Sorting Out Step Cut Specs (say that 5x fast)

[the_mother_thing]

I’ve seen a couple sporadic comments in various threads (old and new-ish) that the below Asscher/Square Emerald facet pattern (albeit not a ‘true’ asscher/square emerald cut since the windmills stop short vs extend/meet at the culet) is ‘not desirable’. I feel like - sifting through more than a thousand Asscher images in my own search - my eye is sometimes actually drawn to them in pictures/videos. So I’d like to understand this perception/why it’s considered ‘less desirable’ or what the negative is that I’m not seeing/aware of.



Can someone speak to what/how this variation translates to the eye compared to a ‘normal’ asscher/square emerald (with windmills that extend to the culet)? I realize not every diamond cut this particular way will behave exactly the same, so I’m asking in general terms vs. about any one particular stone, but if you have examples, please post them to aid understanding/learning.

Also, why are some usually cut this way? Is it to preserve weight? Increase light return to the eye? (Probably impossible to answer unless the cutter speaks to it themselves, I suppose, but interested in hypotheses).

I’m also curious to know - from other step cut owners/lovers - your opinion of what visual features/characteristics (vs. numbers/images) make a step cut ‘great/kicken’ vs. not ‘great/kicken’, if you care to share. No wrong answers here ... just curious about what ‘speaks’ to you in this regard ... emerald cuts, square emerald cuts/Asschers, Octavias, etc. What is your idea of a ‘perfect’ step-cut?

 

[Karl_K]

If the windmills come to a point and l/w ratio is up to 1.05 its asscher type
If the windmills have a keel(long area in the center without all 4 windmills touching, see arrows) its an emerald cut.
The diagram you posted is a modified asscher type because some of the p3 facets are missing.
That changes how the center of the stones looks like.
GIA will call all 3 types square emeralds if the l/w ratio is 1.05 or under.

 

[Karl_K]

Asschers come in so many different styles there is not one perfect example of an asscher.
Asschers rock when the angles % and placement of the facets working in harmony to produce kicken patterns, light return, and dancing under movement.

 

[Karl_K]

The one you posted the diagram for, the 4 virtual facets like the one the arrow points to would be missing and it would impact the rest of the stone with fewer facet interactions. The p3 facets are important to how the diamond dances.
https://www.pricescope.com/articles/performance-and-p3-facets-discussion-about-step-cut-diamonds

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thanks so much for weighing in @Karl_K I have probably read that article a dozen times, and just when I think it’s making sense, I get confused again all over with regard to P3/4s. I think it’s because - for me - I’m a visual person, and while there are diagrams, it’s hard to correlate that in my head with how it would actually look in person without a video or ‘live’ diamond to examine and see the impact (good or bad).

So in a P4 scenario like the diagram I posted above, what/how does that translate ‘negatively’ to the eye? Does that mean there would be more ‘blocky’ facets reflecting throughout & back vs. more skinnier/longer facets reflecting back in person? Because the video for that stone - to me - actually looks good/active/lively. If I post the link to it, can you comment on it (even if it’s not one I’m planning to buy) as a ‘learning specimen’? I don’t see in the video the part that would be missing to know what I should be looking for and probably need someone to point it out to me. Though, even then, what a video shows and what my eyes would see IRL will likely also be starkly different ... but at least I’d know what all of this really means when looking at options.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Here’s a still face-on image of the video, if it helps. To me, the pattern looks good, and it’s ‘lively’ when it moves (facets turn on & off). I think that’s why I’m having trouble relating the P3/4 issue to an IRL scenario/what the eyes would see.


There is an ever-so-slight angle difference because of how the diamond is sitting, so I’m thinking that may be part of why the overall area under the table is less bright, but - to me - it still appears kind of ‘bright-ish’ and symmetrical/visually pleasing in terms of pattern.

So what am I missing?

 

[Karl_K]

Cutting a stone like that does not happen in a vacuum.
The rest of the facets are more likely off enough that it was not cut in the traditional accepted manner.
Even if they were you still have the effect of fewer virtual facets and parts of the stone that go dark together rather than being split.
Im not allowed to mark up that image but you can see the effect of 4 virtual facets vs 8 in the dark zones off the center. The effect is clear to me looking at it.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Even if they were you still have the effect of fewer virtual facets and parts of the stone that go dark together rather than being split.
Im not allowed to mark up that image but you can see the effect of 4 virtual facets vs 8 in the dark zones off the center. The effect is clear to me looking at it.

I plucked another stone with P4 and ‘traditional’ windmills (I didn’t shop around for perfection) to do a side by side view and try to see what you’re talking about here. I see a difference in virtual facets in the windmills (in the stone on the right), and I see that overall - in the area under the table - there isn’t as much going on since the windmills do not meet in the middle (the left diamond has a more squared appearance vs. the right diamond’s more octagonal appearance), but I’m not sure where else I should be seeing the difference (assuming the example I plucked shows it).

 

[mrs-b]

Asschers come in so many different styles there is not one perfect example of an asscher.
Asschers rock when the angles % and placement of the facets working in harmony to produce kicken patterns, light return, and dancing under movement.

What a delicious phrase! Who could possibly say diamonds aren't inherently romantic?

 

[Matthews1127]

Notice the proverbial black square?
With P3/P4 facets, that darkness is minimized. Well cut step cuts have minimal to no darkness in this region, which makes the light performance more uniform & consistent across the stone....
The outter portion of the diamond will be brighter than the center, which is why it’s “negative”. It’s not “negative” as in “bad”, rather, “absent” of light. Which, to most step cut lovers, is “bad”...lol!!
However, I must say, carre Cut Diamonds are Cut very much like this, but consistently cut this way, across the entire diamond; not just in the center....
Which introduces a different light pattern, entirely.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Matthews1127 AHHHHHHHH...thank you, now I get it! :lightbulb:

I thought seeing that contrasting black & white was a good thing and represented the on/off of the facets ... at least, my eyes actually kind of like that ... then again, my ‘likes’ do tend to run outside of ‘norms’.

 

[Matthews1127]

@Matthews1127 AHHHHHHHH...thank you, now I get it! :lightbulb:

I thought seeing that contrasting black & white was a good thing and represented the on/off of the facets ... at least, my eyes actually kind of like that ... then again, my ‘likes’ do tend to run outside of ‘norms’.

Everyone has different preferences pertaining to step cuts; not unusual to be interested in something “different”.

 

[Karl_K]

that didn't work right, back later.

 

[vintageloves]

I'm going to try to respond even though I don't know much cut terminology. I love asschers and emerald cuts. One thing I look at is the corners. I like lots of crisp looking faceting at the corners. I like thin steps. No bow tie. Minimal dark areas.


These aren't perfect examples. When I find a nice one it's usually snapped up within a day or two.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I’m also curious to know - from other step cut owners/lovers - your opinion of what visual features/characteristics (vs. numbers/images) make a step cut ‘great/kicken’ vs. not ‘great/kicken’, if you care to share. No wrong answers here ... just curious about what ‘speaks’ to you in this regard ... emerald cuts, square emerald cuts/Asschers, Octavias, etc. What is your idea of a ‘perfect’ step-cut?

Well, Since you ask...

 

[Matthews1127]

Well, Since you ask...

+1!! Even though, I cannot choose a favorite!!! I love them all!!!

 

[Dancing Fire]

the_mother_thing
We miss you on Hangout. Don't be a

 

[MarionC]

T-m-t

I plucked another stone with P4 and ‘traditional’ windmills (I didn’t shop around for perfection) to do a side by side view and try to see what you’re talking about here. I see a difference in virtual facets in the windmills (in the stone on the right), and I see that overall - in the area under the table - there isn’t as much going on since the windmills do not meet in the middle (the left diamond has a more squared appearance vs. the right diamond’s more octagonal appearance), but I’m not sure where else I should be seeing the difference (assuming the example I plucked shows it).

Thread hijack...I love asschers where the windmills don’t meet and the center of the stone appears to be popping back up at you.
End of hijack.

Enjoying your search and research, the mother thing!

 

[OoohShiny]

Cutting a stone like that does not happen in a vacuum.
The rest of the facets are more likely off enough that it was not cut in the traditional accepted manner.
Even if they were you still have the effect of fewer virtual facets and parts of the stone that go dark together rather than being split.
Im not allowed to mark up that image but you can see the effect of 4 virtual facets vs 8 in the dark zones off the center. The effect is clear to me looking at it.

Thanks for attempting to explain things to us non-experts, Karl!

Are you saying here that, in the example with a dark box in the centre and 'short windmills', extending the windmills to the centre would create 8 facets instead of 4 and, in the process, break up the dark box into 4 separate oblongs between the windmill facets that are (likely) reflecting something different (and are therefore not showing that obstruction/darkness)?

 

[the_mother_thing]

T-m-t

Thread hijack...I love asschers where the windmills don’t meet and the center of the stone appears to be popping back up at you.
End of hijack.

Enjoying your search and research, the mother thing!

I think this is one of those cases of liking something that just isn’t ‘the norm’, because I agree. Yes, it’s a different look; yes, it’s not ‘ideal’ per generally-accepted industry standards; and yes, it still produces (in pics at least) a pretty visual result. I’d like to see one in person to see how that cut style translates to my eyes.

Thanks for attempting to explain things to us non-experts, Karl!

Yes, indeed, thank you Karl! I hope my comments don’t come across as unappreciative (certainly not my intent). I just have a really, really hard time grasping the concepts in the absence of clear visuals (or better yet, seeing the effect in person) that can relate what I read to what my eyes see.

 

[the_mother_thing]

the_mother_thing
We miss you on Hangout. Don't be a

Some causes are just better left lost, including brick wall dialogue.

 

[Heathcat24]

My W-X asscher has a fairly large dark ring in the middle and doesn't photograph particularly well, but *whispers* in real life, I actually REALLY like it! The effect is almost "contrasty" and it helps me see the steps, which in such a small asscher, is actually very helpful.

If I had gone merely by the images I was sent, I would have tossed it right out of consideration. In person, though, I absolutely think it's dynamite and I'm very happy with it.

You'll know your asscher when you see it in person. You may just have to see a lot of differently cut ones to find the one that speaks to you!

 

[the_mother_thing]

My W-X asscher has a fairly large dark ring in the middle and doesn't photograph particularly well, but *whispers* in real life, I actually REALLY like it! The effect is almost "contrasty" and it helps me see the steps, which in such a small asscher, is actually very helpful.

That’s what I think & like about it as well. It’s kinda like how the arrows in my mrb are dark when the rest faces up white ... it’s a contrast that I think defines the cut. If I wanted just ‘all white’ reflecting back at me, I’d just put a mirror in a setting and call it a day.

 

[Heathcat24]

That’s what I think & like about it as well. It’s kinda like how the arrows in my mrb are dark when the rest faces up white ... it’s a contrast that I think defines the cut. If I wanted just ‘all white’ reflecting back at me, I’d just put a mirror in a setting and call it a day.

YES! EXACTLY! I feel the same way!

 

[the_mother_thing]

In case anyone is interested in seeing the video of the ‘example’ diamond I posted about above here is the link: https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/asscher-cut/2.04-carat-i-color-if-clarity-sku-6159797

It’s not one I’m personally considering for purchase, but I don’t mind saying that there is something about it/that cutting style that just captures my eye when I see them in searches and play/move them back and forth.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Just want to clarify a statement I made up-thread, as - in hind-sight - I realize some may take offense to it. And that is the idea that if I wanted all-white reflecting back at me, I’d set a mirror in a ring. In no way do I mean that to detract from that particular look which many others likely find attractive in their own diamonds, and is likely also more ‘industry/society’ standards for good step cuts. I think perhaps I just happen to be in the minority who actually prefers step cuts that perhaps don’t fall within ‘ideal/mainstream’ standards.

And that’s okay ... I also like my steak medium-well, which many have chastised me for over the years.

Different strokes and all ... but I just felt compelled to come back and clarify my comment, and I apologize if anyone took offense to it, as that wasn’t my intent.

 

[lissyflo]

Just want to clarify a statement I made up-thread, as - in hind-sight - I realize some may take offense to it. And that is the idea that if I wanted all-white reflecting back at me, I’d set a mirror in a ring. In no way do I mean that to detract from that particular look which many others likely find attractive in their own diamonds, and is likely also more ‘industry/society’ standards for good step cuts. I think perhaps I just happen to be in the minority who actually prefers step cuts that perhaps don’t fall within ‘ideal/mainstream’ standards.

And that’s okay ... I also like my steak medium-well, which many have chastised me for over the years.

Different strokes and all ... but I just felt compelled to come back and clarify my comment, and I apologize if anyone took offense to it, as that wasn’t my intent.

The world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same thing!

I also like step cuts on the less lively side - I think I prefer a slightly larger table, where there’s not too much ‘doubling up’ from facets overlapping around the edges. To me, the calmer light return is what I find appealing in that cut, as well as the outline. Although, I also love antique style, tiny-tabled, high-crowned asschers or emerald cuts. Either end of the spectrum basically!

 

[the_mother_thing]

The world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same thing!

I also like step cuts on the less lively side - I think I prefer a slightly larger table, where there’s not too much ‘doubling up’ from facets overlapping around the edges. To me, the calmer light return is what I find appealing in that cut, as well as the outline. Although, I also love antique style, tiny-tabled, high-crowned asschers or emerald cuts. Either end of the spectrum basically!

Indeed, it would be a very boring place! I think ‘lively’ is a good word to describe the level of activity some seem to prefer in a step cut, and I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum where I want lively/active/movement/etc., so I think that’s why I like seeing more on/off of the facets in terms of them going light/dark vs just light and a smidge less light.

 

[vintageloves]

Just want to clarify a statement I made up-thread, as - in hind-sight - I realize some may take offense to it. And that is the idea that if I wanted all-white reflecting back at me, I’d set a mirror in a ring. In no way do I mean that to detract from that particular look which many others likely find attractive in their own diamonds, and is likely also more ‘industry/society’ standards for good step cuts. I think perhaps I just happen to be in the minority who actually prefers step cuts that perhaps don’t fall within ‘ideal/mainstream’ standards.

And that’s okay ... I also like my steak medium-well, which many have chastised me for over the years.

Different strokes and all ... but I just felt compelled to come back and clarify my comment, and I apologize if anyone took offense to it, as that wasn’t my intent.

It's not offensive at all. The heart wants what it wants. Now, the steak thing, on the other hand...

What sells me on a step cut is how the facets turn off and on as it spins. No matter what it looks like head on, I want to be mesmerized when it moves. It's like watching the ocean.

 

[Wewechew]

It's not offensive at all. The heart wants what it wants. Now, the steak thing, on the other hand...

Lol I was thinking the exact same thing!