Why does my Asscher have so many facets?

[asscher-engagement]

So... I decided on an Asscher for my engagement ring. We looked at a few loose stones around town, but it was hard to find stores that had them in the first place, and none of the ones we saw wowed us. So we bought an Asscher from Blue Nile and it seems we got a screaming deal. F-VVS1 1.0 ct with Excellent polish & symmetry and Very Good cut. It's perfectly square. It was $6100. It arrived and it was SOOO sparkly! We simply couldn't rectify the difference in appearance from what we had seen around town. Part of the reason I like Asschers is because I actually don't like how glittery rounds and princesses are, but I don't like a dead Asscher either. So my stone is a perfect balance!

We took it into the jewelry shop today and our jeweler had two other Asschers for us to look at in a last-ditch attempt to sell us a stone as well as the ring. There was no comparison. We're using the Blue Nile stone. However, we discovered what may be the reason for its superior light performance - it has extra facets! I'm not entirely sure how facets are counted - but if the girdle is counted, then there are 82 facets. Five steps on bottom and four steps on top. Looking at the Royal Asscher site, this appears to be more than the 74 reported in a Royal Asscher cut, and far beyond the 58 facets in a regular square emerald.

My question is - why/how does my stone have so many facets? And why was it priced so low compared to comparable stones? It has slight fluorescence and a tiny bit of surface graining (which our jeweler had to super-magnify to even see), but otherwise it seems like the PERFECT stone. Seriously, I wish I had taken pictures. But could the extra facets be what are driving the price down? I'm stumped!

 

[JulieN]

The girdle is not counted.

 

[asscher-engagement]

OK, so 74 facets then. I think.
Go easy on me, I'm new here... are the culet and table counted? I get 72 facets if they are not. 8 x (5 steps + 4 steps) = 72.
By the way, here it is: http://www.bluenile.com/asscher-cut-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-f-color-vvs1-clarity_LD02817878
I misspoke on the symmetry - Very Good, not Excellent.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'd love to see your stone! It sounds beautiful! Hopefully our resident asscher expert can shed some light into your question. It is funny but I need an asscher exactly that size!

 

[JulieN]

I count 3 steps on top and 4 on the bottom. It can be 3-5 steps on the pavilion.

Sorry, looks like girdle facets do count, so add 8 of them back. I was thinking of rounds.

 

[asscher-engagement]

Where are you counting? The GIA wireframe diagram is not a depiction of this exact diamond. All three of us very clearly counted 5 on bottom and 4 on top under the microscope.

 

[JulieN]

Oh, I see... the wireframe SHOULD be for the diamond, or at least the closest that GIA gets. Here is a GIA report that has 5 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-VS1-Good-Cut-Asscher-Diamond-1247236.asp

This is one that has 3. http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VS2-Very-Good-Cut-Asscher-Diamond-1070326.asp

And of course, your GIA report shows 4.

Glad you're happy with your sparkly gem.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also found one on BN with 3 and one with 4.

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?track=head#certViewer_cert_pid=LD00476166|cert_num=1

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search#certViewer_cert_pid=LD02583056|cert_num=1

 

[asscher-engagement]

The mystery deepens! I assumed that was a general drawing for all Asschers since it didn't reflect my stone's cut. Very interesting to see differences in other GIA reports. Mine definitely has a beautiful "hall of mirrors" look to it like the James Allen 1.00 ct stone you posted, JulieN. Thanks so much for your help.

Here's hoping an Assher expert will chime in with reasoning for the four steps on top. Seems like an unusual choice.

 

[Karl_K]

Here's hoping an Assher expert will chime in with reasoning for the four steps on top. Seems like an unusual choice.

Well I could give you a long story but the likely reason is...
Because they could.
Someone some where some time said hey lets try this...and they did.
I have heard of one being spotted with 6c6p but could never track it down.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Karl, is there a number of steps that is considered "ideal" or preferred in traditional asschers or not?

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, is there a number of steps that is considered "ideal" or preferred in traditional asschers or not?

traditional is 3c3p
I would not call any of the combos preferred when properly cut they can all rock in there own right.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Karl, is there a number of steps that is considered "ideal" or preferred in traditional asschers or not?

traditional is 3c3p
I would not call any of the combos preferred when properly cut they can all rock in there own right.

Great! Thanks!

 

[asscher-engagement]

Karl, is there a number of steps that is considered "ideal" or preferred in traditional asschers or not?

traditional is 3c3p
I would not call any of the combos preferred when properly cut they can all rock in there own right.

And would a non-traditional interpretation of the cut affect price? I would have assumed that more facets = more time spent by the cutter, and therefore a higher asking price. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, is there a number of steps that is considered "ideal" or preferred in traditional asschers or not?

traditional is 3c3p
I would not call any of the combos preferred when properly cut they can all rock in there own right.

And would a non-traditional interpretation of the cut affect price? I would have assumed that more facets = more time spent by the cutter, and therefore a higher asking price. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.

Too many variables to say.
Pricing can be weird sometimes with fancies.

 

[asscher-engagement]

The stone is set! Pix of completed ring here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher_engagements-asscher-engagement-ring.183178/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher_engagements-asscher-engagement-ring.183178/[/URL]

 

[bgray]

The stone is set! Pix of completed ring here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher_engagements-asscher-engagement-ring.183178/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/asscher_engagements-asscher-engagement-ring.183178/[/URL]

just for clarity sake --you do know that technically you do not have an asscher? you have a square emerald cut. there is a huge price difference between a square EC and a true Asscher. The ring is lovely but you cant compare your stone to anything pertaining to a true asscher cut.

 

[TC1987]

Technically, she seems to have something quite equivalent. >;-D

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/square-emerald-cut-vs-asscher.156914/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/square-emerald-cut-vs-asscher.156914/[/URL]

I was wondering if there was any difference between a square emerald cut and an asscher aside from the fact that asscher is a branded name.

That's the difference. GIA calls Assher's square emerald cuts and ANYTHING produced by the Royal Asscher company could rightly be called an asscher no matter what it is. The correct 'generic' terms are square emerald cut, square step cut, modified square step cut, or cut-cornered square step cut. It has nothing to do with quality or lack thereof.

 

[bgray]

Technically, she seems to have something quite equivalent. >;-D


an asscher is a very different animal than a square emerald and i am not talking about Royal Asscher per se

 

[asscher-engagement]

bgray, why don't you just explain what you think the difference is? You haven't said. I have only ever heard the two used interchangeably, and have been assured by more than one person (including here in this thread) that there are no consensus standards for an Asscher cut unless it is a Royal Asscher branded cut.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, if square emeralds are not asschers, I would like to see what an asscher is!