3 old cut O/P honkers...could one of these be THE ONE?

[valmanin]

Seriously, I don't have elephant hands. Darn zoom!

 

[ruby59]

I did not realize that was the same diamond. What a difference a setting makes.

But no matter, because the OEC you found is absolutely gorgeous.

 

[valmanin]

Awww...thanks everyone!

Truthfully, I have not decided if I am keeping her because I really want to hold out for more size.

BUT, I am starting to fall in love. I keep calling her "little" and my DH is like "LITTLE???" Only on PS can she look little. But, hey, I fell in love with fortekitty and Missy's stones. BIG BIG BIG!!!

So, I decided to call her (and she is definitely a she) "big little" because that is what she is to me a BIG, little stone. 2.71 is nothing to sneeze about.

Anyway, still deciding...

 

[ForteKitty]

It's beautiful.

 

[GemFever]

Any update? Has either the OEC or one of the cushions made its way into your heart?

 

[valmanin]

Hey Gem...thanks for asking!

I sent the two cushions back. I realized that I am definitely an OEC girl. I like the patterning better.

As for the OEC...gosh, I do love it. I think it was pretty perfect for me in every way....EXCEPT size. I just truly have had my heart set on something that "feels" bigger. I felt like with the OEC I would want to bezel it or do something creative with the setting to adorn it more if that makes sense...and all I really want is a simple solitaire. Also, I was a little concerned about an inclusion that was near the girdle (which is pretty thin)...I was starting to wonder if it would be a structural problem and NEED to be bezelled. The appraiser seemed to think it needed many prongs or a bezel. So, I sent it back to Adam so he could look at it and give me his opinion.

He has had a 3.33 M VS2 (EGL) that he has been raving about since I started talking to him. He said it looks almost identical in pattern/style to the 2.71, but whiter and cleaner...also, of course, pricier. So, after lots of thought and negotiating we decided to order it and have a looksee. It will be here tomorrow. I never gave it a lot of thought before because I was so obsessed on the small table thing. It is 52%. We shall see...

 

[GemFever]

Ooh, exciting! I hope you'll post a ton of pics! I'm also very curious how a slightly larger table feels. Will be looking forward to hearing your impressions!

 

[valmanin]

I will post lots of pics!

I remember a while back when Adam was talking about this stone he said that it is that "top light silver" that people like. What is top light silver? He also told me that the color graduates to the yellow tones so it's not that.

 

[Draco]

Photos are good for judging faceting.

Yes I agree emphatically. The problem arises when one tries to judge light return and brightness from a plain photograph. I've seen a lot of comments in this thread and the opinions seem based on the quality of the photograph and the physical facet pattern of the diamond much more so than its brightness.

Culets don't look black unless there is something black underneath the diamond. They act as a mirror and you see whatever is underneath the diamond.

If one wanted to objectively look at how bright old stones are they would still need a structured lighting environment like ASET, trying to judge from plain photographs in uncontrolled environments can be very inaccurate and non repeatable and the conclusions drawn can be very misleading.

 

[misskittycat]

I've been looking at that diamond for me

Here is the video if you haven't already seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u7tNL4XO1o&list=UU6HIj62yZjThDHS5NSkilgA

 

[valmanin]

I've been looking at that diamond for me

Here is the video if you haven't already seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u7tNL4XO1o&list=UU6HIj62yZjThDHS5NSkilgA

Hi misskittycat! I have seen the video. I cannot seem to tell much from Adam's videos though...all the stones look pretty and sparkly. In about 4 more hours I will see it in person...so excited!!! I can't get it in my hands fast enough...

 

[valmanin]

Photos are good for judging faceting.

Yes I agree emphatically. The problem arises when one tries to judge light return and brightness from a plain photograph. I've seen a lot of comments in this thread and the opinions seem based on the quality of the photograph and the physical facet pattern of the diamond much more so than its brightness.

Culets don't look black unless there is something black underneath the diamond. They act as a mirror and you see whatever is underneath the diamond.

If one wanted to objectively look at how bright old stones are they would still need a structured lighting environment like ASET, trying to judge from plain photographs in uncontrolled environments can be very inaccurate and non repeatable and the conclusions drawn can be very misleading.

Hi Draco! You make a great point. For instance, I will say that while EVERYONE on here picked the OEC (I think it is an extremely photogenic stone...and gorgeous in person BTW), every single person that saw the three stones in real life picked one of the cushions as their favorite. It was a toss up between the cushions. I am talking about the B&M store I took them too to look at settings...all employees picked a cushion, my friends and family, the appraiser, etc. I definitely felt like I couldn't get across in photographs how beautiful the cushions were. I felt like all three stones were equally bright!

As for the culets...that was just a funny thing my husband said to me because he had never seen a larger culet. He was just being silly. Of course it didn't look like a big black hole or anything. I actually thought it was quite cute!

 

[SB621]

Oh I really like the 3.33ct!! That is stunning. I prefer it alot more over your orginal OEC. Goodluck with your choice! Definitely don't settle as I think you will miss the size and if you are already calling it little....

 

[almondblossom]

Can't wait to see pics of the 3.33ct OEC!! I am sure it will be gorgeous

 

[valmanin]

Oh I really like the 3.33ct!! That is stunning. I prefer it alot more over your orginal OEC. Goodluck with your choice! Definitely don't settle as I think you will miss the size and if you are already calling it little....

I think you are right! I do wonder what world I am living in that a 2.71 carater looks little. But, as much as I loved it...I kept looking at it to see if it looked big enough.

I am so anxious to see the 3.33! Somehow that just seems like a lucky number.

 

[valmanin]

Can't wait to see pics of the 3.33ct OEC!! I am sure it will be gorgeous

I hope so almondblossom!

I have to say I am nervous that it will be too white! Crazy sounding, but I really did like the O/P color especially when I put it with the yellow gold. So, I hope the M does a similar thing.

 

[SB621]

Can't wait to see pics of the 3.33ct OEC!! I am sure it will be gorgeous

I hope so almondblossom!

I have to say I am nervous that it will be too white! Crazy sounding, but I really did like the O/P color especially when I put it with the yellow gold. So, I hope the M does a similar thing.

Nope I completely understand this. When I was looking for my antique cushion it came down to a 4.68ct J or my 5.06ct N/O and ultimately the J just didn't do it for me. While it definitely had a tint to it the color wasn't enough of a contrast for the PLAT setting I was putting it in. I wanted warm and elegance and the J just wasn't doing that.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Photos are good for judging faceting.

Yes I agree emphatically. The problem arises when one tries to judge light return and brightness from a plain photograph. I've seen a lot of comments in this thread and the opinions seem based on the quality of the photograph and the physical facet pattern of the diamond much more so than its brightness.

Culets don't look black unless there is something black underneath the diamond. They act as a mirror and you see whatever is underneath the diamond.

If one wanted to objectively look at how bright old stones are they would still need a structured lighting environment like ASET, trying to judge from plain photographs in uncontrolled environments can be very inaccurate and non repeatable and the conclusions drawn can be very misleading.

I agree with this to a point.

I can see many signs of poor cut in straight old photos. I can see girdle reflection, leakage, imprecise or mushy faceting, fish eye, obstruction (I believe I can tell the difference between normal camera obsruction and the type that is more bothersome). I have been buying old cuts on ebay for over a year based on crappy photos and have only sent one back for poor cut -- and even then the signs of poor cut were evident in the photos. Fortekitty is similarly able to judge photos very well (as are many other ebay stalkers).

I have not seen an ASET image yet that told me anything about an old cut that was not evident in a photo to some degree.

But for old cuts photos are a rejection tool -- like the HCA Once an old cut passes the "good enough in photos" rule then I firmly believe that the stone must be seen and judged with the eyes.

 

[valmanin]

Oh GOOD LORD, this is hard!!!

Okay, got the stone...

Opened box...

First thought, HOLY COW that is big, bright, brilliant and gorgeous!

Upon further inspection, here are my thoughts:

PROS:
Fits my honker criteria...it is perfectly BIG! 9.4mm and very round
Color - wow I definitely moved a few shades up. The 2.71 has a sometimes light lemon yellow to it. This one looks like vanilla icecream at it's warmest. BUt pretty stinkin bright white most of the time.
It's a very bright stone...VERY bright!
It's very clean...can't find anything with the loupe

CONS:
The under table facets are a little uneven looking to me which you will see in the pictures. This might bother me. Ugh! I see what I think may be called leakage too. Hmmmm...not sure what to think.

I am sort of in trouble now. The 2.71 ruined me for a lesser cut stone. But, the 3.33 ruined me for smaller and lower color!!!

BTW, I have to say that Adam is just about the most phenomenal guy! He has worked with me so patiently and dilligently to find me the right stone...never making me feel crazy although he did call one of his emails to me a therapy session. Anyway, I sent him comparison picks of both stones that I took and he doesn't see much of a difference in the cut. He thinks it may be possible for his cutter to clean up the pavilion facets so it has a more symmetrical appearance. Not sure what to do. Not sure how much that would help or if I am being overly obsessive. It really is beautiful in person!

Here are, as requested, LOTS of pictures:

 

[misskittycat]

Wow! It's really very beautiful!

But from a cut perspective, I still think the 2.71 has a better, prettier cut.... I guess it really depends if the uneven facets bother you? And again, as you said before, seeing them in person is really different to just seeing photos..

 

[valmanin]

Wow! It's really very beautiful!

But from a cut perspective, I still think the 2.71 has a better, prettier cut.... I guess it really depends if the uneven facets bother you? And again, as you said before, seeing them in person is really different to just seeing photos..

I agree. I don't yet know if it will bother me.

When I first got the O/P stones it took a day for my eyes to adjust to the color. All I saw was yellow at first. Then as I had them for a few days and looked at them more and in different lighting I really grew to appreciate the color and it didn't bother me at all. I began to feel like it was a bonus!

 

[misskittycat]

See, to me, size is really important. I think on an old cut you are most likely going to get some irregularity, but for me that's part of the personality of the stone. There are the dream stones that are beautifully symmetrical but they are few and far between. Certainly at a reasonable price range, it would seem.

So - if there is no unlimited budget, you can get a gorgeous gorgeous stone that ticks every single box. Otherwise it's a wait for the right thing to come along. Or perhaps, perhaps, we make a small compromise. On the thing that bothers us least. Only you can know. And living with it for a few days will certainly help!

 

[valmanin]

Well, I think in some ways it's hard to not compare it to the gorgeous cut of the 2.71. Even Grace from Jbeg asked if it was an AVR.

So, I LOVE everything about this stone, but I am not feeling confident about the cut because I am comparing it to 2.71. What are the expert opinions on the cut?

 

[GemFever]

For instance, I will say that while EVERYONE on here picked the OEC (I think it is an extremely photogenic stone...and gorgeous in person BTW), every single person that saw the three stones in real life picked one of the cushions as their favorite. It was a toss up between the cushions. I am talking about the B&M store I took them too to look at settings...all employees picked a cushion, my friends and family, the appraiser, etc. I definitely felt like I couldn't get across in photographs how beautiful the cushions were. I felt like all three stones were equally bright!

I'm curious... if people liked the cushions so much IRL, what made you opt to keep looking and to look for OECs and not cushions? I saw a cushion today, it was also quite beautiful. A little too expensive, too AVC-like, and too elongated for me. But very pretty. It also shows some kind of funkiness around the table in pics (at a small tilt), but nothing unpleasant to the eye in real life. It seems like with these stones, the more you can see, the better! The education continues

 

[valmanin]

For instance, I will say that while EVERYONE on here picked the OEC (I think it is an extremely photogenic stone...and gorgeous in person BTW), every single person that saw the three stones in real life picked one of the cushions as their favorite. It was a toss up between the cushions. I am talking about the B&M store I took them too to look at settings...all employees picked a cushion, my friends and family, the appraiser, etc. I definitely felt like I couldn't get across in photographs how beautiful the cushions were. I felt like all three stones were equally bright!

I'm curious... if people liked the cushions so much IRL, what made you opt to keep looking and to look for OECs and not cushions? I saw a cushion today, it was also quite beautiful. A little too expensive, too AVC-like, and too elongated for me. But very pretty. It also shows some kind of funkiness around the table in pics (at a small tilt), but nothing unpleasant to the eye in real life. It seems like with these stones, the more you can see, the better! The education continues

Good question. I realized that, even though so many people loved the cushions and I could completely see their beauty, I am an OEC girl at heart. I love the faceting and shape of the round! It's just me! I was intrigued by the cushions though...kind of had a crush on them iykwim. But, my true love is the OEC. Classic!