Got Early-Modern Round Brilliant?

[backwardsandinheels]

Hello,

Dreamer D pegged my stone as an Early Modern Round Brilliant. Surfing around, I found a pic of one that could be a cousin of my stone.
Anybody else have any of these to post? I'm interested to learn more and see more (tried my best under a tree in diffuse sunlight).

0

 

[chrono]

Looks like my transitional stone.

 

[jerichosmom]

It's similar to mine. Dreamer pegged mine an American Cut but I think that they're are similar if not the same. I bought the book "American Cut" by Al Gilbertson and he discusses the cut in length. I have to be honest, I've been looking and looking for the differences between an early OEC and a late OEC (which the American cut morphs from) and I'm still stumped. I can spot a "Transitional (with a larger table)" but that term is very broad and also encompasses all the different styles from an OEC to a MRB. What I can figure out based on pics from other OECs here is that the EMRB and the American cuts show have more girdle facets reflecting back up to the pavillion facets. That gives it more of a fractured look which I'm not hugely fond of. I'm still coveting a pretty snowflake or flower look with the big facets along the pav. What I see when I look at my stone is a lot more silvery white reflections like a MRB. I'll try and take a pic later.

If you search for American Cut here Al has commented on several stones and provided %s for reference. Do you know your stone's stats?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Hello,

Dreamer D pegged my stone as an Early Modern Round Brilliant. Surfing around, I found a pic of one that could be a cousin of my stone.
Anybody else have any of these to post? I'm interested to learn more and see more (tried my best under a tree in diffuse sunlight).

0

You have seen your stone in person and I have only seen photos, but based on just those two images, your diamond's faceting does not remind me much of the faceting in that first pic you posted I would call that first stone a later European Cut or maybe early ideal cut or American Cut. Chrono's stone seems to be similar as well to that first diamond, with medium sized table and shorter lower halves -- creates the flower or pie under the table.

Based only on the photos you have posted, of course, your diamond appears to have longer lower halves -- I think you had a Sarin on the GIA repoort too, showing long lower halves in the 70s and a table in the 57% range. Those characteristics are more similar to modern round brilliants than are diamonds like that first one you posted, which appears to have a 50% table and lower halves in the 60s. These are small differences, but the end result is bolder versus more splintery faceting. Of course, labels do not matter, but if I guessed your diamond is from the post war era and the first diamond and Chronos might be from the 20s or 30s. Just a guess, you can't really narrow down based on cut so easily.

Based only on the pics you have posted and the GIA report, diamonds like these seem more akin to yours, and more what I would call "early modern round brilliants" ETA: Labels are not really important, but even names aside, I think your facetting looks more like the stones linked below than the stone you linked or Chronos stone, based on table and lower halves and likely crown heights, too.

http://www.langantiques.com/products/item/10-1-3991
Image attached below: http://jewelsbyericagrace.smugmug.com/Jewelry/Loose-Diamonds/260ct-Early-Modern-Brilliant/23819328_MKkDnZ#!i=1936989846&k=nKHDJ5M

 

[Dreamer_D]

It's similar to mine. Dreamer pegged mine an American Cut but I think that they're are similar if not the same. I bought the book "American Cut" by Al Gilbertson and he discusses the cut in length. I have to be honest, I've been looking and looking for the differences between an early OEC and a late OEC (which the American cut morphs from) and I'm still stumped. I can spot a "Transitional (with a larger table)" but that term is very broad and also encompasses all the different styles from an OEC to a MRB. What I can figure out based on pics from other OECs here is that the EMRB and the American cuts show have more girdle facets reflecting back up to the pavillion facets. That gives it more of a fractured look which I'm not hugely fond of. I'm still coveting a pretty snowflake or flower look with the big facets along the pav. What I see when I look at my stone is a lot more silvery white reflections like a MRB. I'll try and take a pic later.

If you search for American Cut here Al has commented on several stones and provided %s for reference. Do you know your stone's stats?

The primary differences between an American Cut and an EMRB are the lower halves, the table, and the crown height, being shorter, smaller, and taller in the former than the latter. An American Cut will look chunkier than an EMRB because of those features, but not as chunky as a European Cut or Old European Cut.

 

[ariel144]

You might find this thread helpful:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-this-an-oec-or-transitional.146478/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-this-an-oec-or-transitional.146478/[/URL]

 

[armywife13]

I don't have any knowledge or pictures to contribute, as I have an early OEC that is borderline OMC, but I just wanted to say these are some gorgeous diamonds!

 

[backwardsandinheels]

This is really one of my best pics for showing the kite and bezel facets on the crown. I love that the kite facets are more *there* than a splintery narrow sparkle, and it's what drew me to it. It stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the other rounds I saw of similar size with its chunkiness and culet. It is more snowflake than checkerboard, though I do love both looks. Thanks again Chrono, I love your stone. It does look similar. Yours looks super symmetrical and....beautiful It is so very rainbow colored in that dimmer light hand shot.

I've been reading those threads over the weekend Jerichosmom and that's why I posted. Looking forward to your stone's pics.
And Dreamer too...I know that this stone is round brilliant and not OEC, not Transitional, what the heck is it? when it's sparkle pattern looks like this. I saw JBEG's Sookie stone too and thought maybe....glad to see you thought so too I don't watch that vampire show but in the spirit of things Halloween, I just might. It is not as splintery as the Lang's one. I think the crown on that one is smaller and mine is flatter. I guess my question is: with this facet pattern and GIA plot, why is it so chunky? Is it possible the lower girdle facets come down more 2/3 and not all the way? Also, could it be that this is one of the ones I read about that was cut according to the European penchant for it to face up larger? Either way it looks great IRL

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Dreamer, just read your latest, that makes sense. Thank you!

 

[TC1987]

It looks like a European cut, to me. if you look at a similar-looking one at Lang's it's called "European cut."
Inventory No. 10-1-4901 1.87ct KVS1 7.87 x 7.97 x 4.75 mm European cut, in a ring.

I don't think that I'm allowed to link to there, am I? Lang's has a lot of stones called "European" not OEC. I looked at the wrong pic in this thread when I tried to match it up, but you can page through the Lang's rings and see maybe a closer match to your faceting, OP.

 

[chrono]

That's very pretty. Here's what I don't understand though, that Lang's stone looks like my transitional stone to my inexperienced eye. What makes it an OEC versus transitional? I've seen some where it clearly looks like an OEC but some where it looks like a tranny, yet is advertised as an OEC. Is it just for the ease of recognition that the term OEC is used because few people know what a transitional diamond is?

I call mine an OEC even though the lab memo described it as a transitional.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

The threads referenced above are great at explaining OEC vs. Transitional and what makes them so. I think my stone is considered "transitional" in the sense it probably came out of that late Old European/Transitional cutting time frame incorporating different cutting ideas and trends, but is neither of those exclusively. It's a hybrid, I just have not seen as many examples and would like to see what else is out there. I think the 1940's certainly makes sense. TC1987, I think the checkerboard faceting in the Lang's one doesn't match what I see. I see more snowflake outline. Gorgeous ring though! Chrono when you read those above referenced threads it says how the experts aren't even comfortable with the language and labels. There were lots of transitions in cutting styles for different reasons due to various inventions and mathematical theories in the last hundred years. Interesting to read about...

 

[CharmyPoo]

Your stone doesn't look like my various old european cut, european cut or transitional cut. But we only saw two photos here.

 

[chrono]

Your stone doesn't look like my various old european cut, european cut or transitional cut. But we only saw two photos here.

Ditto. I've never seen anything like that before. Do you have more pictures, specifically, magnified ones where the pattern can be seen clearly?

 

[backwardsandinheels]

These are the original photos I had to work with until I could see it in person. See what I mean about that flatter top with chunkier facets? I think it definitely looks better out of the setting. I can tell you that old setting had some pretty ancient crud under there and I don't think it was worn in a very long time. It could be one of those war time types that was trying to get away from platinum due to the war effort. I will work on getting a shot where it's magnified soon. It picks up a lot from the environment that's for sure.

 

[jerichosmom]

I've got terrible photo skills but here's a close-up of the facets of my diamond. It looks more like a chrysanthamum and is very busy.

I think that our cuts are very similar as there is a lot of lower girdle reflection everywhere. Also, your table is larger than mine (57 vs 54) which is much larger than the typical OEC. My stone is shallow though...I don't have a GIA report with the measurements just the ones provided on the EGL report which I can't figure out. I've cross referenced them with tables in Al Gilbertson's book but the lower pav lengths don't fall within range of anything.

 

[chrono]

Jerichosmom,
That's a gorgeous OEC. So flowery!

BSiH,
The facet pattern on yours is very different. It doesn't look like any OEC or tranny's I've seen. It must be much closer to a modern RB cut. I don't understand anything about cutting terminology like lover halves and etc but I'll post the Sarin on mine and perhaps a knowledgeable PSer can help explain it in layman's terms.

ETA
I think I just answered my own question.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-does-star-length-and-lower-half-mean.46173/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-does-star-length-and-lower-half-mean.46173/[/URL]

 

[kefira]

This is relevant to my interests. I like the comparison shots of various lower halves and tables. Everyone has gorgeous rocks, but Chrono, your ring is exceptionally beautiful to my eyes!

Here's mine to add to the mix (sorry for my terrible phone photography). I don't know its history, but I think it's maybe a later Euro cut? The LGFs seem to just peek out under the table, and sometimes I can catch a cool Maltese cross in the pavilion. One thing I really like about having a GIA report for it is knowing the angles. I was able to run it through the HCA and it came back with a score of FIC 1.9, with very goods across the board. I think, though, if I ever upgrade, it will either be an older, wonkier cut, or a purely checkerboard tranny. (Holy commas, Batman!)

 

[jerichosmom]

Kefira, your stone looks just like mine! (I think!). My husband has told me that my eyes are not very good at distinquishing colors so others may think that I'm a little crazy.

After the last post I'm going to consider removing my stone from the mount and sending out to GIA just so that I can get measurements. Am I crazy? Would a good appraiser be able to give me the same information?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I've been reading those threads over the weekend Jerichosmom and that's why I posted. Looking forward to your stone's pics.
And Dreamer too...I know that this stone is round brilliant and not OEC, not Transitional, what the heck is it? when it's sparkle pattern looks like this. I saw JBEG's Sookie stone too and thought maybe....glad to see you thought so too I don't watch that vampire show but in the spirit of things Halloween, I just might. It is not as splintery as the Lang's one. I think the crown on that one is smaller and mine is flatter. I guess my question is: with this facet pattern and GIA plot, why is it so chunky? Is it possible the lower girdle facets come down more 2/3 and not all the way? Also, could it be that this is one of the ones I read about that was cut according to the European penchant for it to face up larger? Either way it looks great IRL

In my humble opinion, your stone is an early modern round brilliant, and it looks chunky because the lower girdle facets are 70% ( see on the GIA plot the 70 on the lower left of the paviion?), which is shorter than modern RBs which are more like 77%. OEC commonly have lower girdle facets in the 30% to 60% range which creates the distinct flower. Its not the kite facets you notice looking under the table It is the lower halves, or lower girdle facets. I am sure it is a flashy diamond, I am glad you love it!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I've got terrible photo skills but here's a close-up of the facets of my diamond. It looks more like a chrysanthamum and is very busy.

I think that our cuts are very similar as there is a lot of lower girdle reflection everywhere. Also, your table is larger than mine (57 vs 54) which is much larger than the typical OEC. My stone is shallow though...I don't have a GIA report with the measurements just the ones provided on the EGL report which I can't figure out. I've cross referenced them with tables in Al Gilbertson's book but the lower pav lengths don't fall within range of anything.

Jerichos mom I do not think your stone is an early modern brilliant, looking at the facet pattern it looks like a European cut or maybe an older variety. Those lower girdle facets are shorter than 70 for sure. The "disroganization" under the table is just the optical symmetry being slightly wonky, and maybe the shallower depth too resulting in a little less "precision" in the way the facets reflect. But its important to distinguish the patterning from symmetry, I think. Crown height and table along with lower halves are really key ways to differenitate the flavours, though it cannot really pinpoint time.

 

[Dreamer_D]

It looks like a European cut, to me. if you look at a similar-looking one at Lang's it's called "European cut."
Inventory No. 10-1-4901 1.87ct KVS1 7.87 x 7.97 x 4.75 mm European cut, in a ring.

I don't think that I'm allowed to link to there, am I? Lang's has a lot of stones called "European" not OEC. I looked at the wrong pic in this thread when I tried to match it up, but you can page through the Lang's rings and see maybe a closer match to your faceting, OP.

I would agree this is a European Cut, is names matter. But from a faceting perspective it is similar to my diamond with shorter lower halves than the OPs stone. This Lang's stone appears to have lower halves in the 60s range and a table in the 50s: Classic American Cut, and quite distinct in patterning from later, modern styles, to my eye.

 

[Dreamer_D]

That's very pretty. Here's what I don't understand though, that Lang's stone looks like my transitional stone to my inexperienced eye. What makes it an OEC versus transitional? I've seen some where it clearly looks like an OEC but some where it looks like a tranny, yet is advertised as an OEC. Is it just for the ease of recognition that the term OEC is used because few people know what a transitional diamond is?

I call mine an OEC even though the lab memo described it as a transitional.

You cannot really use the names many vendors use because the term "transitional" does not actually have a definition that is standard! Actually, all of these names are just... making stuff up

Your diamond looks to have lower halves in the 60 -- and now I see the sarin confirms this -- and has a slightly larger table than a classic OEC. I think you have a European cut or perhaps an Early Ideal cut. It also exhibits very very nice optical symmetry, meaning the facets are cut to be very symmetric in their light return. It creates a very "precise" appearance to the optics.

Jerichosmom Your EGL report gives all of the information, they just use % instead of angles for crown and pavilion, and they do not list lower halves. You can judge those looking at the stone, and as I said, I would guess that yours are in the mid 60s. Your diamond is simialar to Chronos but shallower and perhaps slightly more optical wonk in the facet meets. Similar as well to kefiras lovely stone.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Thanks for all of the comments, comparisons and evaluations so far. I sure wish Al Gilbertson would chime in...And that any others post their stones too since it's a bit unusual to see. Sooo, in light of all the lower girldle reflection going on, is this a cut style that should stay away or go towards a certain setting style? What's best: bezels, semi-bezels, open pavilion type settings or busy galleries...What would really make them shine their best? That is going to be the next stage and I don't want to mess it up. I have read far too many sad stories. Seems like people rush in or have buyer's remorse. I am open to a lot but I do love Single Stone's things. I don't want to increase finger coverage.

 

[chrono]

I think you can go either way with your stone but a prong set antique style setting will have an edge in the looks department. What do you like? After all, you'll be the one wearing it. Do you lean one way versus the other?

 

[two_little_birds]

Hello,

Dreamer D pegged my stone as an Early Modern Round Brilliant. Surfing around, I found a pic of one that could be a cousin of my stone.
Anybody else have any of these to post? I'm interested to learn more and see more (tried my best under a tree in diffuse sunlight).

0

You have seen your stone in person and I have only seen photos, but based on just those two images, your diamond's faceting does not remind me much of the faceting in that first pic you posted I would call that first stone a later European Cut or maybe early ideal cut or American Cut. Chrono's stone seems to be similar as well to that first diamond, with medium sized table and shorter lower halves -- creates the flower or pie under the table.

Based only on the photos you have posted, of course, your diamond appears to have longer lower halves -- I think you had a Sarin on the GIA repoort too, showing long lower halves in the 70s and a table in the 57% range. Those characteristics are more similar to modern round brilliants than are diamonds like that first one you posted, which appears to have a 50% table and lower halves in the 60s. These are small differences, but the end result is bolder versus more splintery faceting. Of course, labels do not matter, but if I guessed your diamond is from the post war era and the first diamond and Chronos might be from the 20s or 30s. Just a guess, you can't really narrow down based on cut so easily.

Based only on the pics you have posted and the GIA report, diamonds like these seem more akin to yours, and more what I would call "early modern round brilliants" ETA: Labels are not really important, but even names aside, I think your facetting looks more like the stones linked below than the stone you linked or Chronos stone, based on table and lower halves and likely crown heights, too.

http://www.langantiques.com/products/item/10-1-3991
Image attached below: http://jewelsbyericagrace.smugmug.com/Jewelry/Loose-Diamonds/260ct-Early-Modern-Brilliant/23819328_MKkDnZ#!i=1936989846&k=nKHDJ5M

OMG Dreamer_D this is my stone! I was shocked to find this old post and photo.

I know before I purchased it from JbEG it was on layaway for quite some time before it was released by the "buyer". My Lady J waited for me! I am curious though if it was another PS'er that had it hidden away for all the time.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Hey two little birds! Do you mean that first pic I posted? That one is yours? Also, just heard about my stone's stats-it had some kite/bezel/girdle faceting work done and I sent it back to GIA for a re eval. Still working on the setting.

Old stats, new stats:

2.31 to 2.24ct
L to K
VS2 to VS1
Cut Grade- Good to Very Good
Measurements- 8.51 x 8.67 to 8.46 x 8.60
Polish- Good to Very Good
Symmetry- Fair to Good

 

[two_little_birds]

backwardsandinheels - I was referring to this photo which Dreamer_D posted.

I love my (this) diamond since I haven't been able to find anything that looks remotely like her - she's my chameleon. Originally I was looking for an OEC but this stone just spoke to me.

 

[two_little_birds]

Oh and the stats on my stone are:

Shape: Round (Transitional or Early Modern Brilliant?)
Carat Weight: 2.61
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Color: J
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: EGL USA
Depth: 58.6%
Table: 59%
Crown: 16.5%
Pavilion: 39.1%
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Culet: Small
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.90 x 8.80 x 5.19

I would love to learn more about her cut and what's she's classified as, but as Dreamer_D stated earlier there doesn't seem to be a standard for grading these stones.

I would guess her era to be from the 40's - but really I have no clue?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hey two little birds! Do you mean that first pic I posted? That one is yours? Also, just heard about my stone's stats-it had some kite/bezel/girdle faceting work done and I sent it back to GIA for a re eval. Still working on the setting.

Old stats, new stats:

2.31 to 2.24ct
L to K
VS2 to VS1
Cut Grade- Good to Very Good
Measurements- 8.51 x 8.67 to 8.46 x 8.60
Polish- Good to Very Good
Symmetry- Fair to Good

I was out of town when you posted this, but wow, this shows that a little rehab can really improve the looks AND value of a stone!!!