Is it an OMC or OEC?

[YadaYadaYada]

I find myself wondering lately if this diamond is an OMC, I’ve always called it an OEC because of how round it is and because it doesn’t have the height of my other OMC. Maybe it is so round because it went to rehab at some point.

Not considering selling, just curious. What would you say?

 

[MMtwo]

OMCs - don't they usually preserve the outside diamond crystal shape, so they are wonky cushions?

 

[YadaYadaYada]

OMCs - don't they usually preserve the outside diamond crystal shape, so they are wonky cushions?

I think most of the time that is true. The middle is what is giving me pause, it looks IMO more OMC like but the shape of the diamond is just so round

 

[musicloveranthony]

To me it looks like an OEC

 

[MMtwo]

I wonder if it could be a transition between Mine and OEC?

 

[CaseyLouLou]

I would say OEC. To me mine cuts are wonky and bubbly and less round. This one has more symmetry and more precise cutting.

 

[lulu_ma]

I vote for early OEC.

 

[stepcutnut]

My vote is a lovely OEC

 

[Redwoods-hiker-girl]

I would call it an OEC, and also beautiful. I've always loved your ring! I hearts.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Well it looks like OEC wins the popular vote, I bought it as an OEC but sometimes sellers are wrong. Like a diamond I saw recently posted as a rose cut that was CLEARLY an OEC

Thanks for everyone who weighed in and also @Redwoods-hiker-girl, thank you for your sweet compliment, she is one of my favorites.

 

[stracci2000]

The Queen! She's a beauty.
Yes, I think OEC.

 

[Smith3]

I thought this recently about my oec. But I believe yours is like mine, an oec

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I'd say early OEC. Beautiful.
Too rounded for OMC and the crown isn't quite high enough.

 

[catia]

it's easy to tell the difference when they are more cushiony-shaped, but sometimes I wonder too on some of the rounds. My recent purchase I have 2 OECs, but 1 has a much higher crown.
I've seen old pieces where it looks like both types are used in 1 setting, especially some old engagement/wedding rings. I suspect this was because stones were handed down in families & old was incorporated with 'new'.

I'm sure there were a few expert cutters back in those days that produced rounder stones with less cushion shape if they had material that would allow.

I wonder too about melee on some of the antique rings. I've seen some
more rounded but really tall crowned melee that I am not so sure is OEC, & I've seen some seeming almost top flat but deep below the girdle & with an open culet

Of course I am partial to old cuts, but I gotta say, the melee in some of the old rings is just much more amazing than how it's done now. A lot more setting the stones at slight angles so the melee catches the light, and it seems they followed the contour of the finger, & set them in a way that really catches the light from more angles, whereas now it seems the melee is set much more flat, and unless someone is choosing their melee for a custom design, it seems like melee is an 'afterthought'-it's there, but doesn't dance, just takes up space. I see this in a lot of modern halos floating around out there, the melee just doesn't pop, let alone dance.

 

[VRBeauty]

I know the general rule is that cushion cuts are OMC’s and rounds are OEC’s, but… I have some relatively round OMC’s that have been in the family long enough that we know about when they were cut, and they are definitely OMC’s in terms of the technology that would have been used at the time. I tend to go by the symmetry vs wonkiness of the cut, particularly as you see it in the table. Wonky = OMC; good symmetry = OEC.

 

[Smith3]

Is this an old mine or old euro?

 

[Lookinagain]

I'd call it Old Euro.