August Vintage Ovals

[mdl0216]

I had been looking for an ovals diamond but the possibility of finding a good one with my limited expertise led me to round diamonds from BGD, WF, Infinity Diamonds and a few others. Now with the new AGS ideal cut oval from August Vintage would I be wise to look there for an oval? Based on geometry I know an oval would never match a round for brilliance but the new ovals with AGS backing must be a more reliable indicator of a quality oval diamond no? Only fault I have seen with them seems to be the thick girdle.

Thanks for any advice!

 

[mrsgreeneyes]

Only fault I have seen with them seems to be the thick girdle.

Related, they also face up a bit smaller. While there is no hard and fast rule for dimension as it relates to carat weight with ovals, several people have commented that they do face up a bit smaller than “typical” ovals.

 

[fige]

The August Vintage ovals do match a round for brilliance! Unparalleled!

 

[Lorelei]

I had been looking for an ovals diamond but the possibility of finding a good one with my limited expertise led me to round diamonds from BGD, WF, Infinity Diamonds and a few others. Now with the new AGS ideal cut oval from August Vintage would I be wise to look there for an oval? Based on geometry I know an oval would never match a round for brilliance but the new ovals with AGS backing must be a more reliable indicator of a quality oval diamond no? Only fault I have seen with them seems to be the thick girdle.

Thanks for any advice!

You'd definitely be wise to look at GOG for one of their new signature ovals. Also in fancy shapes, a thick girdle is not an issue.

 

[meely]

It depends on your priorities. I have one (not in my possession yet). I bought it because ultimately performance was the most important factor to me. I didn't want a mushy faceted, bow tie in the middle stone. I realise that some people here may have beautifully performing traditional ovals but in my experience they are difficult to find.

Obviously there are trade offs. I ended up almost doubling my budget to get a similar size stone. My 1.29ct stone has similar measurements to stones I was initially looking at that were under 1.10ct.

However in a traditional oval you may be advised to stay at G or above because colour shows at the ends, in the Opulence this is not a problem so you could perhaps go down to an I which would be a cost saving.
When I initially spoke to Jonathan he said that they were all eye clean as well so if SI is mind clean for you, you could make a saving there.

Ultimately I know that my stone will look spectacular and knock the socks of any other oval I might have bought and I will get a lot of pleasure from it though I acknowledge I could have ended up with something a lot bigger there is no way it would be better.

Regarding the girdle, mine has not got an extremely thick girdle but the 6 carat one does, they certainly don't all though.

 

[Rhino]

I"m in the process of videos tutorials on this and one specifically addresses this topic. These AGS Ideal cut ovals still have lengths that are longer than their round counterparts but as you point out not as long as traditional and justly so.

To relate it to other cuts ... think if we lived in a world of rounds that had 35 degree pavilion angles and 35 degree crown angles with 55% depths and they all had the similar optical characteristics akin to what meely describes... then someone comes along and brings the depth of the diamond around 61-62.x% based on the average diameter, alters the crown angles to 34.5 and the pavilion to 40.8 radically altering the appearance of the diamond in what has been observed to be a most pleasing way. It's biggest criticism of course would be that of spread as it wouldn't bear the same spread as the 55% depth. The question one needs to answer in their own mind is were the alterations worth it and where exactly does ones priority lie with regards to cut and diamond optics. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Kind regards,
Rhino

 

[gm89uk]

If you watch the video of this AV oval compared to a traditional, yet well cut oval, the difference to me was staggering.

 

[tyty333]

Using a sample of 1 (yes, 1), I compared a OO with a Super Branded Ideal cut round of the same color/clarity/cost and the conclusion was that
they faced up approximately the same size.

So what I take away is that if you are looking for a Super Branded stone but dont want a round you now have another option at
basically the same cost/size.

BTW, the round at the same cost ended up being a .92 and the oval was a 1.03 (actually the oval was about $200 cheaper but they were the
closest I could find). I'd be interested in knowing if this pretty much holds true at all sizes of OOs @Rhino or was this just a coincidence?

Edit...I consider that the fact they cost the same as their equivalent face up size Super Ideal rounds
to be a good thing.

 

[Rhino]

If you watch the video of this AV oval compared to a traditional, yet well cut oval, the difference to me was staggering.

Even moreso IRL. A local store here to me recently had a client for ovals and decided to give mine a shot. He called in 3 plus an Opulence and saved it for last. Once they saw it they gasped and it was all over. They never knew an oval could look like that.

Using a sample of 1 (yes, 1), I compared a OO with a Super Branded Ideal cut round of the same color/clarity/cost and the conclusion was that
they faced up approximately the same size.

So what I take away is that if you are looking for a Super Branded stone but dont want a round you now have another option at
basically the same cost/size.

BTW, the round at the same cost ended up being a .92 and the oval was a 1.03 (actually the oval was about $200 cheaper but they were the
closest I could find). I'd be interested in knowing if this pretty much holds true at all sizes of OOs @Rhino or was this just a coincidence?

Edit...I consider that the fact they cost the same as their equivalent face up size Super Ideal rounds
to be a good thing.

Thanks and yes. In fact after a long meeting with my manufacturers last week you may find the pricing to be more aggressive.

All the best,
Rhino

 

[mrsgreeneyes]

@Rhino - just wanted to say that my earlier comment regarding the smaller face up size was in no way meant to be taken as a negative. In re-reading my words I realize that it may have come across that way and I apologize. I am a firm believer in cut before carat (or spread, as it were) and would snap up one of your gorgeous Opulence Ovals in a heartbeat if I were in the market. The edge to edge brilliance far surpasses a spread-y oval any day. I'm looking forward to the day I get to see one in person!

 

[Rhino]

@Rhino - just wanted to say that my earlier comment regarding the smaller face up size was in no way meant to be taken as a negative. In re-reading my words I realize that it may have come across that way and I apologize. I am a firm believer in cut before carat (or spread, as it were) and would snap up one of your gorgeous Opulence Ovals in a heartbeat if I were in the market. The edge to edge brilliance far surpasses a spread-y oval any day. I'm looking forward to the day I get to see one in person!

No apology necessary!!! I do in fact appreciate criticism and I didn't take it as a negative at all. It is the truth.

 

[fige]

Rhino, I did some rough calculations a little while ago and thought that the OOval faced up ever so marginally smaller than the AVR and AVC of the same weight. What are your thoughts?

 

[Rhino]

Rhino, I did some rough calculations a little while ago and thought that the OOval faced up ever so marginally smaller than the AVR and AVC of the same weight. What are your thoughts?

All the diamonds including about 11 new ones will be coming to me from AGS within the next week. When I get them back I'm happy to show pix side by side. They are, in my professional opinion, the proper spread for what an Ideal Cut should in fact be.

 

[Irving]

Hi @Rhino ! Love your rocks!

Browsing through the ovals on your website and I see that nearly all of them fall into the L/W of around 1.38 - 1.41. Wondering if this ratio is your preferred / optimal shape? Do you have fatter ovals that's closer to a 1.33?

Thanks!

 

[Rhino]

Hi @Rhino ! Love your rocks!

Browsing through the ovals on your website and I see that nearly all of them fall into the L/W of around 1.38 - 1.41. Wondering if this ratio is your preferred / optimal shape? Do you have fatter ovals that's closer to a 1.33?

Thanks!

Thank you Irving. Yes ... generally the most desired ratio is in the 1.35-1.45:1 range so I've instructed the cutters to target this ratio. On fatter ones ... I'd have to know specifically what you want as many are in production.

Kind regards,
Rhino

 

[Doc_1]

Jonathan, are you still with GOG or only your new business AVI?

 

[Rhino]

Jonathan, are you still with GOG or only your new business AVI?

Only AVI Doc.

 

[Irving]

Thank you Irving. Yes ... generally the most desired ratio is in the 1.35-1.45:1 range so I've instructed the cutters to target this ratio. On fatter ones ... I'd have to know specifically what you want as many are in production.

Kind regards,
Rhino

Awesome, thank you for the super fast response! Just saw the lab diamonds posted on your Instagram too. So many fine choices!

 

[Rhino]

Thanks Irving. Yes! Exciting times really!