shape
carat
color
clarity

Crown height in Old Mine Cut

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
Question: I have my eye on a gorgeous antique cushion (the GIA cert calls it an Old Mine Brilliant) but the GIA cert notes "Crown Height greater than 40%" The stone looks incredible to me, should I be concerned about this notation on the certificate? Looking at the stone from the side, there is unquestionably a large crown, but I think it gives the stone a very neat antique, domed look. Thoughts?
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Question: I have my eye on a gorgeous antique cushion (the GIA cert calls it an Old Mine Brilliant) but the GIA cert notes "Crown Height greater than 40%" The stone looks incredible to me, should I be concerned about this notation on the certificate? Looking at the stone from the side, there is unquestionably a large crown, but I think it gives the stone a very neat antique, domed look. Thoughts?

A tall crown and angles greater than 40 degrees is an important feature in an antique cushion. I might be concerned if it didn't say that on the grading report.
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
Correction: it says "crown ANGLE greater than 40 degrees"

If I post pictures will someone respond? :tongue:

ring.jpg
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
CCL- I was hoping I might hear from you! Thanks, that's a relief. When I say I "have my eye on it" I mean that I already bought it and now I'm terrified I didn't do my homework first. :loopy:

But I'm totally in love with the ring, I guess that's what matters.
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
HoyaLawyaBride said:
CCL- I was hoping I might hear from you! Thanks, that's a relief. When I say I "have my eye on it" I mean that I already bought it and now I'm terrified I didn't do my homework first. :loopy:

But I'm totally in love with the ring, I guess that's what matters.

Looks like a nice looking cushion, definitely pleases my eye looking at the photograph :lickout:

It however doesn't look like an antique at all, looks recently cut.
Even if it was an antique(doubtful) it should still not be called an Old Mine Cut.
There is to my eyes nothing "Old" or "Mine Cut" about it, the nicely rounded girdle, square outline, and nice looking symmetry gives it away as recently cut. I would call it an Vintage or Antique Style Cushion Brilliant.

My recently published article on cushions may sheds some light on this topic https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-conventions-for-cushion-cut-diamonds.147789/
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
CCL- thanks for your thoughts. I'm not really concerned with it being actually antique, I just love the chunky antique style. Do you have any thoughts on why the GIA would grade it an "Old Mine Brilliant" if you don't think that's accurate? I know the GIA is a little arbitrary with the cut styles on these antique-style stones, but usually they refrain from calling things Old Mine or OEC unless it's very clearly within their parameters for that cut. I appreciate your experience and thoughts!
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
If it helps, here is the GIA cert information

OLD MINE BRILLIANT

Measurements: 6.87 x 6.71 x 4.44 mm
Carat Weight: 1.51 carat
Color Grade: H
Clarity Grade: VS2
PROPORTIONS:

Depth: 66.2%
Table: 52%
Girdle: Thin to Thick, Faceted
Culet: Slightly Large
FINISH:
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
Comments: Crown angles are greater than 40 degrees.
 

coati

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
21,747
ChunkyCushionLover said:
It however doesn't look like an antique at all, looks recently cut.

Not necessarily. It could be a Vintage/Antique cut. I have seen Antique Cushions that bear that resemblance.

HoyaLawyaBride,

It looks like a beautiful stone from the photos. I adore that pattern and would love to see a profile shot of that high crown. :))
 

coati

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
21,747
HoyaLawyaBride said:
CCL- thanks for your thoughts. I'm not really concerned with it being actually antique, I just love the chunky antique style. Do you have any thoughts on why the GIA would grade it an "Old Mine Brilliant" if you don't think that's accurate? I know the GIA is a little arbitrary with the cut styles on these antique-style stones, but usually they refrain from calling things Old Mine or OEC unless it's very clearly within their parameters for that cut. I appreciate your experience and thoughts!

GIA has named it an Old Mine Brilliant, because it meets their general parameters for that term. There is a decent amount of variance within that definition.

hth - When it comes to Antique Cut diamonds, the lab definitions generally do not equate with what I see. This is one of those, Art-Over-Label situations. I choose Art-a happy reconciliation. :))
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

SAM_0355.JPG

SAM_0358.JPG

SAM_0360.JPG
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

NewOrOld.jpg
 

coati

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
21,747
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

Could also be an Antique that has been tweaked. Faceted girdle and all.
(They are tweaked more than one would think)
 

coati

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
21,747
DiaGem said:
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

Either/Or
:devil:
 

LGK

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
2,975
I'd guess it's newly cut as well. Faceted girdles are unusual in antique stones and only are present if a stone has had the girdle recently recut. Antique stones have a bruted girdle (frosted appeareance). The faceting looks like a modern cushion rather than an actual antique to my eye too... of course that isn't always a 100% accurate way to judge, lol. The somewhat higher color would be a bit unusual in an antique stone as well.

Lovely stone!
 

CharmyPoo

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
7,007
DiaGem - I am guessing older but perhaps not over 100 years old.

HB - Lovely stone. Enjoy! I wouldn't be worried about what GIA classifies the diamond.
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
CharmyPoo said:
DiaGem - I am guessing older but perhaps not over 100 years old.

HB - Lovely stone. Enjoy! I wouldn't be worried about what GIA classifies the diamond.

Your example, old and famous from my recollection, the color of your photo is a bit off but I remember this stone looking more blue as well ;)).

Edit: Ahhh yes The Regent from Golkonda with the Type IIa non Boron Blue Fluroescence. Cut 1704 - 1706. C'mon we need a harder example than this one.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
coatimundi said:
DiaGem said:
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

Either/Or
:devil:



Howabout this one?



MXD.jpg
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
DiaGem said:
coatimundi said:
DiaGem said:
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

Either/Or
:devil:



Howabout this one?



MXD.jpg

Maximilian purchased in 1860. Okay Okay, how bout posting one that you cut since you are a master at modern reproductions of vintage cutting styles, maybe I will mistake it for the real thing. :mrgreen:
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
DiaGem said:
coatimundi said:
DiaGem said:
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

Either/Or
:devil:



Howabout this one?


Or this?

Have a good night folks..., see ya tomorrow :snore:


OorN.jpg
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
DiaGem said:
DiaGem said:
coatimundi said:
DiaGem said:
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Thanks! I just took a few impromptu photos (on some fake, dusty flowers in my apartment!!) to give you a better sense of the ring from different angles. Perhaps that first photo I posted gave too much credit to the ring's symmetry. It looks a tad imperfect to me, which I love.

But please continue the debate on whether it's a real antique or just an antique-style. I love a good argument!

I'll bite...

Is this a modern or Antique?

Either/Or
:devil:



Howabout this one?


Or this?

Have a good night folks..., see ya tomorrow :snore:


OorN.jpg
That one is a lot tougher to tell need more closeups of the profile and faceup facet structure.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
ChunkyCushionLover said:
DiaGem said:

Profile shot?


Looking for the knife-edge etc,,? :naughty:

Yet on a significantly smaller face up & mounted image you felt confident to write:

"...It however doesn't look like an antique at all, looks recently cut.
Even if it was an antique(doubtful) it should still not be called an Old Mine Cut.
There is to my eyes nothing "Old" or "Mine Cut" about it, the nicely rounded girdle, square outline, and nice looking symmetry gives it away as recently cut.


Yes..., I know you cant see an open culet which is one of the signs of old cutting techniques (& 1 of 3 [out of 4] criteria needed if large enough :rolleyes: to earn the GIA OMB identification) but not enough I believe to confidently dismiss from afar. Even if my opinion was the same as yours on the stone at subject, I still wouldnt voice my opinion if not asked for. And if I was..., I would voice it as a hypothesis not as a clear fact.

GIA needs 3 criteria (they must work according to a system)..., I believe there are a few more signs (I dont call them criteria).
 

vbnet

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
534
Looking at the ring, I'd take it in a heartbeat!!!!! I think it's beautiful and I love chunky cushions. I just had 5 put together in a ring. Anyway YOUR ring is GORGEOUS! :love:
 

HoyaLawyaBride

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
35
Dia Gem, Thanks for jumping in the mix. It seems that people feel fairly confident the faceted girdle means it's a new stone. Do you agree?
 

Al Gilbertson

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
14
The patent for faceting the girdle on diamonds was issued in 1906. Faceted girdles often mean the stone has been repaired, since the more typical knife edge girdle from before 1930 was chipped and abraded.
Al Gilbertson
 

coati

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
21,747
Thanks for the additional information, Al :))

Judging a stone's age from photos on the Internet is inconclusive to say the least. ..But the mystery is part of the charm...:naughty:
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
HoyaLawyaBride said:
Dia Gem, Thanks for jumping in the mix. It seems that people feel fairly confident the faceted girdle means it's a new stone. Do you agree?

Not necessarily..., but even when one wishes to repair a chipped girdle on an Antique knife edge it should be done by a professional who has knowledge in the fashion Antique Diamonds were cut in the past/History.

Polishing girdle facets (only) is usually not enough, unfortunately the majority of repaired Antique stones I see are done that way.
 

ChunkyCushionLover

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,463
DiaGem said:
Looking for the knife-edge etc,,? :naughty:

Yet on a significantly smaller face up & mounted image you felt confident to write:

"...It however doesn't look like an antique at all, looks recently cut.
Even if it was an antique(doubtful) it should still not be called an Old Mine Cut.
There is to my eyes nothing "Old" or "Mine Cut" about it, the nicely rounded girdle, square outline, and nice looking symmetry gives it away as recently cut.

Thank-you for your feedback.

Your point is taken that those famous huge diamonds (like the Regent or Maximillian) were cut with an extreme measure of skill, had smooth girdle outlines and excellent symmetry. Save for size and color they have some striking similarities (The Maximilian) to what we see in stones cut more recently in the vintage style. This is an amazing feat considering that their cutting methods may have been similar to the European bruting method shown here from Mawe's 1823 "A Treatise on Diamond and Precision Stones" and reprinted in Al Gilbertson's "American Cut The First 100 Years".

AmericanCutFirst100yearsPage31diagram.jpg

However those two examples that you posted were definitely cut with beauty in mind, by a master cutter, spending an enormous amount of time doing so. From what I have read the Regent took the better part of two years to complete. This is in sharp contrast to the average smaller stone found in that time period, where cutting for weight and adherence to the outline of the natural shape of rough was much more prevalent.

I beleive that the point made by both you and Coati is your preference for erring on the side of caution when viewing only a single photograph in considering the potential age of a diamond. That is a good point but I'll present the other side of this argument which is my preference.

I find far too often diamond dealers both online and in B&Ms like to romance a diamond in the vintage cutting style and tell a story about them being old, about them being an antique with history. Far too often these stories cannot be proven and seem implausible, and for every 100 diamonds that look similar to the OP's, maybe only a handful of them are actual true antiques and of those even fewer still can be age verified by the setting or by some other credible method. I would rather point out and make the poster aware of potentially false claims made about a stone being old especially when the visual clues point to this being less likely.

Regards,
CCL
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top