3.5 carat M OEC

[hippi_pixi]

thinking about this 3.5ish carat OEC

GIA
Color: M
Clarity: VS1
Dimensions: 9.32 x 9.42 x 6.47mm
Cut grade: Fair (it was classified as an round brilliant so i assume that would have affected its official cut grade
Polish and Symmetry: Both Good
No fluoresence
Culet: Small
Girdle: very thin - thick

also there is a video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEG_02kL1Rw

ignore the outline of the diamond in the last photo as i have photoshopped it

 

[hippi_pixi]

also for comparison an uncerted stone. 3.2 carats approximated at GIA L/M VS1-Si1 9.3mm. this one is priced at 6000 more than the 3.5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOTWurgjxQ0

let me know what you think

 

[04diamond<3]

it looks enormous on you!!!! I'm not an expert on older cut stones, so hopefully someone else who is will chime in. I'm wondering about the depth...maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and if it's right in line with what it should be, then go for it!!

 

[SB621]

I think it faces up white for an M. I wish the actual photos were a bit clearer. The facets aren't as crisp as I would like for an OEC, but it is still very pretty. I'm not worried about the GIA report as they can be misleading with OEC/OMC etc. Have you seeen this diamond in person yet? I actually perfer the second one you posted, but if it is 6k more I would probably hold on buying anything till you could see some more options.

EDIT for grammer!

 

[justginger]

My eyes prefer the second stone. The first stone's faceting looks mushy to me, while the lines and meets on the second are very crisp. Plus, a shallow complaint but something that I don't like nonetheless, I don't like small culets in old cuts. I wouldn't purchase the first stone without grinding down the culet to make it larger.

In terms of faceup size, they are nearly identical. I just think the patterning to the second stone is more attractive.

 

[athenaworth]

I can't see as definite of a pattern in the first one but the second one is very crips and clear. I vote the second.

 

[missy]

My eyes prefer the second stone. The first stone's faceting looks mushy to me, while the lines and meets on the second are very crisp. Plus, a shallow complaint but something that I don't like nonetheless, I don't like small culets in old cuts. I wouldn't purchase the first stone without grinding down the culet to make it larger.

In terms of faceup size, they are nearly identical. I just think the patterning to the second stone is more attractive.

I agree with this. I prefer the crisp faceting of the second. But I think it looks lower than an M to me so not sure if that would bother you if that was true. But very pretty!!

 

[GemFever]

Does the second one have crisper faceting, or a crisper photograph & video? It's hard to judge when comparing photos of such different clarity.

To me personally, the table on the second one seems too big. But it is pretty in the video... hard to tell.

What is the last photo of the first stone, is it actually that stone?

Which one did you like better? What was different about them, to your eye?

 

[hippi_pixi]

i wish i had remembered to put my olloclip macro lens on for the 3.5. the 3.5 is photographed with a standard iphone 5 camera and the 3.2 i put on an olloclip macro lens. the videos were taken with the same iphone 5 camera (no olloclip) but the 3.2 had jewellery store lighting and the 3.5 was taken in office lighting. i can see what you're all talking about i think visually the facets on the 3.5 are maybe a little more splintery. possibly the facets on the 3.2 were clearer and chunkier.

yes the last photo of the first stone is actually the stone. i didn't take it though.

price wise the 3.2 is 6.5 thousand more and uncerted. it was guesstimated at L/M GIA but i think it did look more tinted than the 3.5

 

[GemFever]

Hippi, in that case, I'd probably vote for the 3.5. Except I agree with justginger, the culet is so small. But that can be fixed

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

In the close ups photos, I actually think the 3.5 has a crisper faceting than the 3.2. I spend a good portion of my day editing photos, but I'm not an OEC expert by any means. The hand shots on the 3.5 don't have me sold on the diamond though. It's amazing that your hand is in clear focus but the diamond itself looks mushy/ watery/ out of focus. Maybe that's what everyone else here is seeing?

The video on the 3.2 is amazing!

 

[hippi_pixi]

thanks mydiamondsparkles my memory is not that good but i don't remember there being a huge difference in facet crispness between the two. i think i may have to go back and get macroshots of the 3.5 just to have something on the same footing to compare

 

[Dreamer_D]

The second shows more obstruction than I like, especially at a slight tilt towards the body. This is fairly common with that style of OEC. For you maybe the patterning is worth the obstruction. For me its not. That stone is a lot like the 2.1ct Charmypoo returned (pics in her 9mm OEC SMTB thread.)

I like the first one a lot. The depth makes me concerned about over-dark but I don't see that in the photo or the video. Sometimes less "crisp" patterning (as in smaller slighly less regular faceting) is good because it means better/smaller scintillation with I think offsets the under-table darkness you often get. Charmy and ForteKitty's stones are both a little like that: not a clear large "flower" in the center, and perhaps because of that, better optics -- the slight randomness of the pattern means a more random "on off" pattern of the under-table facets and to me a nicer overall scintillation.

ETA: The attached photo highlights what I am not a fan about in the 3.2. You see that slightly bronish haze in the area circled in red? That is leakage. And then the center area is showing obstruction. I think the angles are just not as complimentary in that diamond. Lovely patterning, but the optics would be better with a smaller table or longer lower halves. I much prefer the 3.5 for optics.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I just watched the video again of the 3.5. I need a clearer video or more photos of that stone. I am still a little concerned about the depth. Faceting looks nice and small and the stone looks bright, but I am wondering if I can see some leakage under the table. Need more information.

 

[hippi_pixi]

Thanks for your help Dreamer i did notice obstruction with the 3.2. i tried to ignore it because excluding that 1 viewing angle the stone lights up well under the table and has great colored light return. i can see what you mean in the photo you circled. I think i will have to get more photos of the 3.5 as i have a shocking memory and without those macro shots I am forgetting exactly what i saw in terms of facetting.

the shame is I saw a 3.3 that was perfect. exactly the facetting that rocks my boat but a few shades lighter and 20k out of my budget

 

[justginger]

The second shows more obstruction than I like, especially at a slight tilt towards the body. This is fairly common with that style of OEC. For you maybe the patterning is worth the obstruction. For me its not. That stone is a lot like the 2.1ct Charmypoo returned (pics in her 9mm OEC SMTB thread.)

I like the first one a lot. The depth makes me concerned about over-dark but I don't see that in the photo or the video. Sometimes less "crisp" patterning (as in smaller slighly less regular faceting) is good because it means better/smaller scintillation with I think offsets the under-table darkness you often get. Charmy and ForteKitty's stones are both a little like that: not a clear large "flower" in the center, and perhaps because of that, better optics -- the slight randomness of the pattern means a more random "on off" pattern of the under-table facets and to me a nicer overall scintillation.

ETA: The attached photo highlights what I am not a fan about in the 3.2. You see that slightly bronish haze in the area circled in red? That is leakage. And then the center area is showing obstruction. I think the angles are just not as complimentary in that diamond. Lovely patterning, but the optics would be better with a smaller table or longer lower halves. I much prefer the 3.5 for optics.

With the table being fairly large (in relative terms) on this stone, D, would you consider it to be headed in the direction of a transitional, in terms of when it was likely cut?

I definitely see what you're highlighting re: leakage, and in real life I may dislike the effect, but in photography I always appreciate the defined, large flower look under the table. I think if I ever decide to swap my cushion for an OEC, I'll definitely need lots of your help! We're lucky to have you here.

 

[missy]

Dreamer, thanks for pointing this out. I love how generous you are with your knowledge here! I ran across a thread you started re old cuts and it is an invaluable thread for those of us who love old cuts- Thank you!

Hippi- half the fun is in the search for sure. You'll find the "one" and it will be that much sweeter!

 

[yennyfire]

Hippi, I have nothing of value to add relating to the stones that hasn't already been said, but I just wanted to let you know that I've been thinking about you and sending "find the perfect stone" vibes your way! While I'm sure you're having a lot of fun, I would also guess that you feel somewhat stressed to find your stone while on this trip. I hope I'm wrong and that you're having a blast, but I wanted to acknowledge that it's probably not all fun and games since you have a specific goal in mind.

I'm rooting for you!!!

 

[Mara]

Actually at first glance I thought the first stones faceting was very nice. Reminds me of my own 3.3. The second has a really lovely pattern but doesn't light up as consistently to me.

Can you get some better pics of the first stone? I think out of the two that would be my choice. Also I have a K EGL stone that IMO is probably closer to a GIA M and it's warm in some lights and icy in others. Lighting can make the old stones such chameleons!

 

[CharmyPoo]

I would not buy a diamond with noticeable obstruction. It would bother the heck out of it. The 3.2 has far too much and I think even worse than the diamond I returned. No fun looking down and seeing a dark center.

I actually like the 3.5 more and at the price savings ... even more.

My diamond actually has a clear small flower pattern in real life. I think it looks more scattered in photographs but it is the tiny table coupled by all the sparkles that make it hard to see. I used to think I really needed a perfect pattern but with these old stones ... it's the overall package that counts.

 

[hippi_pixi]

can anyone give me any input on what they think of the dimensions of the 3.5 from the GIA cert pic i posted, and specifically how this is likely to affect the optics of the stone? I am going to see the diamond again tomorrow hopefully to make up my mind and will try and take more pictures then

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/screening_chart_old_european_cut_diamonds i felt the stone was good performer in person but according to this chart it shouldn't be?

 

[Mara]

can you see the 3.5c in person? is there a return policy? it looks fine to me in the pictures, and the depth wouldn't concern me in conjunction with the table, 65% is not an uncommon depth with OEC's, but then again i don't typically scrutinize specs when it comes to the old cuts.

 

[hippi_pixi]

i have seen it in person and thought it was well lit up and had an even spread of lit up facets across the stone. but until a week ago i hadn't had much experience seeing old cuts in person. the facets are possibly smaller than my ideal but I'm going to see it again tomorrow. there is a return policy but I've come to the US from Australia to buy so returning a stone would make the whole trip a bit wasteful.