Chipped OEC

[kathleenmv]

Okay, I''m starting a new thread about my OEC quest (see my earlier one here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/oec-whaddya-think-about-this-one.65846/) because I''m semi-considering a different stone and am hoping for some feedback about its condition/potential.

This one is a 1.50 OEC with a pretty good sized chip in the girdle. It doesn''t have a lab report (I know...scary), but the seller says that it''s an I/VVS (apart from the chip, that is).

So my questions...
Would an appraiser be able to tell me whether or not the chip can be removed/repaired(?) via re-cutting or repolishing? I''d want to keep it an OEC, so not sure if that''s possible.

Would an appraiser be able to tell me what kind of carat loss I could expect if the stone could, indeed, be recut/repolished?

Any guess on what a fair price would be for a stone of this size with a chip? I imagine there might be some sort of discount because of the chip (I''m totally making that up, but sounds somewhat reasonable). The seller is asking $4K.

Of course, I''d want the color, clarity and cut analyzed/verified by the appraiser before I commit to the purchase.

Any thoughts? Is this a really, really bad idea?? You can tell me. I can take it.

OH! Here''s a picture of the chip. It''s the OEC on the top. The chip is somewhat hard to see in the pic, but it''s upper right, about the 1 o''clock position.

THANKS!

 

[decodelighted]

If I''m seeing correctly, that chip is more than "on the girdle" ... it looks like its in the CROWN.

I hope someone knowledgable can weigh in soon ... I have no idea about recutting. Before the pix I was thinking the girdle could just be polished all the way around, but this clearly needs more than that!

 

[kathleenmv]

Hi Deco!

Yeah, you''re right! It does look that way. That can''t be good. Hmmmmmmmmm...

 

[Ellen]

Looks like it''s in the girdle AND crown to me possibly....

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 5:54:42 PM
Author:kathleenmv
Okay, I''m starting a new thread about my OEC quest (see my earlier one here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/oec-whaddya-think-about-this-one.65846/) because I''m semi-considering a different stone and am hoping for some feedback about its condition/potential.

This one is a 1.50 OEC with a pretty good sized chip in the girdle. It doesn''t have a lab report (I know...scary), but the seller says that it''s an I/VVS (apart from the chip, that is).

So my questions...
Would an appraiser be able to tell me whether or not the chip can be removed/repaired(?) via re-cutting or repolishing? I''d want to keep it an OEC, so not sure if that''s possible.
Its possible..., but it has to be re-touched by a cutter with good amount of knowledge in these types of cuts. NOT every cutter is up to this task.

Would an appraiser be able to tell me what kind of carat loss I could expect if the stone could, indeed, be recut/repolished?
Yes, but!!! Only appraiser with cutting/weight-loss experience can have the feeling of the weight-loss!!! And I mean practical experience!

Any guess on what a fair price would be for a stone of this size with a chip? I imagine there might be some sort of discount because of the chip (I''m totally making that up, but sounds somewhat reasonable). The seller is asking $4K.

Of course, I''d want the color, clarity and cut analyzed/verified by the appraiser before I commit to the purchase.

Any thoughts? Is this a really, really bad idea?? You can tell me. I can take it.

OH! Here''s a picture of the chip. It''s the OEC on the top. The chip is somewhat hard to see in the pic, but it''s upper right, about the 1 o''clock position.

THANKS!

The chip looks like a "CHIP"!!!
As I see it, you have two options:
A) It looks like the chip could be covered by a prong if shifted a bit. (I personaly like small chips..., they are the proof of Old-Cut authenticity and character!)
B) You can re-touch the OEC..., but take into consideration since its a round diameter..., you will need to re-cut the diameter all around the stone to keep the shape round!!! (meaning: extra weight loss!)

Good luck,

 

[surfgirl]

kathleen, you''re talking about the top stone, yes? The one in the yellow setting? It looks like there''s a small chip just below the prong on the top right, yes? It looks like a skilled setting could re set it to hide the chip providing there''s enough to grab onto and not chip it further...what do you think DG? Have you seen it in real life? If not, I''d be sure to get a return policy and buy it "on approval" or not at all so you''re assured you can return it if you want to.

 

[kathleenmv]

Ellen, DiaGem and surfgirl,

Thanks for your comments--and your eyes. Very helpful.

Surfgirl, yeah it''s the top ring in the yellow mounting. I haven''t seen it in real life, just photographs, which I know is not an ideal situation.

The idea of leaving the chip as-is makes me nervous. On the other hand, retouching it also makes me nervous. Maybe an appraiser can advise about the risk of retouching, but if the chip is so very--well, chippy--I worry about the integrity of the stone.
The seller has a return policy, but I''m starting to think this stone might have too many strikes against it right out of the gate. I''m not much of a diamond risk-taker.

 

[diagem]

Can you ask for a better image? A close-up perhaps of the chip?

 

[chrono]

Date: 7/30/2007 5:54:42 PM
Author:kathleenmv
This one is a 1.50 OEC with a pretty good sized chip in the girdle. It doesn''t have a lab report (I know...scary), but the seller says that it''s an I/VVS (apart from the chip, that is).
The vendor had better not be selling it as a VVS. With the chip, the stone will probably be graded as SI2 or more, so you ought to be paying a price appropriate to the new grading.

Any thoughts? Is this a really, really bad idea?? You can tell me. I can take it.
The others have given very good suggestions as to the possible greater weight loss if recut (which means $ spent for a recut and $ lost for less carat weight). I don''t like the looks of that chip. It''s quite large plus might also be on the crown? I think I''d pass on it. It''s too iffy for me. Sorry.