Faceting an Old Mine Cut to reduce fish eye?

[pkanawha]

This is my first post, though I've been using this great site for many months. Now for my issue. I was lucky enough to purchase a 4.35 ct. OMC diamond from a friend. I had it appraised by a well qualified gemologist who appraised it as M color, VS1 clarity, as his best approximation of how GIA would grade it. I had it set in an Edwardian style men's ring and it's just beautiful. Here's the problem. In some light it's absolutely gorgeous! In other light, however, it has a very apparent fish eye that makes it look a murky off-yellow. I've been wondering if I should consider having the currently bruted and rather thin girdle faceted. I read that a faceted girdle often reduces fisheye. Also there's a pretty good chip on one part of it that I could maybe get cut out in the process, thus improving its grade. (Actually, he noted that it WOULD be VS1 if the chip were polished off.) Now my questions:

1. Would faceting the girdle be likely to remove/reduce the fish eye?
2. Would the value added by reducing the fisheye and increasing the beauty be offset by loss in value because it might no longer appear to be an authentic antique? (Not that I'm planning to sell it...)
3. How expensive would this be? Who does this type of work? What are the risks? Could I still keep it over 4.0 cts.?

I'll try to post pictures if I can figure out how. Thanks!!!

pkanawha

 

[stci]

I would like to see a picture of this diamond.

IMO, I think you need a complete recut. I don't remember if it's Good Old Gold or Whiteflash who can do it. Perhaps Brian Gavin too. They recut it like an antique stone and from what I saw, the others who did it are really happy with the result.

You have to accept to lose carat weight but over 4 ct it's not a problem!

 

[rubyprincess]

I know very, very little about this area but I remember another poster who had an antique stone recut with wonderful success at Single Stone. Google Single Stone and it will pop right up. Antique is their area of expertise. I believe BGD does recut but not sure if he does the old cuts.

 

[pkanawha]

If I did this correctly, there should be a couple of photos of my ring, the OMC I just described.

 

[stci]

If I did this correctly, there should be a couple of photos of my ring, the OMC I just described.

OMG! Absolutely incredible! What a beauty! Please please if you recut it, do it with antique cut not modern!

I'm pretty sure rubyprincess is right and it's single stone who recut the one I see.

Lucky you pkanawha! Here we have a real treasure!

 

[pkanawha]

Thanks for the kind words! Now I'll attempt to post a couple more photos: the first one shows the fisheye, the second is more flattering. Guess which light I like better?!

 

[Ninama]

Aye carumba... mi corazon... what a beauty!

Definitely do run it by Single Stone... I was very pleased with the work they did on my heirloom OEC ring (although no recutting was involved).

 

[Unicorn64]

WOW What a beauty! I think (I may be incorrect) that you're referreing to the open culet? I would definitely have the chip polished out of it, but I don't think you'll be able to get rid of the fish eye completely. Don't know if you looked up Single Stone yet, but that's who I would go to for a recut of an antique stone. Here's a link:

http://www.singlestone.com

 

[iota15]

You'll have to send your stone to SS or Brian (BGD) to see how much weight you'd lose, and what effect a recut will have. Part of the fish eye effect is from a shallow pavillion - not much you can do about that unless you want to make your stone look much smaller.

However, perhaps polishing the girdle will help. Maybe even minimizing the table, even though it looks small already, will help. The recutter though is in the best position to tell you what to do.

Good luck, and we'd love to see more pictures of that stone - fish eye or not, although fish eyes pics will certainly be educational for others. Either way, welcome to PS, and your stone looks super yummy!

 

[Ara Ann]

I think you are referring to the culet, rather than a fish eye, IMO, I don't see a 'fish eye' in your (gorgeous) diamond, it looks like a decent depth to me. The faceting in the center is part of the look of an antique diamond, it's not a flaw that needs to be corrected, again, IMO. I'd have the chip polished out if that bothers you, but try to get used to the look of the cut, it is a true one of a kind diamond 'as is' and once it's recut, it will look like any other modern diamond...would be a shame to lose it's unique and beautiful qualities.

Thanks for sharing, it is really stunning!

 

[pkanawha]

Thanks, everyone, for your great information. Also for your flattering comments! I like the suggestion of adding some information for the education of others. I'm afraid that I'm no expert, but I can add a little bit that some might find helpful.
By "fisheye", I'm referring to the cloudy, hazy center that sometimes occurs in the center of a diamond when looking down through the top facet, or table. This is typically a sign that the diamond is too shallow from top to bottom, relative to its width. Often, a diamond has poor proportions because the cutter wanted to keep the diamond as large as possible without cutting anything away. If a diamond is too deep, too shallow, not symmetrical, etc. it will not be as attractive as it would otherwise be. However, since the average consumer doesn't really look at diamonds that frequently, and because the various angles, proportions, ratios, etc. of a diamond's cut get pretty complex... while everybody knows that 2.01 carats is bigger than 1.95 carats... a lot of diamonds (maybe the majority) wind up being less than ideally cut in an effort to maximize size.
Now, when we're talking about antique cuts, like this OMC (Old Mine Cut) we're adding another level of complexity. Yes, the fisheye would probably be reduced and the brightness increased by recutting it. But do we really want to do that to an antique diamond? Have you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow where a guy proudly shows off the Chippendale chest he got at a garage sale for $40? He is thrilled to learn that it's worth $30,000... until he learns that it would have been worth $120,000 if he hadn't refinished it!! This is a similar issue.
Old Mine Cut diamonds (like this one) were cut in a manner similar to that of the diamond cut that everyone knows best today, the round brilliant cut. Over the centuries, diamond cutters had come up with the OMC shape of cut on the basis of the shape of the average diamond crystal. They also had learned from trial and error that this cut would result in a beautiful diamond, though some wound up more or less brilliant than others. Not until the turn of the 20th century did a diamond cutter by the name of Marcel Tolkowsky come up with a scientific explanation for the various proportions and angles of a diamond's cut, what's commonly called the modern round brilliant cut. There are variations on this cut and also some debate about some of the details, but in general it's the basis of most diamond cutting today.
The diamond we're discussing here is an OMC, probably cut in the mid to late 1800's. It was cut, probably by an expert diamond cutter, but on the basis of the diamond crystal’s shape, on what would earn the most money, and also based on the cutter's own taste and biases - not on the basis of any strict scientific theory. Consequently, its cut is rather shallow relative to the "ideal" cut, thus resulting in the fisheye. Even so, it's still a beautiful diamond and in most lights the fisheye doesn't even show. And it has a unique value as an antique that can't be replaced by any new diamond regardless of its quality. Remember the Chippendale chest I described on the Antiques Roadshow? You could make an identical chest today out of perfect wood - but it wouldn't be worth a fraction of what the beat up but authentic antique would be worth. So the fact that this diamond is an authentic antique (they're cutting a lot of replica OMC's today!) is a large part of what's fueling this debate.
Okay. I hope this monologue didn't get too long! I may very well send this off to be checked by one of these experts for an evaluation. (Thanks again for the references!!!) But if I do anything at all, it would be only a very minimal cutting, namely polishing or faceting the girdle (the outer, rough looking round perimeter of the diamond) and perhaps removing the larger chips on the girdle. I want to keep the OMC cut because I'm a lover of antiques in general, and of this antique diamond in its antique setting in particular. If I can reduce the fisheye effect that sometimes shows while maintaining the authenticity of it as an antique diamond, I may do this. But if these experts tell me that I would be as much as refinishing an antique Chippendale chest from 1779, I’ll just leave it alone and enjoy it as it is.
By the way, I didn’t say anything about how I obtained this diamond, nor about the setting. A friend of mine who is no relation but who happens to share my last name asked me if I’d help him sell a diamond that had been his mother’s. We went to an independent appraiser who calculated that its fair market value would be from $16,000 - $25,000. (This was 2 years ago.) My friend, Gary, told me he’d be happy to sell it for $16,000 BUT that he was afraid that his siblings would want the diamond to be kept in the family. I pointed out that since we share last names, we must be related somehow, even if rather distantly. He laughed and we made the dea; I bought it from him for $16,000. Now I call him “Cousin Gary” and he calls me “Cousin Mike”!
The story behind the setting is equally interesting. I looked and looked through catalogs & couldn’t find anything I liked, even though I would have willingly paid up to $2,000 for a suitable setting. I went to pawn shops and asked about their antique settings, but they told me that they don’t stock these. Rather they just send them to be scrapped for their melt value. Finally I remembered a box of old, broken jewelry that I’d collected from thrift stores over the years for its scrap value. And among it I found this setting, complete with the badly damaged red stone (glass!) that had made the ring look hideous as a whole. I realized that while the damaged red glass made it look garish and cheap, that a more understated stone like a diamond might look just right. And it would also be perfectly appropriate for this diamond since it would have come from about the same period of time. My “cousin”, Gary’s jeweler (now my jeweler!) did a beautiful job setting this stone. And I’ve been thrilled with it ever since.
I’m attaching some photos that I hope you’ll all find entertaining and perhaps informative. Thanks again, everyone, for all the great information!

Mike

 

[pkanawha]

Sorry that the photos above aren't labeled as I'd hoped. Here's an explanation:

1) Details from the appraisal. Note especially the shallow depth, relative to width. Also comments re: chips on girdle and how it affects appraisal. Because it is a rather clear stone it would be an SI1 without the chips, but probably an I1 with the chips. My insurance company refused to insure the ring because they didn't know how to interpret this comment.
2) My OMC ring on my hand. I know you all love to see the rings as worn!!
3) Note "fisheye" appearance. The fisheye is a reflection of the girdle. Because of its shallow depth, the girdle is reflected through the top of the diamond under certain circumstances. At other times it's completely invisible! Also "open" culet (the latter referring to the rather large facet on the bottom of the stone.) Note that open (large) culets are common on antique cuts. Culets are typically small or nonexistent on modern brilliant cuts.
4) Culet, reflected several times in stone. Actually, I think it's rather pretty, at least in the context of an antique diamond!
5) Note chips on the right front girdle of the stone. A note to those of us who are still learning: though diamonds are the hardest object known, they can be chipped. Chips, in fact, can be a sign that an antique cut stone is in fact an antique. In this case, I know that it is because of how I obtained it. But maybe I should leave these alone just to prove its authenticity! By the way, the stone does not have this greenish color to it. I took the photo on my back porch and somehow it picked up the color of my lawn!
6) A flattering photo.
7) Another flattering photo.

Hope you enjoy these photos and that they help to illustrate some points!

Mike

 

[nikkikeith]

good lord that is a gorgeous stone,, and 4 cts for 16k?? u did awesome...

id recommend sending it to SS to see what they think, im sure theyll have lots of info about whether or not to have the chips buffed out and the loss to get rid of the fish eye for you...all the best!

 

[iota15]

Wow, Mike! Thanks for the detailed analysis and commentary. That was really informative. I hope you stay around PS. We could use more people with your type of knowledge.

The reflection of the culet is called a kozibe effect, and lots of us old stone lovers like it too.

I also believe your setting is called a buttercup setting. It looks fantastic with that stone (and yes, we love hand pics). Good thing you hadn't scrapped it yet! What a close call. It looks like it was made for your stone.

Let us know how the cutter assesses your stone and what you plan to do with it. As always, we can always use more pics. It'd be great to see a before and after, if you decide to cut/polish it. Plus, I'd like to see a picture directly from the stone's profile - to see how shallowness of it compares to it's spread, and it's girdle head on.

 

[pkanawha]

Okay, I sent an email to Single Stone and quickly got a reply from Heather McCrillis. She confirmed what an earlier blogger had posted, that I would not eliminate the fisheye by polishing nor by faceting the bezel. Rather, I'd have to have the diamond completely recut, resulting in loss of the antique OMC style, also in considerable loss of size. I already knew that I wanted to preserve the antique style and most of the size, and so I've decided to keep the stone as it is. If I wanted a modern brilliant cut diamond, I'd buy a new diamond. Anyway, the more I've looked at other OMC diamonds over these last several days, the more I realize that this is really a pretty good stone and that its "flaws" are in large part just the nature of these antique cuts. And you know what? The more I look at this, the more beautiful it is to me!
I'd like to point out that I was very impressed with SingleStone.com and that I'll add my voice to the many who recommend them. She was very thorough and obviously knowledgeable in her answer. What's more, I was impressed by their honesty & integrity. Many jewelers would no doubt recommend that I make the changes and would pocket something in excess of $1000 in the process, even if it would do little to improve my stone. Heather & her team passed on this opportunity and told me the truth instead: that if I want to maintain the size & style of my cut that I should just enjoy my ring as it is. Hats off to SingleStone! Of course you can imagine that I'll be calling them in the future for any such needs and that I'll be checking their site for antique goodies as well!
Now for a couple of additional photos of this ring & stone. Here's a profile of the stone to show its vertical profile. Note that the tip (culet end) of the stone extends just a bit into the ring itself. I remember that I was a bit concerned about this when I first got the ring back from the jeweler who set it. But perhaps because of the large culet, I've never felt it; it's not uncomfortable in any way:



And another shot of the ring:



Thanks again, everyone, for your great information and welcoming attitude! I'm learning a lot from all of you and of course am salivating at many of the photos you post. I'll soon be uploading some photos of a couple of other diamond rings I have, one that is an OEC (Old European Cut) in an antique ring, another is a modern Asscher cut in a modern ring, and another modern brilliant cut in what I believe would be called a Belcher style ring. I'm looking forward to reading more of the many great blogs on this site!

Mike

 

[Ara Ann]

Oh, SO happy to hear you are going to keep that amazing diamond as it is! It would be a shame to lose such a gorgeous antique to recutting!


And something I thought about, you mentioned the diamond sits low in the setting, I bet that is enhancing the 'fish eye' look as well, it could be a reflection of the metal from the ring that is distorting the diamond from some angles? Something to consider!

 

[kenny]

Mike, what an exciting thread.
You are so fortunate to come upon this cool old diamond and I love the story of the ring too.

One caution... since the culet extends into the "hole" of the ring NEVER NEVER NEVER let any jeweler slide this ring onto one of those metal ring sizing rods.
It may chip the culet.

 

[kelpie]

I had the EXACT concern with my european cut stone. Single stone faceted the girdle, repaired the chips and did some minor recutting keeping the original facet pattern. The results are 1000% better. I think it might be worth sending it to them to evaluate in person because at first they said to improve the cut we would be talking about a significant loss in weight so I decided to just facet the girdle an have them repair a chip. Once that was complete Ari called to say that fixed the haze and if I'm willing to push it closer to 2 cts he can significantly improve light performance and whiteness. The results are amazing and the depth of my final stone is 53% just like yours. I think just faceting the girdle may improve it and you won't be changing the antique character of the stone.

Thread here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/single-stone-re-polish-results.142112/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/single-stone-re-polish-results.142112/[/URL]

 

[pkanawha]

Thanks, Kenny for telling me not to put this ring on a sizing rod. I would have known that if I had thought about, but I just hadn't thought about it!
Kelpie, you've got me thinking again about the possibility of having some minor recutting done on this. If I were to do so, I'd want to maintain the OMC cut. Just polish the girdle, cut out the chips. Maybe some MINOR change of symetry to brighten it a bit... It would have to stay OMC and stay over 4 carats.
Another question: When you had your beautiful OEC diamond recut by SingleStone, I guess you had the (bearded) girdle recut?! Did they keep the girdle bruted, facet it, or make it a polished round girdle?

By the way, antique diamond lovers... I just started a blog on an OEC diamond men's ring I have. I believe you could find it by searching for OEC/Old European Cut/Men's Ring on the antique forum.

 

[jewelerman]

mike,
could you post a picture of the inside of your ring.The style of hallmark stamp may be able to tell us more about the era that the ring was made.I'm glad you have decided against the re-cut.In this situation i think the stone is better as is.

 

[pkanawha]

Here's a photo of the only mark that's inside it, "10K". I don't suppose that tells us very much.



Not bad for $8 at a thrift store, though, huh?! I don't think I could have found a setting I would have liked better, even if I had had one custom made.
By the way, I hope you noticed the little bug in the lower left corner. I happened to be outside and placed the ring on a white piece of paper to take a photo of it. Along came this tiny insect & I captured a photo of the little guy, as if looking at the ring. I have another version of this picture where a cartoon style balloon is coming from his mouth and he says, "Wow! Now that's what I call a big freakin' rock!"

 

[kelpie]

Kelpie, you've got me thinking again about the possibility of having some minor recutting done on this. If I were to do so, I'd want to maintain the OMC cut. Just polish the girdle, cut out the chips. Maybe some MINOR change of symetry to brighten it a bit... It would have to stay OMC and stay over 4 carats.
Another question: When you had your beautiful OEC diamond recut by SingleStone, I guess you had the (bearded) girdle recut?! Did they keep the girdle bruted, facet it, or make it a polished round girdle?

They faceted the girdle. There is still some bearding visible under a microscope despite the faceting because the bruting process made hairline stress fractures. There a picture in this thread (after faceting). I think it looks pretty neat.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/oec-finally-set-i-have-been-holding-out.147098/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/oec-finally-set-i-have-been-holding-out.147098/page-3[/URL]

Ah...My train of thought was interupted when I went looking for my thread and saw you had seen it already, replied and had more questions (and thanks for the compliments regarding my ring). So to answer those


1. Where's the photo of the "before" diamond? I'd love to see the before/after since you've given me some great advice on my OMC diamond re: possibly having a (minor) recut... One that would maintain the OMC nature and keep most of its size while reducing the haziness that comes from the reflection of the girdle. (You may recall that my stone's depth is about like this one at 53%.)

My before diamond picture is the first one in the link.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/single-stone-re-polish-results.142112/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/single-stone-re-polish-results.142112/[/URL]

I only lost 17 points and the visual performance has dramatically improved while the facet pattern I loved remained intact.

2. Did the jeweler or did you take the photos of the curls, also of the bearded girdle? Those are great photos! Wish I knew how to get those kind of pics!!
My appraiser took them with a microscope. I wish I had those skills/tools!

 

[pkanawha]

Thanks, Kelpie. I may contact them again, asking if I could send it in for them to look at it personally. Or maybe I'll just learn to live with the fact that it's beautiful in its own way just as it is. It's pretty nice by any measure, I suppose & I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to get it!

 

[pkanawha]

I've taken the plunge! I sent my ring to SingleStone so they could look at whether recutting (mostly faceting the bruted girdle) might be appropriate. I spoke with Heather, later with Ari about the stone and about my ideas. Ari told me that a minor recut that would maintain the OMC appearance, also most of the size of the diamond, reducing it by probably only 7 - 10 points would NOT get rid of the "fish-eye". But actually, the fish-eye, per se, really isn't bad in my opinion. And I believe I remember Ari agreeing that the fish eye itself wasn’t very bad, despite the diamond’s shallow depth. At the same time, it might help to reduce the cloudy appearance that sometimes appears under the table of the diamond... and that’s been bugging the you-know-what out of me. I sent close-up photos of the stone, circling the reflections of the girdle and of the chips to show Ari what I was concerned about, and showing that in fact this cloudiness seems to come from reflections and reflections of reflections of the bruted (rough) girdle & the chips. Ari pointed out that there was additionally some bearding on the girdle, though I hadn't spotted that before. Anyway, he estimated that with a faceted girdle I might gain a 10 - 20% improvement in the appearance. It's hard for me to visualize just what this means, but apparently it could only improve its appearance. Ari warned me that the diamond could possibly go 2 or 3 grades down in color after the recut. This seems counterintuitive to me (I would have thought it would make it appear whiter), but it's okay. After all, it is an OMC diamond - and OMC's typically go pretty far down the alphabet. (Its appraisal currently has it graded as an M.) Anyway, I'd rather have a slightly more golden colored diamond that looks bright and clear than a whiter one that looks murky & cloudy. It really is a clean diamond and I want it to look like one. After some thought, I decided it was worth the expense and also the admittedly remote but real possibility that the diamond might shatter during recutting. So they will soon recut the diamond and remount it in the ring for me. While the stone is out of the ring, I'll have them send it to GIA so I can get a GIA appraisal, also to get a laser inscription of a serial number on the girdle. It will take the greater part of a month before the diamond has been recut, sent to and from GIA, the stone has been set back in the ring, and the ring returned to me. I promise I'll post some photos and tell you all how it worked out when it's done. Wish me luck!!

pkanawha

 

[pkanawha]

A couple of months ago I started this thread. I asked for advice on whether I should have the stone recut because of a yellow, hazy appearance that often appeared under the table. After I got a lot of good information and opinions from you ladies and gents on PriceScope, also a great reference (SingleStone in Los Angeles) I decided to take the plunge: I sent my men’s diamond ring off to SingleStone to evaluate whether they thought it could be improved by a minor recutting. I got the ring back today and I’m happy to report that the recut made a dramatic improvement in its appearance. It looks better in all lights, but especially when viewing the ring from a slight angle and the direct sun is coming from the side. Where I used to see an awful, hazy, yellowish “fish-eye” under the table, I now see numerous golden glints that sparkle and perfectly match the gold setting. Instead of making the diamond look dull, they make it look bright and lively. By the way, under most light (especially indirect light) the stone continues to look clean, white and beautiful, though even more so now. There was only the slightest loss of material: the diamond was reduced from 4.35 to 4.28 carats in size. The OMC shape was maintained but the bruted girdle and a couple of nasty chips on the girdle were polished off. It made all the difference in the world and I’m just thrilled with the results!

The staff at SingleStone were a real treat to work with. We emailed back and forth and I spoke on the phone a number of times with Heather & with Ari. They were rather conservative in their promises, never promising me that there would be any significant improvement by recutting the stone. In fact I had initially decided against having the stone recut since it seemed likely that it wouldn’t help very much. But after I took another good look at my stone one day with my trusty 10x loupe I became convinced that the poor performance of the stone was in fact caused by the reflections of the bruted girdle and of the chips on the girdle. (It’s a rather shallow stone at 54% depth, and therefore the girdle tends to reflect through the top of the diamond, its table.) I spoke with them again and we decided to send it to SingleStone so that they could see it in person before we made any decisions. Ultimately Ari assured me that while it might make only a minimal improvement in the stone, that it might improve it a fair amount and that it certainly wouldn’t hurt it any. So with that I decided to take the plunge. And boy, am I glad I did! It was gorgeous before, but now it’s even gorgeouser!!!

I should add that SingleStone thought of every detail. They created new, longer prongs to set the stone a bit higher since the culet used to protrude down into the ring just a little. The new prongs are also sturdier than the old ones to ensure I never lose my stone. They look great and look right on the antique (1890's) setting, as if they'd always been there. They sent the diamond to GIA for me to get an appraisal, also to have a serial number laser inscribed on the girdle facets while the stone was out of its mounting. They even thought to ask me whether I would prefer to have the ring setting buffed to a bright new finish when they were done, or to only minimally clean it in order to maintain the antique appearance. I chose the latter in order to keep the beautiful old rose gold patina. And after returning the ring to me, they phoned & emailed to follow up that the ring had arrived and that I was pleased with the results. Of course the answer was a resounding, YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay. Enough gab. Here are some photos:


http://www.pricescope.com/files/images/4.28 carat OMC Men's Ring.JPG[/img]

The first photo shows the fisheye at its current worst. Notice the improvement over earlier photos. The 2nd photo is that popular old hand shot. The last photo is of the ring on a piece of white paper, with indirect sunlight for illumination. I'm afraid, by the way, that these photos don't do it justice.

Thanks for all your help in makin my decision and for your referral to SingleStone. Sure worked out well for me. Thanks!!!

 

[rubyprincess]

Wow what a terrific ending! Your ring is a showstopper.

Curious - did the color grade change as a result of the recut or did it maintain the original M as per your appraisal?

 

[pkanawha]

That's an interesting question, Ruby. While it had been appraised as an M, GIA graded it as an O/P. (I didn't know they split letters like that.) Even so, it's visibly whiter to me, as SingleStone reported to me after the stone had been returned to the cutter. I attribute this simply to the fact that my friendly neighborhood appraiser had looser standards than does GIA. And I don't criticize him for this since GIA is more stringent than say EGL, etc. Also, of course, a diamond of this size and a non RMB cut would be hard to grade since he's comparing to a RMB set of comparison master stones. By the way, the clarity grade remained the same: VS1.

Here are some photos that show the earlier "before" girdle & chip reflections pretty dramatically:







A note about the photos: The top one is a typical example of the previous appearance under the girdle. Note the chips at the top of the diamond's girdle. The 2nd & 3rd photos show a sharp image of the reflections of the girdle & of the chips. These were hard photos to get; usually the reflections were much hazier and yellower.... hard to pin down. It was these images that made me realize that in fact the hazy appearance I hated was in fact reflections of the bruted girdle and of the chips. I speculated that by faceting the girdle and removing the chips that the diamond would be greatly improved. I was right!