Are there ideal proportions for an OEC?

[freefly]

Are there certain numbers I should be looking for when shopping for an OEC? How can you tell without looking at the stone whether it will be pretty or not?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Pictures are helpful. Idealscope or ASET images are even more helpful.

If you can''t get those, Dave Atlas has a "by the numbers" chart which is very helpful, although you have to remember that the visual presentation of some Old European Cuts defy the numbers.

Maybe Dave will stop by and post a link to his chart.

 

[LGK]

The simplest way to weed through a virtual list of OECs is usually to look at the depth and table #s. It's not gonna tell you if the diamond is a good one, but it can definitely eliminate a LOT of stones, because OECs were cut with a lot of very strange numbers, very shallow and very deep- and you can pretty safely eliminate those. For example I focus on 60-63% depth, more or less, and no tables over 58% (and ideally for me, smaller than that- my favorite OEC has a 45% table). Sure, there are nice looking stones that fall outside those parameters but when you're looking at a list like oldworlddiamond's, where you have hundreds to weed through, that's a decent rule of thumb.

I like to get a few good pics of an OEC I'm interested in, including a profile shot. You want the crown to be nice and high, the culet to be centered and the stone to be round and not lopsided. The pattern of the stone needs to be pleasing to me- I don't like the look of all OECs out there. And no chips. Also check the girdle- there's lots of extremely thin girdles on OECs. (I own two, in fact.) A medium girdle is best, of course.

An experienced vendor is a big help here. You can pick out a few that seem possible and ask them to eyeball them for you. I've gotten a few lovely stones that way.

Like fancies, you can't really do OECs by the numbers. My method is usually to weed through a virtual list like I mentioned above, then ask the vendor to eyeball the ones I like the look of, and tell me which they think is the best looking. Then ask for a few good pics of the stone.

You might want to look at some in person if you can. The difference between a lovely OEC and a crap one is huge. Many have dead, flat looking centers that don't return light much at all, no sparkle except from the edges if anything. You want a lot of lively light return from the whole stone, big flashes from those center facets under the table- not a lot of dark dead space.

I'd say most of the OECs I see at work are not well cut. Hand picked ones from Jewels by Erica Grace might be a good route because they do stock attractive stones, not just any OEC they run across, from what I understand. Also bear in mind a lot of OECs will have EGL reports, or none at all. Oh- and I *never* buy an OEC sight unseen without a good return policy. That is absolutely crucial as far as I'm concerned- I'd never buy from, say, Fay Cullen, because you really can't tell if an OEC is gonna be great without laying eyes on it yourself.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 8/27/2009 12:04:01 AM
Author:freefly
Are there certain numbers I should be looking for when shopping for an OEC? How can you tell without looking at the stone whether it will be pretty or not?

Is there such a thing as an "Ideal" OMC?
Absolutely not IMO- part of what makes older stones so special is that they are ....irregular. For this reason, any chart that tries to pin down a "ideal" number will only give you the opinion of the person who wrote the chart.
I find the charts Rich referred to very misleading to consumers for this exact reason. You may have the same opinion as the person who made the chart- however many people won't.

I would not suggest buying such a stone without looking in person, or if you're buying online, make sure to get good photos and video.
Little grey kitten brought up some important aspects- such as damage to the stone.

 

[ericad]

Echoing what others have said, choosing an old cut is very subjective. What is beautiful to one person is not beautiful to another. I have seen some OECs with crazy numbers that were visually stunning - even super deep and super shallow stones. You won't really know what floats your unique boat until you look at a bunch of OECs, either in person or online. You can find lots of pics here.

Then, when it's time to search, find a reputable dealer who can help you sort through your thoughts and find you a diamond.

For example, do you like a symmetrical and structured look or a more "rustic" look (can help determine if you should consider transitionals, or early OECs or even a nice round OMC)? Do you like lots of contrast, or prefer more brightness/whiteness? What are your thoughts on a large culet? How important is spread? I personally love a deep stone with a small table because I find it is so rewarding for the wearer to look at the side of the ring and see that delicious depth (like a ring-pop!) but perhaps another buyer prefers a mid-depth or even shallower OEC for more spread. I could go on and on with these types of questions

Each stone will have its own personality and be completely unique from the others. A good vendor will be like a matchmaker and will listen to you and help you find one that speaks to you. The specs don't matter the way they do for other cuts.

(PS - a good return policy is key if you buy online, just in case the diamond is not THE ONE!)

 

[oldminer]

Using your eyes is good, but there are things which can easily be defined that will eliminate problem stones, poorly proportioned ones and lumpy (thick) ones. There are enough nice ones that the bad ones need to be eliminated by parameters first if one is shopping on-line. You will limit your choices by pre-screening, but you won''t waste so much time, either.

http://gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp

Go to the above and drop down the menu to the last choice and see the Old European cut class chart. I believe it is useful and helpful, but once in a while you find a pretty one outside he common range. Just be careful that pretty is not accompanied by a problem when it is in the lower cut class categories. You cannot judge a book or a diamond by its cover or appearance. It is a more complex subject than what it looks like to a novice.

 

[Rhino]

Well ... I'll be the herring. Yes there are. Over the past few months we have been experimenting with various prototypes having the OEC cut to the levels of precision of H&A's (Superior Optical Symmetry) in various types of proportions and critically inspecting their light performance in multiple lighting environments. I have found what I believe to be the "ideal" set of angles for each facet set on an OEC and am currently awaiting the latest arrival with my toes crossed.

The thing is ... its not just a matter of simple crown/pavilion angles. Lower/upper half angles have a play in it too.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sounds amazing Jon!

However the aspect of calling things "ideal" which I find to be troubling is that it''s a subjective judgement made to sound as though it''s a fact.
For example a stone deemed to have "Superior optical symmetry"- which might be an aspect that can be quantified using ASET, other reflective devices- will not always be more appealing, or "better" to all interested parties.
Therefore, what may be an "ideal" set of angles to your eye, may not be to mine, or other observers.



How this sometimes plays out here: A consumer may have picked a diamond based on it''s visual appearance. Say that the diamond does not score well based on the chart, or the parameters of optical symmetry ( ASET)- over others that might have better optical symmetry- or have scored better on David Atlas'' charts.
If that person comes here to ask a question about the stone- or just see how their stone "scores", they may get a false negative that will actually interfere with their enjoyment of what might be an excellent stone.
By assigning grades that are ordered in a way that one class is "better" than another, consumers may be led to believe that they have a lesser stone, when in fact, that might not be the case.

 

[ericad]

David, I couldn't agree with you more. "Superior" and "Ideal" are completely subjective terms.

Freefly, are you looking for an antique OEC or a newly cut repro? This will make a difference in how you approach your search.

Since there's nothing I like better than a good debate about eyes and hearts versus numbers, here's what I personally think. While a lot of people do like their stones to have certain angles or "pedigrees" - we are still of the "its really not a numbers game" camp.

Part of the allure of these old cuts (to me) is the fact that they were cut solely using the cutter's skill and experience without the aid of computers or any of the modern analysis used today. They were cut to simply be as beautiful as possible while maximizing the rough that nature gave them.

Of course, we can agree to disagree, but to us, as symmetrical and brilliant and scientifically analyzed as these newly cut old cuts are, we still prefer the charm, personality, romance and history of the old antiques. They are a snapshot in time - a piece of history that simply cannot be improved upon. We like that they are unique (and to many, imperfect) because, when it comes down to it, you can find optically "perfect" diamonds EVERY DAY, but how often can you boast that your old cut is truly unique and that no two will EVER be alike? You may find 2 OECs with identical color, clarity, weight and even facet style but put them next to each other and they will be different and special and one of a kind. To me, THAT'S superior and ideal and what I loved about old cuts in the first place

I don't think we can compare new old cuts to antiques except to say that the old inspired the new. But they are different animals, both beautiful in their own right, and will appeal to different people. So it really depends on what specifically the OP is looking for.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Well said Erica!
Sometimes, when I''m looking at an older cut stone that has poor symmetry ( by modern standards) that ....un-even nature is part of what draws me to it in the first place!

Of course, as you also said- this is a subject that will never be agreed upon by all.

 

[LGK]

Date: 8/27/2009 6:01:32 PM
Author: ericad
David, I couldn''t agree with you more. ''Superior'' and ''Ideal'' are completely subjective terms.

Freefly, are you looking for an antique OEC or a newly cut repro? This will make a difference in how you approach your search.

Since there''s nothing I like better than a good debate about eyes and hearts versus numbers, here''s what I personally think. While a lot of people do like their stones to have certain angles or ''pedigrees'' - we are still of the ''its really not a numbers game'' camp.

Part of the allure of these old cuts (to me) is the fact that they were cut solely using the cutter''s skill and experience without the aid of computers or any of the modern analysis used today. They were cut to simply be as beautiful as possible while maximizing the rough that nature gave them.

Of course, we can agree to disagree, but to us, as symmetrical and brilliant and scientifically analyzed as these newly cut old cuts are, we still prefer the charm, personality, romance and history of the old antiques. They are a snapshot in time - a piece of history that simply cannot be improved upon. We like that they are unique (and to many, imperfect) because, when it comes down to it, you can find optically ''perfect'' diamonds EVERY DAY, but how often can you boast that your old cut is truly unique and that no two will EVER be alike? You may find 2 OECs with identical color, clarity, weight and even facet style but put them next to each other and they will be different and special and one of a kind. To me, THAT''S superior and ideal and what I loved about old cuts in the first place

I don''t think we can compare new old cuts to antiques. They are different, both beautiful in their own right, and will appeal to different people. So it really depends on what specifically the OP is looking for.

Erica has some excellent points here about what makes an antique stone appeal to some of us- it''s not all quantifiable. I think that the GOG new repro OECs are drop dead gorgeous, and a really cool idea. I''d be curious what numbers Rhino can share (if any) regarding his findings as to what angles work well for a new one. But I also think they appeal to a slightly different consumer than the ones who are antique fan(atic)s like myself. While I can definitely drool over the idea of a brand-spanking-new superbly symmetrical OEC repro, I prefer the genuine antique for myself, quirks and all. I''m a romantic that way I guess.

I''m a dork and love to imagine what my antique diamonds have seen over it''s 100 years. I wonder about the other lucky woman who looked at it on her hand every day; I wonder if she''d be thrilled to know it gives me a lot of joy too. I wonder what it''s original setting was like, and how it got it''s tiny chip (which I''ll never repair- I tend to leave my antiques of all sorts with their wear intact if it isn''t disfiguring.) I wonder how it left the family it started with and ended up with me. As cool as optimized light return and symmetry might be, I don''t know if it would beat that.