Help with a GoG diamond?

[lisa1802]

Hi everyone! This is my first post here, but I have been lurking and learning for awhile! I am definitely an antique cut fan and I love all of your photos!

Anyway, I was looking at GoG and there is a stone I am interested in. The thing is, it has a 40.5% depth percentage and a 50.60 table percentage. It is an OEC. Everything I read states that that is pretty bad, but then again, I am having trouble finding info on antique cuts, as I know they are a little different. I figured I might as well go to the experts!

Thoughts? Is that really bad for an OEC? The rest of the stats look good (for me): M, SI1.

Thank you!

 

[junebug17]

Hi lisa - I think I would pass on the stone, it's extremely shallow and could have performance issues. It actually doesn't look that bad in the pic, but personally I would just want a OEC with better proportions.

 

[Hera]

Can you re-verify the depth? That is VERY shallow and it's unusual for an oec to be cut that shallow.

 

[junebug17]

Can you re-verify the depth? That is VERY shallow and it's unusual for an oec to be cut that shallow.

Hi Hera - I thought maybe the numbers were incorrect too, so I went on the GOG website and found the diamond, and those are the numbers listed. The depth is 2.76 mm.

 

[Hera]

Oh dear, then I would definitely pass.

Lisa, If you want to join the 7-8 mm group on facebook or start a wtb on loupe troop, we can see if we can help you find something.

 

[lisa1802]

Thank you all so much! I appreciate you being so kind to a newbie with a silly question I definitely passed on it and I am just kind of browsing around. So much inspiration here!

 

[rochelle]

What are more ideal table and depth percentages? TIA!

 

[lin_ny]

You might find this chart helpful. https://www.pricescope.com/files/images/journal/Screening_chart/Old_Eurpoean_Cut_diamonds.jpg

But a lot of folks will tell you, its about what you see with your eyes, and not as much about the numbers. But this chart will help you weed out the terribly cut ones, anyway.