Evaluating chip in vintage diamond

[EllieTO]

I'm creating a new thread for Maxine's chip to get broader visibility. For those who are just meeting Maxine, this is a newly purchased vintage ring, transitional cut and around 1.7 ct with no cert. This is not a tiny chip. I'm trying to decide whether to keep it, unset the stone and get it GIA certified.

1. Can any potential durability concerns be assessed? I assume the safest route would be a bezel setting, but would a 6+ prong setting with a halo help prevent further damage? Would it be possible to cover with a prong? I will probably insure it with Jewelers Mutual - would the chip as shown on the GIA report cause any issue insuring it?

2. What is the likely impact of the chip on the GIA clarity grade? The diamond overall is super clean and I can't see a single thing under various loupes and microscope lens. You can see the chip from the top, but most of its size is under the girdle.

Thank you!

Video here (not for assessing the chip):

https://imgur.com/a/nLjcRfr

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here are some nasty pictures of two of my diamonds in my five stone. They are only 5mm but have chips that look as big or bigger than Maxine has. One is huge and on the crown!





GIA graded them both SI2, and chips were part of the grade making inclusions. I would guess Maxine might get a similar grade or even better given that the chip is not evident face up very much.

In terms of insurance, the appraisal is the document that you submit and it will list the GIA grades and report number. It won’t describe the inclusions (or at least I don’t see why it should). I have not submitted the actual GIA reports for any stones I have insured and have not been asked. I suppose it’s possible a claims adjuster would ask to see the lab report or look it up. If you tried to claim damage they might deny it if you were claiming chip damage, but even then I think you could show them your macro pictures and show it’s a new chip. With a loss I think they would be concerned with the GIA grade for like kind and quality replacement, not the inclusions that made the grade. FWIW I had both of these diamonds, above, insured by JM before I had them set, while loose, in the basis of an appraisal that claimed I1 clarity and listed chips on the appraisal. They did not say anything and approved the policy.

For me, a chip like that would not matter. I think you paid a very fair price for the gem, a deal even, and cut rarity and quality are my main concerns. I don’t think it’s a durability issue. DK was not concerned about durability for any of my stones. I chose a more protective setting bc the girdles are very and extremely thin at places, which is likely how the chips happened in the first place. I would probably do the same in your shoes. They set the stones so the chips are covered or masked right beside prongs. They can likely do that for Maxine.

@Mreader has a large diamond with a girdle chip. Maybe she can chime in with her experience.

 

[Dreamer_D]

And here is a thread where a number of experienced old cut owners offere opinions about the damage to my diamonds. It may be helpful:

Thread 'Help me evaluate these OECs'

Feb 22, 2024

I need to activate the old cut crew to help me evaluate this suite of OECs I recently got on eBay. I bought them hoping to reset them for a ring to celebrate my 20th anniversary!

I bought this ring because it has three classic OECs, later style cuts with proportions very similar to modern rounds but with teensy tiny tables and of course the classic OEC faceting. They are each about 5mm and the seller estimated 1.44cttw.

The Good

The diamonds are beautifully cut and well matched in proportions and color in the KL range. Almost perfectly matched which is very hard to find...

• Dreamer_D
• Replies: 31
• Forum: Antique & Vintage Jewelry

• 
• 

 

[glitterata]

That is such a lovely diamond!

For what it's worth, I have a transitional cut diamond with a similarly proportioned chip that I've been wearing pretty often since 2009 without the chip getting worse. Mine is much smaller, maybe in the .6 ct range. It's in an antique setting that might be original to the diamond. If so, the setting wasn't enough to protect it from chipping in the first place. If not, the setting has done a good job of protecting it since then.





The chip:

Another consideration is that a chip can reflect to become a more central eye-visible characteristic. In the photo below, for example, you can sort of see the chip in the upper left, and you can also see it reflecting in the lower right--the reflection is what looks like an inclusion about 2/3 of the way along the X axis and about 1/3 of the way up the Y axis of the photo (if you know what I mean). See if you can spot your chip reflecting--and if you can, see if it bothers you.



Your chip is currently positioned properly to protect it--near a prong, but not actually under it. The chip will probably impact the clarity grade. It's such a pretty stone that I would probably take the risk and keep it, if it were mine. (Depending on my finances and what it cost.)

I hope this helps.

 

[Dreamer_D]

That is such a lovely diamond!

For what it's worth, I have a transitional cut diamond with a similarly proportioned chip that I've been wearing pretty often since 2009 without the chip getting worse. Mine is much smaller, maybe in the .6 ct range. It's in an antique setting that might be original to the diamond. If so, the setting wasn't enough to protect it from chipping in the first place. If not, the setting has done a good job of protecting it since then.





The chip:

Another consideration is that a chip can reflect to become a more central eye-visible characteristic. In the photo below, for example, you can sort of see the chip in the upper left, and you can also see it reflecting in the lower right--the reflection is what looks like an inclusion about 2/3 of the way along the X axis and about 1/3 of the way up the Y axis of the photo (if you know what I mean). See if you can spot your chip reflecting--and if you can, see if it bothers you.



Your chip is currently positioned properly to protect it--near a prong, but not actually under it. The chip will probably impact the clarity grade. It's such a pretty stone that I would probably take the risk and keep it, if it were mine. (Depending on my finances and what it cost.)

I hope this helps.

@glitterata the chip being located literally under one of the beads makes me wonder if it was damaged when it was being set! I suppose we will never know. It’s a stunning make!!

 

[LilAlex]

I don't know the whole, story (apart from this thread, I mean) but if you otherwise love it and if the chip is factored into the price, I wouldn't touch it. I see no reason to get a GIA report whether or not you are contemplating a re-cut. First door-ding and all. Especially for an older cut with some inherent asymmetry. It will never be 100% "mind-clean" and that's part of the joy -- it doesn't have to be. It's like antique furniture you can sit on and enjoy and not just put behind a velvet rope.

 

[oldminer]

You could have the chip repaired with a miniscule weight loss. You could leave it as it is and put the chip under a prong tip. Likely, the majority of the girdle is very thin and chips happen due to that.

However, a chipped diamond is not insurable. Once it is mentioned on a diamond grading report or an insurance report, most insurance companies will refuse to cover it. That's their policy whether it is totally sensible or not. You can't argue the point with them.

If I was a retailer, I'd fix the chip before ever selling it to a consumer. If I was a consumer, I might get the chip repaired or might just as easily take the chance that it might chip further. No one knows what will happen. Maybe nothing. You can't predict.

Don't go after recutting the entire stone. That is a waste of money if you like the look of an old diamond. Just get the chip "repaired". That's far less costly and won't make the diamond look much different than it does not, but it won't be weak at the repaired spot.

 

[Dreamer_D]

However, a chipped diamond is not insurable. Once it is mentioned on a diamond grading report or an insurance report, most insurance companies will refuse to cover it. That's their policy whether it is totally sensible or not. You can't argue the point with them.

This is very good to know! Thank you! I am going to call Jewelers Mutual about this and see whether they will lower the insurance premium for my ring that includes chipped diamonds, as it seems wrong to charge me insurance for something they wouldn’t cover in the event of a loss.

EDIT this is the section of the policy that likely excludes chipped diamonds. What is unclear to me is whether this exclusion only applies to damage to the stone or whether it applies to loss as well:



I am calling tomorrow to inquire as I need to add my new five stone to my policy and I will report back what they tell me (though obviously you should inquire about your own specific situation too). I am more interested in insurance in the event of a loss and I’m less concerned about whether the two specific diamonds in my ring with chips would not be covered if they crack or are damaged further.

 

[glitterata]

Don't go after recutting the entire stone. That is a waste of money if you like the look of an old diamond. Just get the chip "repaired". That's far less costly and won't make the diamond look much different than it does not, but it won't be weak at the repaired spot.

@oldminer, what does repairing a chip entail? Do they just polish that spot, or what? Is that how "extra facets" happen?

 

[bee24]

All three of my stones in my three stone ring have tiny chips, the main stone has a GIA certificate mentioning the chip but I was still able to insure all three with jewelers mutual!

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Beautiful diamond.

There was a past thread where someone had a chipped diamond and the chip looked big enough that I would have passed on the diamond. Much bigger than yours and if my memory serves me right diamond was an old cut and the chip extended to the pavilion.

The poster had it repaired and there was only like a 3 point loss in size. I was so happily surprised at the outcome.

It might be beneficial to have someone like Ashley at SW diamond cutters evaluate the diamond for repair.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would also trust DK to handle a polish like that. I thought about it for the stones in my five stone but it would likely have cost more than I paid for the stones!

However, this post from @LightBright always echos in my mind:

I have a few thoughts.



The diamonds are likely chipped from the original cutting process. I think they are quite old diamonds and cut with cruder tools (they are not perfectly symmetrical etc.) versus for example the more technical cutting of your profile picture diamond. After seeing many antique diamonds, I think chips and girdle weirdness is typical of these older diamonds. I do not think they pose a risk in setting. I do think they are not perfect and they were worn “not perfect”. Their performance and character should make up for the microscopic imperfections, if not return.

BTW, Mind clean might very well be an issue for you. For people with really exacting standards (I think you have exacting standards), you might want to reason with yourself to see if these diamonds will always bother you, or will they make you happy. Like I said, I tend to forgive diamonds if I know I got a great deal on the final product, eg you will get a three stone pinky ring with really old and pretty diamonds for X amount and it will be a happy addition to your collection. Would it fit in? If you won’t love it and embrace it for what it is, return.

 

[LightBright]

Everyone said it well here.

One observation on the girdle chip I think it’s either from setting or cutting. I don’t think wearing it normally presents a risk. I’ve seen this exact kind of surface pavilion chip.

Like Dreamer said it might knock the clarity grade down a little but I do not recommend repolishing. You will ruin the faceting and lose diameter and lose roundness and or carat weight.

Your diamond does not have a girdle that is knife edge (which would be fragile) and to me it doesn’t look like you need to choose a protective setting style. I’d hide the chip under a prong.

This diamond looks really pretty to me. I’d just wear it and not do anything special to it.

 

[EllieTO]

Thank you everyone! I appreciate the compliments on the stone too. I've gone back and forth a bit, but I think I'm appreciating her more and more, now that I'm not looking at her as if she was supposed to be an OEC. I've never paid much attention to transitionals, so I'm getting used to it.

A few responses to the points that were brought up...

@Dreamer_D - I know you chimed in in my other thread already, so thanks for elaborating. It makes me feel better seeing your stones that got SI2.

@glitterata - I've examined it thoroughly, and I don't see the chip reflecting, that would bother me.

@LilAlex - I do want to certify it, I'm dying to know the full specs. No reason other than curiosity. I just don't want an unpleasant surprise of an I1 or lower grade, so I want to be prepared. I would be ok with SI2. I'm willing to take the chance, so if it is an I1 I can live with it.

Mind clean is not a concern for me. I'm totally fine with imperfections in a vintage/antique stone. I only asked due to durability and the clarity grade (as that impacts whether I paid a fair price).

I agree with @LightBright about not repairing the chip. It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't want to risk damage to the stone or loss of shape or performance.

Thank you all! So I think Maxine is staying with me. I expect to report back with the cert when done.

 

[oldminer]

The policy of JM clearly means that while they will take your premium, they will do all they can to not pay for any damage or loss on a chipped stone. A chip provided "inherent vice" and is not covered by your policy. Verify it with them, of course. The devil in all things is the fine print.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Seems to me it would be difficult for them to claim a chip caused a loss (as the exclusions language indicates that the inherent vice must cause the damage you are claiming), especially loss of the entire ring, but I will indeed call them and report back what they say!

 

[JPie]

I assume the logic in the inherent vice clause is that if your diamond suffers further damage while being set, Jewelers Mutual may not cover that loss, but if the diamond were stolen in transit to be set, then that’s got nothing to do with a chip and would be covered.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I assume the logic in the inherent vice clause is that if your diamond suffers further damage while being set, Jewelers Mutual may not cover that loss, but if the diamond were stolen in transit to be set, then that’s got nothing to do with a chip and would be covered.

Yes, I called them and spoke to them before I bound the policy for my new five stone ring and that was exactly what they told me. They also told me they would cover damage to the diamonds that was not related to the chip. But I suspect that you would have to argue with them about that and in the end, it is possible they wouldn’t cover it. I haven’t had a chance yet, but I was planning to reach out and ask about how the chip influences a like kind and quality replacement. Would they still only be concerned about the GIA grades or would they also be insisting that the replacement have a chip too (lol), or more likely, would they decrease the value they we’re willing to pay out. I think the first optional based on my experience doing a replacement with them in the past and how they approached like kind and quality in that situation, but I am planning to ask directly. I also want to inquire about whether my premium is lower because of the limitations in coverage.