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
