ID this older cut please

[LB123]

Hi all. I''m back with better pics of my stone. It does have a culet, I just can''t see it with my naked eye.

The appraisal came back as an OEC. The seller described it as a OMC, but the GIA report says it''s a RB, LOL. What do you think the cut is? Appreciate any opinions!

 

[LB123]

.

 

[LB123]

.

 

[LB123]

.

 

[tyty333]

I''m thinking OEC or transition cut. I''m not an old cut expert though so let the others chime in. Pretty stone though.

 

[LB123]

Here''s my previous post for background.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/possible-for-omc-to-be-round.140338/

 

[Circe]

I'd say OEC. An OMC should be cushion-shaped, and a round brilliant would have much longer pavilion facets.

P.S. - That is a gorgeous ring! I love the half-moon decorations ....

 

[Hest88]

Same response I had before. It looks like an OEC. It could be a transitional, but it''s definitely not a modern RB. Still gorgeous, though!

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/12/2010 6:09:28 PM
Author: Circe
I'd say OEC. An OMC should be cushion-shaped, and a round brilliant would have much longer pavilion facets.

P.S. - That is a gorgeous ring! I love the half-moon decorations ....

You are probably correct on the OEC call...
But, OMC (Old-Mine-Cut's) are not necessarily 'Cushion shaped' but rather an identification of a cutting style and not shape.

GIA is the main cause of confusion as they classify OMB (Old-Mine-Brilliant's) as Old-Style/Cut Cushion shaped based on 3 out of 4 criterias needed which actually dont have anything to do with the shape itself! Actually a mystery to me why GIA chose this wrong path.

OMC's means Old/Antique Cut facet design..., and basically every and/or any shape which was cut from/to the natural shape of the rough fits the OMC call!

There is a lot of confusing on this issue..., I am hoping its clearer now.

 

[Upgradable]

ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!! Look at that facet pattern!!!

 

[Karl_K]

OEC or oecish RB

 

[Circe]

Date: 4/12/2010 6:28:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/12/2010 6:09:28 PM

Author: Circe

I''d say OEC. An OMC should be cushion-shaped, and a round brilliant would have much longer pavilion facets.


P.S. - That is a gorgeous ring! I love the half-moon decorations ....

You are probably correct on the OEC call...

But, OMC (Old-Mine-Cut''s) are not necessarily ''Cushion shaped'' but rather an identification of a cutting style and not shape.



GIA is the main cause of confusion as they classify OMB (Old-Mine-Brilliant''s) as Old-Style/Cut Cushion shaped based on 3 out of 4 criterias needed which actually dont have anything to do with the shape itself! Actually a mystery to me why GIA chose this wrong path.


OMC''s means Old/Antique Cut facet design..., and basically every and/or any shape which was cut from/to the natural shape of the rough fits the OMC call!


There is a lot of confusing on this issue..., I am hoping its clearer now.

Huh, really? That''s fascinating! Come to think of it, almost every illustration I''ve seen has been of a form to fit perfectly within a natural octahedron (I am guessing the more unusual shapes resulting from different rough wouldn''t be used as the baseline for line drawings). Thanks for pointing that out, DiaGem - any chance you have pics?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/12/2010 5:27:23 PM
Author:LB123
Hi all. I'm back with better pics of my stone. It does have a culet, I just can't see it with my naked eye.

The appraisal came back as an OEC. The seller described it as a OMC, but the GIA report says it's a RB, LOL. What do you think the cut is? Appreciate any opinions!

Its definitely not an Old Mine Cut those are not natural edges they are rounded which is post the OMC era.

GIA in general uses the following to define whether a round outline is an OEC or Modern Round Brilliant 3 of 4 must be true for the outline to be called Old European Cut:

i) Table equal to or less than 53%
ii) Culet Equal to or larger than Slightly Large
iii) Crown Angles Equal To Or Greater than 40 Degrees
iv) Lower Half Lengths Equal To Or Smaller than 60% (by visual inspection only not by measurement)

They do make exceptions when the stone truly has an antique appearance even if the table is slightly larger etc.

That culet does not look slightly large, its a medium or small culet so that is one off , the rest I couldn't tell from the photograph but I'd guess in the grader's opinion it didn't meet one of the other criteria as well.

I really can't even tell if its old, the only thing I know for certain is the culet is medium or small and the Lower Half Lengths are shorter than a modern round brilliant. This gives it the most likey appearance of a transitional cut with some of the qualities of an old european cut as the lower halves are still quite short. GIA doesn't use the term transitional cut and has a very strict definition for OEC so many of these stones are just labelled Round Brilliant on their grading reports.

Regards,
CCL

 

[Bella_mezzo]

looks like OEC/transitional to me.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/12/2010 7:24:52 PM
Author: Circe

Date: 4/12/2010 6:28:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/12/2010 6:09:28 PM

Author: Circe

I''d say OEC. An OMC should be cushion-shaped, and a round brilliant would have much longer pavilion facets.


P.S. - That is a gorgeous ring! I love the half-moon decorations ....

You are probably correct on the OEC call...

But, OMC (Old-Mine-Cut''s) are not necessarily ''Cushion shaped'' but rather an identification of a cutting style and not shape.



GIA is the main cause of confusion as they classify OMB (Old-Mine-Brilliant''s) as Old-Style/Cut Cushion shaped based on 3 out of 4 criterias needed which actually dont have anything to do with the shape itself! Actually a mystery to me why GIA chose this wrong path.


OMC''s means Old/Antique Cut facet design..., and basically every and/or any shape which was cut from/to the natural shape of the rough fits the OMC call!


There is a lot of confusing on this issue..., I am hoping its clearer now.

Huh, really? That''s fascinating! Come to think of it, almost every illustration I''ve seen has been of a form to fit perfectly within a natural octahedron (I am guessing the more unusual shapes resulting from different rough wouldn''t be used as the baseline for line drawings). Thanks for pointing that out, DiaGem - any chance you have pics?

GIA inclusion plot diagrams are not drawn to scale, they are meant for showing the location and size of inclusions not for definitive identification of facet structure.
Here is a collage of some old mine cuts. I submitted an article to pricescope on this very topic a week ago, hopefully once reviewed it can help clear up the confusion.

 

[ericad]

Looks like an OEC to me!