old european cut

[elizzy]

O.K. Yesterday I wrote about a diamond my boyfriend purchased from blue nile- it was a 1.68 I Vs2 ideal cut-

Sometime between yesterday and today blue nile put the diamond back up for sale- needless to say we were both furious!! anyway- it turned out that they werent sure if my boyfriend was paying with cash or their credit line- even though he gave them his credit card number!!!??? So now there saying that they just dont know what day he''ll get it even though they told him a couple days ago that hed have it by tuesday!! Ugh!!! this local jeweler I kniow told me its probably because the stone is in Las Vegas at some big diamond show since blue nile doesnt actually own it... UGH!! So, anyway, point of story is that while in the jewelers looking at wedding bands, he told me just to go thru him and he''d get me a better deal for a better color on the stone---- while looking for a diamond he pulled out an antique cut that he had purchased from a much older lady who has since upgraded to a 5.5 ct!! anyway- I fell in love with this diamond as well as the original setting. tell me what you think--


it is (i think) an old european cut or maybe he said old miner cut-- I dont remember, but its from the 1930''s

its 1.9 carats but has measurements of a 2 carat. It has the smaller table like 50%?? I think? and it has a culet- which I could see thru the table when I really looked for it (without magnification) it is what he believes to be an H in color and a vvs1 or 2 in clarity.. (it does not have a cert) it sparkles! A lot! he held it up to an I colored ideal cut and I could not see a difference in sparkle- but I could in color! anyway., the setting is very similar to a tacori- with all the wired like designs on the side of the prongs-- and it has several small diamons along the top of the band- I think its called pave?? anyway- he said hell sell the whole thing for 11,400 out the door- which is 100 cheaper than the 1.68 I vs2 I had ordered (or thought was ordered) from blue nile.. He said to get it appraised and if its way over priced he''''ll refund my money or partially refund my money if I still want to keep it. But he thinks it will be appraised around 15500. Anyway- I know u guys are going to say " if u like it, then buy it" but im looking more for inputs on advants. and dis. of a older cut- plus what you think they should be priced around compared to a similar diamond with a modern cut??? Sorry so long!!!

 

[glitterata]

Ooo, how romantic! A hand-cut treasure with a history behind it! I adore old cut stones; you'll find a lot of us fans of them here. They can have a beautiful shape and lovely large flashes of color.

What metal is the setting made of? If it's platinum, it's likely to be in better shape than if it's gold, and it may last longer. An appraiser can tell you if there are any problems with the durability.

You also want to make sure the stone hasn't had any serious damage (chips) in the decades it's been worn.

Definitely get it appraised just to make sure it's what he says it is, in good condition, etc.--Dave Atlas (Old Miner on this board) is the appraiser who comes to mind, since he's an expert in old cuts as well as a real good guy.

If it checks out and you love it, I say go for it. I would ten times rather have a beautiful antique than something new.

Post pictures!

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree. Have it checked out. I have an OEC and recently had a vintage reproduction made b/c i couldn't find an antique i really loved. If you have an antique setting and the stone that makes it even more special, IMO.

 

[diamondlil]

Sounds wonderful! Can you take some pics for us to see?

DiamondLil

 

[RockDoc]

Old Miner or Old European?


Old miners are generally squarish with rounded corners or sort of cushion shaped.

Old Europeans are round.

Rockdoc

 

[lumpkin]

I''m a big lover of antique cuts. If the appraiser agrees with what the jeweler says it is, that''s the one I''d go for. If the ring itself is not in proper shape, I''d see if he would take the diamond out and put it in a new setting for you. I think the antique cuts, when you can find a really good one, are real treasures, so I''m very biased. In the end it will be all about which diamond sings to you.

 

[elizzy]

it must be a old european cut then- it was definitely round- im going to find somebody in the area who has experience appraising that particular cut- from what ive read on here so far they are usually pretty deep but the jeweler gave me the measurements and they were like 8.06*8.04*4.71- I think!! I know the last number is right the 4.71 but the first two im not sure of- i know they were the same measurements you would see on a typical 2 carat--- does that sound deep?? im going there again right now to make my final decision- ill ask him for the depth

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/3/2005 8:23:23 PM
Author: elizzy

i know they were the same measurements you would see on a typical 2 carat--- does that sound deep?? im going there again right now to make my final decision- ill ask him for the depth

These older stones are usually deeper than the modern ones - that might make them smaller in diameter for the same weight, but in this case it doesn''t seem to be the case (8mm fits 2 carat modern round). Even if the stone is ''deep'' by the numebrs this is not an issue if the price reflects the actual size (diameter) and the diamond is brilliant (which means that the proportions play out well).

I surely stand by your decision to go for the old cut because I love them myself

Can''t wait the pictures !

 

[widget]

Oooooooh, I''d love to see pictures!

Count me in among those who would take a beautiful antique cut stone over a modern RB any day of the week!

And that it''s mounted in it''s original ''30s mounting is so much the better!

Keep in mind that if it turns out the stone has some minor wear issues, it could very possibly be repolished to bring it back to it''s original glory...

PLEASE post pictures if you decide to go for it!!!

widget

 

[fire&ice]

Something doesn''t add up. OEC''s have tiny tables and tend to be fairly deep. I calculate (if done correctly) a depth of 58. Most OEC''s I''ve seen are significantly deeper - and as such - face up smaller than their carat weight.

 

[Mara]

actually a modern 2c well-cut stone would be about 8.2mm in diameter, so this does seem slightly smaller, probably appropriate for a 1.85c or 1.90c modern stone.

as others have noted, OEC''s normally have deeper pavilions and can have slightly smaller tables. the depth is probably more than 4.71 on a stone that size.

we almost bought an OEC when we were looking, they are horribly romantic and beautiful with lots of chunky sparkle and a kind of ''depth'' to them (maybe that is the culet drawing you in!)...i love them in old settings as well...nothing too modern.

in the end it really is about if you like it, as the look of an OEC is different from a modern round in how it sparkles and seeing the culet and alot of other ways...it''s harder to ''gauge'' cut of an OEC by numbers like we do with the modern rounds. so in reality if you like it and it sparkles the way you want it to, get it!

 

[elizzy]

actually- the numbers DO add up--- it is a 1.90 with the diamater of a 2 carat- therefore it is NOT as deep as a 2 carat- how can it be??? if it had the same spread as a 2 carat and the typical depth of a two carat- then it would PROBABLY be a two carat!! but its 1.9 carats The measurements are like this 8.18 * 8.16*4.71

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/5/2005 2:28:56 PM
Author: elizzy
actually- the numbers DO add up--- it is a 1.90 with the diamater of a 2 carat- therefore it is NOT as deep as a 2 carat- how can it be??? if it had the same spread as a 2 carat and the typical depth of a two carat- then it would PROBABLY be a two carat!! but its 1.9 carats The measurements are like this 8.18 * 8.16*4.71

What doesn''t add up is that if you calculate the depth w/ the numbers provided - the depth comes to around 57-58. That depth number doesn''t fall into what the measurements SHOULD be for an OEC.

This stone doesn''t sound like any OEC I''ve encountered.

What is the exact table %? This stone sounds much more like a 60/60 proportions - those stones (modern cut) do usually face up larger than their carat weight.

 

[Mara]

Yes that is what F&I meant re: not adding up, those proportions are not what an OEC should be...that sounds more modern or like a white brilliant cut which does face up bigger with a shallower depth, usually at the expense of some fire in the stone.

An OEC typically has small table (aka 53%) and a large depth (65%) with a visible culet.

Edited to add...I ran a quick Euro search on PS and did find some larger tabled stones and shallower depths...how odd! aka 68% table and 59% depth (yikes) so who knows??

makes me wonder, depending on table, this stone may have an odd performance for a euro??

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree with F & I, it's sounds like the stone is shallow which would give it a larger spread. OEC's are usually deep. i have an OEC which is 1.19 carats, 6.51x6.73x4.42, depth % 66.8. the table on my stone is 51.5. I would definatly have this checked out by and independant appraiser b/f buying. The #'s don't sound like and OEC to me.

 

[JCJD]

Welcome to Pricescope!! I really can''t give much better advice than those who posted before me. Since this is a "pre-owned" stone, you''ll also want to make sure it hasn''t suffered any damage (chips, scratches, etc). OECs simply have a different look than modern RBs. Chunkier facets, larger culets. If the OEC speaks to you, then you''ve found a diamond that you like, an if you like it, you should buy it.

However, before you buy the ring, make sure you have the jeweler''s guarantee to refund or partially refund if appraised lower than selling price IN WRITING. If he''s hesitant to say this on paper, that should tell you something too.

The ring sounds lovely! I hope it all works out for you!

 

[glitterata]

Well, my 1.65ct OEC measures 7.58 x 7.49 x 4.65. That''s pretty close to some of the measurements of modern ideals listed on Pricescope. I don''t know its depth, table, etc., in percentages. It''s definitely an OEC.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 6/5/2005 3:18:04 PM
Author: Mara



Edited to add...I ran a quick Euro search on PS and did find some larger tabled stones and shallower depths...how odd! aka 68% table and 59% depth (yikes) so who knows??


makes me wonder, depending on table, this stone may have an odd performance for a euro??

I too was surprised at the shallow depths that come up in the search..hopefully Dave or one of the experts can chime in and explain what differences there would be re: performance etc...

 

[diagem]

OEC comes in loads of different total depths, I ve seen some gorgeous OEC at close to 80% depths, and again gorgeous 45% depth.

The only feature that is different from a OMC, is the rounded shape, but most of them are not perfect rounds.

OEC are probably from about 1900 plus, but most of them were from 1910 to 1935 appr.

 

[valeria101]

Why assume old cuts are all deep ? Even if on average that's true, this is all about one stone, not the average.

The facet pattern and look defines the cut type ... not the table and depth %, no matter how popular topics those two numbers make

I hope all this has not discouraged you from old cut diamonds altogether

Perhaps there are just not enough of them around to make the type well known and easy to judge from hear say (or by numbers, as they come).

 

[widget]

Author: JCJD
If the OEC speaks to you, then you''ve found a diamond that you like, an if you like it, you should buy it.

I agree!

I don''t understand getting all hung up about the "numbers" of a stone that has already been seen in real life, and fallen in love with!

widget

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 6/6/2005 5:47:20 AM
Author: valeria101


Why assume old cuts are all deep ? Even if on average that's true, this is all about one stone, not the average.


The facet pattern and look defines the cut type ... not the table and depth %, no matter how popular topics those two numbers make

I hope all this has not discouraged you from old cut diamonds altogether

Perhaps there are just not enough of them around to make the type well known and easy to judge from hear say (or by numbers, as they come).

I wasn't trying to discourage you from getting the stone, if you Love it then go for it. I was only suggesting that in my experience old cuts are usually deep, I have since learned this it not always the case or even necessarily the norm

. the number's were important to me only if you wanted and old cut and that there was a possibility that it wasn't an OEC that you were getting. We would love to see pictures if you decide to get it

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/6/2005 8:58:35 AM
Author: mrssalvo

the number''s were important to me only if you wanted and old cut and that there was a possibility that it wasn''t an OEC that you were getting.

Haven''t thought of that one... I know nothing of how (or even if) it is possible to date a loose diamond with certainty.

Honeslty, I have yet to see a definition of what makes that OEC look by numbers. The facet pattern is the same as that of a round brilliant - only the proportions are different: definitely allot shorter lower girdle facets which change the look allot and sometimes a smaller table than modern stones, but not always. Depth... as it comes. Non-ideal modern rounds have it all over the place and so did old round brilliants. The material didn''t change - so proportions that make sense now made sense yesteryear as well. Now that I am thinking, it is not clear at all why OEC changed into the modern version - those were perfectly beautiful diamonds with no worse brilliance or anything.

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/6/2005 7:50:03 AM
Author: widget

I don't understand getting all hung up about the 'numbers' of a stone that has already been seen in real life, and fallen in love with!

The question here was not if she was in love with the stone, but rather if it was truly an OEC since a few of us hadn't seen any shallow ones before...obviously that seems to be incorrect, but what was being questioned was 'is this truly an OEC' in which case even if she saw the stone and adored it, she should at least know what she is buying, right? The fear was that this diamond was being mis-represented to her. If that is not the case, excellent! But no one is questioning if she loves this stone or not.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/6/2005 10:52:30 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 6/6/2005 7:50:03 AM
Author: widget

I don''t understand getting all hung up about the ''numbers'' of a stone that has already been seen in real life, and fallen in love with!

The question here was not if she was in love with the stone, but rather if it was truly an OEC since a few of us hadn''t seen any shallow ones before...obviously that seems to be incorrect, but what was being questioned was ''is this truly an OEC'' in which case even if she saw the stone and adored it, she should at least know what she is buying, right? The fear was that this diamond was being mis-represented to her. If that is not the case, excellent! But no one is questioning if she loves this stone or not.

Precisely. I''ve always been told that the proportions are small table, high crown & larger culet. Usually tranlating into smaller face up appearance. I just want to be sure that the poster is getting what they are getting. The depth on my stone is in the higher 60''s as well (65-66?); and, the table appearance quite small.

That being said, it could be a lovely second market stone - could be a good buy.

Bottom line - you need more information (exact table size, depth, carat weight, crown & pav angle if he is able)

 

[elizzy]

O.K _ I called the jeweler and am waiting for him to get back to me about all the measurements- including the crown and pavillion--- I know for a fact that the table is 50%-- he told me this several times-- the other numbers are what I think I remember him saying!!! The woman that originally owned the stone lives just a few miles down the street and i am told that she is in her eighties and that the stone was her original engagement ring from the thirties!!! I have no doubt as to not believe this man seeing that he just happened to show me the stone with no intent on selling it to me (we were looking at ideals, i dont think he thought id be interested)--- anyway, i remember him telling me that the depth was 59.9 and i remember seeing him do the measurements with an electronic measring thing and I remember seeing the # 4.71 when he was measuring the stone from top to bottom--anyway, ill get to the bottom of this!! he did say that he took the stone and setting to a store in the city to pick up new prongs for the setting and the man there was very surprised at how well the stone was cut for that time period--- perhaps the shallower depth was something that specific jeweler liked and made all of his stones not as deep as the norm for an oec??? or maybe the stone was a brilliant accident??? but the stone is beautiful!! i have some lousy pics- but i can not seem to post them-- when i try to attach them it says-- url error, please contact the admin.--- anyway, thank you so much for your input!!! perhaps somebody on the board knows a good appraiser in the chicago area??? one that specializes in oec''s??? preferably in the n.w. suburbs!!! or as close as possible

 

[quicksvo]

You can look at Dave Atlas'' website: AGA click on "Old AGA cut grades and rules" and then you can select Old European Cut from the drop down menu. If you do a search here, you should be able to find something on the typical specs from the OEC. I seem to remember seeing them posted when I searched before.

 

[Mara]

I would actually pay to have the jeweler ship the stone to Dave Atlas in PA, who is an expert on the old cuts...I think it would be worth the extra to ship etc to someone who may not be local but is definitely an expert!!

The stone sounds very intriguing, so if it all checks out, get it!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/6/2005 11:46:26 AM
Author: elizzy

the man there was very surprised at how well the stone was cut for that time period [and prefereed shallower depth]

No accident: there are OEC cut to ideal proportions (the further removed from the old mine cut model the better, and the 1930's date indicate that). High end Art Deco jewelry contains some amaizing diamonds.

I am not surptised that you found this one to be comparable with modern ideal cut rounds. This is by no means impossible - just a lucky find. Honestly, I don't think modern stones can get that fiery because the small tables (50% - you say) are out of favor by some whim of fashion. Really, your description sounds very, very tempting

 

[elizzy]

one other thing i noticed about this diamond was that when i took it out in the sun i could no longer see the facets- it almost looked like the bulb of a small white bright flashlight- with lots of blue hues- I asked if it had florescence and he said there was NONE. I have never seen a cloudy diamond but I would imagine what I saw is something i would describe as cloudy-- but when not in direct sunlight(and sunlight only) i can see all the facets very clearly- as well as the culet if i look hard enough! any concerns about that? or is it pretty typical when very sunny out?