMAZING, definitely lots of fire

 

[amateur]

sorry, no idealscope, just this, best i could find/get.

 

[valeria101]

Doesn't look bad at all to me... just a nice square emerald. Perhaps not tat close to "Asscher" - but then, it does have desirable size (that depth% is good for something, after all - and not way shallow for an EC) and does not look "plain".

A stone with 50-ish table and 80-ish depth would look "antique" but it would also be quite small and perhaps dark if the proportions (beyond table and depth that is) are not tuned just so.

The picture is not the greatest (diamond pictures rarely are, so no problem), but it shows symmetry and clarity well and both are nice. The stone does not look "plain" - perhaps a higher crown helps there.

This one deserves to be seen in person, IMO.

 

[amateur]

Thanks everyone! I was looking at another "asscher" (I take it A-word is used to liberally in the biz?) with nicer depth & table (68 / 57 respectively) but its not quite square. Honestly, aside from the lack-o-squareness, I can''t really tell what the added depth and smaller table give you in looks?

With Rounds, it seems too shallow & too deep have drastic impact on brilliance and light reflection. Yet it seems Asschers have a v. broad range of depth, and some are even saying antique Asschers have 75-80% depth? So does this mean
a) Asschers have a much broader depth tolerance than rounds or
b) Step cuts just don''t reflect much light anyway and depth doesn''t matter?

Here''s the 68/57 stone:

 

[oldminer]

The term "Asscher" is loosely used. A stone with a 63% depth would likely not really look like a true Asscher cut although it could look like a nice diamond. Most people couldn''t tell a real Asscher from one that had only some Asscher type attributes and really, who cares? If you want a particular "look" then you need to search until you get the look you especially want. Does it matter what it is called? Hunting for what any individual or couple consider their best stone is pretty much personal choice.

On the other side of the coin, if you want an Asscher cut because of the name and the present popularity of the cut, then you muswt find an authentic stone. Once you see a good one, you might appreciate its special character. Then you might alos become hooked on this special cut. Again, it is a personal decision.

 

[valeria101]

As David Atlas says... it''s all personal.

From my side, the shape of #2 looks nicer (just rotate it 90 degrees!) but the stone should be darker (woth more contrast) and I would think more fiery than #1 - a different look altogether. What these pictures do to diamonds should be outlawed! The shape and clarity are there, but... do these look like diamonds to you ? They''re more like vaseline glass to me

Assuming these two guys come from the same seller, would it be remotely feasible to obtain either a decent picture (showing some perspective and brilliance) or Ideal Scopes ?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/26/2004 11:38 9 AM
Author: amateur

a) Asschers have a much broader depth tolerance than rounds or
b) Step cuts just don''t reflect much light anyway and depth doesn''t matter?

I wouldn''t say so.
a) No - a deeper cut always means a smaller looking stone regardless of shape and this is never desirable. Extra depth is tollerable (IMO) if both brilliance and price are right. I am not sure if that much extra depth is needed - technically speaking - to make square step cuts more brilliant.

b) No - step cuts can be very brilliant. It is unfortunate that not more of them are cut to optimize optics. When this is the case the results surely show off.

 

[Hest88]

You don''t want a shallow asscher. You just don''t.

I saw my sister''s new asscher earlier this week and though it has a nice depth, giving it a wonderful "pool-like" appearance, I must say that it solidified my opinion that asschers are best with smaller tables. Hers has a 63% table and though it is a lovely, octagonal stone, it lacks a certain scintillation that a table in the 50s would have facilitated.

 

[kyzyl]

can someone explain why a Small table is more scintilating in an Ascher? Is this because the reflections come from the sides of the stone and not the center, where the table is?