My New(ish) 4.28 ct. OMC (Old Mine Cut) Men’s Diamond Ring
A couple of months ago I started a thread with the title, “Faceting an Old Mine Cut to Reduce Fish Eye?” on the Antique and Vintage Jewelry blog. Here’s the link: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/faceting-an-old-mine-cut-to-reduce-fish-eye.159777/..']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/faceting-an-old-mine-cut-to-reduce-fish-eye.159777/....[/URL]. 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:
The first shot is of the ring on a piece of paper in diffused sunlight. The second is a photo of the remaining "fisheye"; much reduced from the earlier fisheye that existed. (You can see photos of this by reading the earlier blog, url listed above.) The third is that good old hand shot.
Thanks to everyone for your advice on this stone, also for your referal to Single Stone (singlestone.com) in L.A. Hope you enjoy looking at these photos!
A couple of months ago I started a thread with the title, “Faceting an Old Mine Cut to Reduce Fish Eye?” on the Antique and Vintage Jewelry blog. Here’s the link: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/faceting-an-old-mine-cut-to-reduce-fish-eye.159777/..']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/faceting-an-old-mine-cut-to-reduce-fish-eye.159777/....[/URL]. 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:
The first shot is of the ring on a piece of paper in diffused sunlight. The second is a photo of the remaining "fisheye"; much reduced from the earlier fisheye that existed. (You can see photos of this by reading the earlier blog, url listed above.) The third is that good old hand shot.
Thanks to everyone for your advice on this stone, also for your referal to Single Stone (singlestone.com) in L.A. Hope you enjoy looking at these photos!