GIA Poor Cut on possible OEC?

[sapphiremomma]

Hi There!

I am contemplating getting a vintage ring that really speaks to me. I love everything about it, except that the center diamond didn't get graded as an OEC but a regular round brilliant. And it thus got a poor cut grade. Looking at the stone it looks like an OEC to me. The seller said he thought it would come back as some type of old cut but it only qualified in 2 out of the 4 criteria and missed the 3rd by just a little bit.

My question is, all things considered, would you let the cut grade deter you? Would it effect resale value later if I decide I sell it (definitely not planning on it but you never know). I almost just wish the stone wasn't graded at all so I wouldn't be doubting it. I am happy with the color, clarity, setting and price. Here are the measurements:

Depth
63.4 %
Table
43 %
Crown Angle
33.5°
Crown Height
19.0%
Pavilion Angle
41.0°
Pavilion Depth
42.5%
Star Length
35%
Lower Half
70%
Girdle
Extremely Thin to Thin, 2.5%
Culet
Medium

It has fair polish and symmetry.

Thank you for the advice!!

 

[soxfan]

We'd have to see pics.....

 

[sapphiremomma]

We'd have to see pics.....

Silly question, but am allowed to screenshot from an eBay seller’s listing?

 

[stonewell]

Agree with @soxfan... I’ve purchased OECs that just missed the OEC category. While I would prefer it to be categorized as such, it depends on how it looks. From the stats you listed, it looks like the lower crown angle and higher lower halves are what kept it from being classified as such.

 

[scarsmum]

I was told by a diamond cutter that OEC’s are very often graded as poor cut brilliants. And he wasn’t trying to sell me anything!

 

[sapphiremomma]

Agree with @soxfan... I’ve purchased OECs that just missed the OEC category. While I would prefer it to be categorized as such, it depends on how it looks. From the stats you listed, it looks like the lower crown angle and higher lower halves are what kept it from being classified as such.

Here are some pics of the diamond. Let me know your thoughts

 

[stonewell]

I can see why you’re interested in this piece - it’s a very pretty setting and the diamond has a wonderfully small table, which is an aspect of OECs I really love. However it looks more like a transitional to me, just with a small table. The table appears a bit too dark for my tastes, however, I am not certain if it’s because the camera was held too close.

The photos also look like they’re taken at a slight angle - I would verify this because if not, then the culet may be slightly off center. You may not notice it much at all since the culet is on the medium-small side.

I also see what looks like minor abrasions on the upper right corner of the star facets, but that can be a factor of age. Depending on when it was graded, that could be why it has fair polish. You just want to rule out any potential haziness or dullness if the stone is too abraided.

Have you asked the seller for additional photos in different lighting or if s/he has any videos available?

Ultimately, if the ring is one that you absolutely love, it’s at an unbeatable price, and has a good return policy, I say go for it. Old cuts are best judged in person, imho, and I have no qualms about ordering and returning if it isn’t all what I expect.

 

[the_mother_thing]

If I LOVED everything about it (ring & diamond) except what it was called by GIA, I would probably buy it (depending on a few other factors, of course, such as those mentioned above regarding return policy) to see it for myself. Then decide ...

 

[foxinsox]

If I LOVED everything about it (ring & diamond) except what it was called by GIA, I would probably buy it (depending on a few other factors, of course, such as those mentioned above regarding return policy) to see it for myself. Then decide ...

Same - I'm not too bothered by the GIA designation given the GIA has looked to standardise a cut that was often anything but standard at the time. If you are drawn to the faceting and you love the setting (and it comes with a solid return period), buy it! (and take many pictures to share with us)
Those photos do look a bit dark in the middle but that could be a photography thing rather than the stone's fault. Can the seller supply additional pictures in natural light or diffuse lighting?

 

[John P]

It's a shame there's not more latitude for diamonds produced when the world's indoor lighting was in transition from gas lamps through different stages of electric.

From the stats you listed, it looks like the lower crown angle and higher lower halves are what kept it from being classified as such.

Precisely. It doesn't fit their criteria for Old Euro, or the more recent Circular Brilliant designation.

The problem is that there were entirely different goals for a diamond like this one than there are for the modern 57-facet round brilliant. Excuse me, 57 or 58-facet (cough-mistake ) round brilliant.

The small table and relatively high crown of this one are absolutely typical of older cuts. They create room for dispersion to take place in the body of the diamond. The reason for its shallower crown angle and longer lower half facets may be attributable to the transitional period when electric lighting was proliferating in stores. Those lighting changes, along with the introduction of the rotary saw (which permitted two diamonds to be fashioned from a single good rough crystal) caused a gradual shift toward larger tables, shallower crowns, longer lower halves and the promotion of brilliancy along with fire, ultimately leading to the the term 'scintillation.'

It's quite likely that this diamond, and thousands like it, were fashioned before some of the terms in our modern lexicon even existed. Yet it has no choice but being held to some standard of human-taste observations it was never intended to serve.

Ok. I'll put the soapbox away.

Meanwhile, for fun, I played with the averaged/rounded numbers, because #diamondnerd.




Of course the software projections assume a perfect wire-frame which is (a) impossible and (b) never was the goal for this diamond, in any case.

With that said, if the angles chosen are consistent they're quite complimentary for good light return (versus loss seen in many older cuts) and the balance of contrast would seem to serve a variety of illumination scenarios. In short, from the basic numbers, I gather it has a unique and appealing character - somewhere between antique and modern - which I'd wager is precisely when it was fashioned.

 

[stonewell]

Preach it @John Pollard! Despite our human tendency to want to always categorize things, some things are fundamentally unique and special. Appreciate the insights you shared and the imaging too - helps tremendously in explaining what we’re seeing in the photos.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I am not an expert but I do love OEC's and transitional cut diamonds. The diamond you are considering is a transitional cut diamond and it is beautiful. Honestly the only reason I have GIA certs on my antique diamonds is to prove they are what they said they were when I purchased them. An antique diamond lover is going to be aware that transitional cut diamonds are not graded as ideal cut on a GIA report. But the clarity and measurements are important to an antique diamond lover. The cut grade not so much.

 

[ChristineRose]

This is why it used to be standard to send OEC to EGL. EGL would not assign a cut grade, but GIA will assign them a grade of poor or fair. Nobody was happy about it, but it was standard. Now that EGL has imploded, the standard is to get an accurate grading and a cut grade of poor.

Treat it as a fancy and ignore the grade.

 

[sapphiremomma]

Thank you so much @John Pollard! That was super helpful. My husband and I both enjoyed reading that info and makes us feel better about the diamond. Knowing it prob has good light return along with character makes me happy. I adore older cuts and love learning about them!

Also thank you to @LisaRN, @foxinsox, @ChristineRose, @scarsmum, @stonewell, and @the_mother_thing for your responses and advice.

@stonewell also mentioned that while not a deal breaker, I would need to be careful of the thin-extremely thin girdle. Anyone else have experiences with thin girdles? The setting isn’t bezeled so won’t provide a whole lot of protection. I’m not super rough with my jewelry but also don’t want to be constantly worrying about it either.

 

[BlingObsession]

@John Pollard - John I thought that old cut diamonds which didn't meet the "old European" cut criteria were graded as "circular brilliant" but not given a cut grade. Is my info incorrect?

Thank you, as always, for sharing your wisdom with us...

 

[sapphiremomma]

@John Pollard - John I thought that old cut diamonds which didn't meet the "old European" cut criteria were graded as "circular brilliant" but not given a cut grade. Is my info incorrect?

Thank you, as always, for sharing your wisdom with us...

I was curious about this too. Looks like to be classified as a circular brilliant, the lower half length has to be less than 60 percent. This dismond’s is 70 percent. It meets the other criteria except for this one. Is that right @John Pollard? I guess this diamond is in no man’s land as far as grading goes? We can call it a unique transitional

 

[John P]

@John Pollard - John I thought that old cut diamonds which didn't meet the "old European" cut criteria were graded as "circular brilliant" but not given a cut grade. Is my info incorrect?

You're correct. But where CB allows more liberal crown configurations, reflecting sawing changes circa 1900, the pavilion criteria doesn't change much from OEC. The diamond in this thread lands in the space between CB and modern RB, so it's pushed to the RB designation.

Thank you, as always, for sharing your wisdom with us...

Thank you for thanking. I love the discussion.

 

[John P]

@sapphiremomma , correct. The lower half facets squeeze those mains into being a bit too narrow for GIA CB designation.

I guess this diamond is in no man’s land as far as grading goes? We can call it a unique transitional

I like it. Reminds me of the old joke (adapted).

Q: how do you catch a unique transitional?
A: u-nique up on it.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

@stonewell also mentioned that while not a deal breaker, I would need to be careful of the thin-extremely thin girdle. Anyone else have experiences with thin girdles? The setting isn’t bezeled so won’t provide a whole lot of protection. I’m not super rough with my jewelry but also don’t want to be constantly worrying about it either.[/QUOTE]

I had the same concern while searching for my OEC. After going through countless posts regarding OECs on this forum it seems that many people do not find this to be too concerning. For me it was though and I had Alex Park recommend OECs that did not have extremely thin girdles. I chose one that GIA graded medium to slightly thick. Since I also wanted a lower colored diamond but wanted it to face up as white as possible for it's color grade I chose one with a frosted girdle. I know it is probably negligible but I had gotten some advice that in OECs frosted girdles hide the low color a bit better than faceted girdles. Articles I have read either agree with or dispute that advice.

Anyways good luck with your search.

 

[sapphiremomma]

Update - I bought it!!! Thanks for all of the advice. Can’t wait to see it in person

 

[foxinsox]

Update - I bought it!!! Thanks for all of the advice. Can’t wait to see it in person

yay!! Hope it’s gorgeous and you’ll share many pictures with us

 

[sapphiremomma]

It’s here! And it’s gorgeous!!! The stone is truly like a disco ball. The facetting is super pretty to me. It’s my first K colored diamond and I love the tiny bit of warmth - it seems to throw off a bunch of colors. Lots of fire and so different than my modern round brilliant e ring. So far I love it in all lights! Indoor, outdoor in the sun and shade. Take that GIA poor cut grade! The setting is also super pretty / more dainty than I imagined which I love.

Here are the stats per GIA:
Center stone K color, VS2 clarity, 1.15 ct. it’s 6.72 x 6.81 x 4.28. Fair polish and symmetry. Poor cut (blah blah).

Setting is in platinum with about .16ct in small accent diamonds.

My pics do not do it justice at all. Thanks again @stonewell, @John Pollard, @soxfan, @LisaRN, @foxinsox, and everyone else. Still want to get it appraised but so far I’m thrilled with my transitional diamond ring!

 

[Octo2005]

Beautiful!

 

[OcnGypZ]

Gorgeous! GIA hates all my OEC and transitional stones as well!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Lovely

 

[YadaYadaYada]

It's beautiful! Wear it in good health!

 

[ohsomethingshiny]

Oh, the hand shots are glorious!!!

 

[HDer]

Great find! I wonder if looking for GIA Fair/Poor is a good way to prospect for older cut stones in general.

 

[MarionC]

Beautiful! What a find. Enjoy.

 

[Luce]

Wow, this looks beautiful on you!!!! Congratulations on your find!!