gromit
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 44
Hello again, just a follow up on my earlier posting on the transitional or not, of 9th of June.
Unfortunately, when I had the ring re-sized the stone became slightly loose revealing a small chip and what looks to be a feather which breaks the girdle. These were hidden by the prongs (I obviously didn''t loupe it closely enough, d''oh!).
I am not that worried about the small chip since this is a vintage ring and the girdle is medium thickness, but the feather/fracture worries me from a durability point of view. I get the feeling that it is quite common for old/antique stones to show some chips???
Now I have tried reading up on the ''cleavage'' issue, but got a bit confused and was wondering what is considered the cleavage planes? The direction of the feather is straight into the crown, looks thin from the top but wider when you look at it from the side. You can see a small chip in the girdle where it starts. This is only obvious under a 10x loupe and is very small. The jeweller said that it is very unlikely to be an issue and that it can easily be covered (again) by a prong or polished out. But I am obviously a bit wary of this feedback. I had otherwise decided to keep the ring, even with the warmer L-M colour, as I think I got it at a reasonable price, approx $3500, and it actually measures up around a 1.5-1.6 carat. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on my pricing.
The jeweller says I can always trade up the ring if I want to, but would of course have preferred a diamond without a crack and don''t know whether to push for a refund instead. Then again, I might never have known it was there...? If I keep it I am leaning towards not getting it polished out and just turning the stone so it''s covered.
However, I assume that this also lowers the re-sale value and it might be a problem if I ever wanted to get it reset.
Regarding whether it is a transitional or not, the jeweller still says so and that it is an early modern cut. So, in theory, is an early modern cut also considered a transitional as it is transitioning from the european cut to the modern brilliant cut? I understand that this transition to the modern brilliant cut happened over quite a number of years. I think I read in another post that transitionals happened around 1940-50''s which matches the style of the ring.
Also, is it better to have matched side stones or does it look odd to have the centre stone as the lower colour grade? In this case enough to notice the difference. The trend seems to be the other way around.
By the way, does anyone know of a good appraiser in the London area?
Sorry for all the questions and any feedback would be great. Thanks again in advance.
Unfortunately, when I had the ring re-sized the stone became slightly loose revealing a small chip and what looks to be a feather which breaks the girdle. These were hidden by the prongs (I obviously didn''t loupe it closely enough, d''oh!).
I am not that worried about the small chip since this is a vintage ring and the girdle is medium thickness, but the feather/fracture worries me from a durability point of view. I get the feeling that it is quite common for old/antique stones to show some chips???
Now I have tried reading up on the ''cleavage'' issue, but got a bit confused and was wondering what is considered the cleavage planes? The direction of the feather is straight into the crown, looks thin from the top but wider when you look at it from the side. You can see a small chip in the girdle where it starts. This is only obvious under a 10x loupe and is very small. The jeweller said that it is very unlikely to be an issue and that it can easily be covered (again) by a prong or polished out. But I am obviously a bit wary of this feedback. I had otherwise decided to keep the ring, even with the warmer L-M colour, as I think I got it at a reasonable price, approx $3500, and it actually measures up around a 1.5-1.6 carat. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on my pricing.
The jeweller says I can always trade up the ring if I want to, but would of course have preferred a diamond without a crack and don''t know whether to push for a refund instead. Then again, I might never have known it was there...? If I keep it I am leaning towards not getting it polished out and just turning the stone so it''s covered.
However, I assume that this also lowers the re-sale value and it might be a problem if I ever wanted to get it reset.
Regarding whether it is a transitional or not, the jeweller still says so and that it is an early modern cut. So, in theory, is an early modern cut also considered a transitional as it is transitioning from the european cut to the modern brilliant cut? I understand that this transition to the modern brilliant cut happened over quite a number of years. I think I read in another post that transitionals happened around 1940-50''s which matches the style of the ring.
Also, is it better to have matched side stones or does it look odd to have the centre stone as the lower colour grade? In this case enough to notice the difference. The trend seems to be the other way around.
By the way, does anyone know of a good appraiser in the London area?
Sorry for all the questions and any feedback would be great. Thanks again in advance.
300x240.png)