Not getting the OEC thing...feeling stupid

[tlfiore]

Hi everyone~I would really appreciate anyone's input...please.

I'm looking at a number of sources to locate an approximate 7 mm OEC diamond (to create a custom ring) OR to find something original & special that I love and just go with it...

So I located a ring earlier in a precious gorgeous setting that looks pretty good with both my daily wear bands...this Tiffany Legacy and a replica 4 mm 11-diamond platinum band @ 1.55 cts. I LOVE LOVE LOVE this setting but I'm unsure about the stone. I know the photos aren't great but I'd love initial impressions, comments, ANYTHING you can say about the stone...good, bad and/or ugly!

I love the setting...not crazy about the diamond...not sure why. For some reason, even thought it is GIA Graded "Circular Brilliant," it's not doing it for me. Seems like the table is too large or something...but i'm not an expert:

Circular Brilliant
6.95 x 7.08 x 4.35 mm
1.34 ctw (seems larger to me)
Color...K
Clarity...VVS2

Table: 59%
Girdle: thin to medium faceted
Depth: 62%
Culet: medium
Polish...good
Symmetry...good
Fluorescence...none

ANY HELP, please will be so appreciated! Thank you!!

Sorry about the poor photo but it's the best I can do right now...and the ring is pricey

 

[EvaEvans]

"Circular Brilliant" by GIA means that this is NOT exactly OEC diamond!
Table 59% is too large for OEC!
Depth 62% is too low for OEC!
Faceted girdle could mean two things:
1) This diamond is recently cut to resemble old cut
or
2) This diamond is rehabbed (re-polished)
Either ways, this is not an OEC diamond, but transitional cut diamond.

 

[tlfiore]

EvaEvans...thank you for your prompt reply. It doesn't look like an OEC to me but I am not an expert. Now, I've been reading spec charts and all about OEC and it's all a bit confusing to me.

I know GIA no longer characterizes OECs as OECs but as Circular Brilliant. I know a 59% table is LARGE for an OEC but still within acceptable guidelines. I also read 62% depth was acceptable for an OEC.

In your opinion (and I know it's a debatable topic) what would you consider to be a "good" or "very good" cut for an OEC (in terms of table size in relation to depth, etc).

THANK YOU for replying so quickly...
I look forward to your reply

 

[distracts]

Based on that picture, I wouldn't be a fan of that diamond either.

 

[Queenie60]

If you like the setting, find an OEC that you like and use this setting as an inspiration for a custom ring made for your stone. Contact Erica at Love Affair Diamonds or Grace at Jewels by Grace - they can help you to find a beautiful OEC. Good luck.

 

[EvaEvans]

tlfiore,
GIA grade OEC as OEC! This article is very helpful:
https://www.gia.edu/gia-news-research-round-brilliant-cut-diamond-pay
When GIA describe a diamond as OEC:

 

[LightBright]

It's a Transitional cut that was rehabbed. (Like a previous poster said). These cuts didn't have faceted girdles. It's a poor quality photo, but it looks very typical of a Transitional, it's a blocky "checkerboard" cut and IMO has potential AS A TRANSITIONAL.

The reason it seems bigger than its carat weight is that Transitionals have bigger diameters, relative to carat weight, because of their typically larger tables and shallower depth. These cuts can appear bright and whiter than a cut with a higher crown and smaller table for the same reason. If you like the look, that's one thing. If you actually want an OEC and don't like the look of Transitional diamonds then this is a good lesson in diamond cuts. (Or maybe it's just an ugly Transitional...)

The cost of recreating a setting like this with antique pears etc might be as high as the cost of this entire piece... so IMO, for the right price, antique settings are often a great option. But if you don't "get" the center stone, that's probably telling you something.

 

[bunnycat]

It's a Transitional cut that was rehabbed. (Like a previous poster said). These cuts didn't have faceted girdles. It's a poor quality photo, but it looks very typical of a Transitional, it's a blocky "checkerboard" cut and IMO has potential AS A TRANSITIONAL.

The reason it seems bigger than its carat weight is that Transitionals have bigger diameters, relative to carat weight, because of their typically larger tables and shallower depth. These cuts can appear bright and whiter than a cut with a higher crown and smaller table for the same reason. If you like the look, you might want to inspect in person. The cost of recreating a setting like this with antique pears etc might be as high as the cost of this entire piece... so IMO, for the right price, this piece might be very nice. You'd have to be okay with the fact that the stone's girdle WAS rehabbed, however.

Exactly as lightbright says, unless you have the funds for a custom piece plus stone (for grins say $3-4K for a custom setting) it can't hurt to look at it if you've got a return policy on it.

With all the who ha in popularity of the term OEC these past few years, I doubt hardly anyone but old cut nerds differenciate between OEC, tranny, and omc in real life. Nothing wrong with a tranny. It's a slightly different look just prior to modern rounds and I quite like them.

It's really too hard to tell from the current pics much about the stone. It looks like they either took it under very bright living or with a flash (don't use flash on diamonds...)

If they could get you some better pics (indirect lighting under a tree) and face on, people would be able to tell more about it...

 

[tlfiore]

Hi~Well thank you everyone for the replies, which I appreciate a whole lot! I love your expertise and I enjoy reading (and learning) about diamonds.

Yes, I love the setting...it is beautiful...but I do NOT have the funds to buy the ring for nearly $9,000, toss or sell the Transitional and hunt for an Old European Cut diamond. As an aside, I think the ring is waaaaay overpriced for what it is...but what do I know.

I REALLY appreciate all the input about the ring, the diamond, etc.
>LightBright thank you so much for your interesting perspective. I'm curious...do you think the diamond is "rehabbed" solely based on the faceted girdle???
>bunnycat you are so correct about the current OEC craze and I do NOT have to have an OEC. If I even LIKED this diamond one bit, I'd purchase the ring...but I think the diamond is ugly...I really do. But the setting is exquisite.

 

[rubybeth]

tlfiore,
GIA grade OEC as OEC! This article is very helpful:
https://www.gia.edu/gia-news-research-round-brilliant-cut-diamond-pay
When GIA describe a diamond as OEC:

This is, unfortunately, not true! GIA did not grade my OEC as such, even though it met 3/4 parameters in that chart, and I had problems with my appraiser then calling it an OEC for insurance purposes. I eventually had to have Erica at LAD send in my stone to AGS for regrading. You can read my saga here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...n-old-european-cut-insurance-question.214348/

 

[tlfiore]

Hey rubybeth...I don't want to start a war here but my sensibilities tend to agree with your perceptions and your experience re: GIA and OECs. Seems like GIA is all over the place. It's frustrating especially for someone like you, who hoped to obtain insurance on the ring.

To add to the drama, I've spent much of the afternoon looking at the incredible YouTube videos made by Good Old Gold. I took lots of time looking at the OEC info AND the Mine Cut info. As an aside, I have a precious 1.65 ctw white gold ring with 5-Mine Cut Diamonds. I bought the ring in Paris but had to get all the tips re-done (re-tipped) when I got home. The ring is precious and I get lots of compliments on it...maybe I'll post a few pics later.

So, after watching numerous Good Old Gold videos, I called there to chat and I just got off the phone with Lynda at Good Old Gold...she is a sweetheart. We may start with a beautiful stone and back into a setting...but I also "may" have something cookin'...something up my sleeve...Plan C"...not sure yet...more on that later.

I think I'll do BETTER with an Old Mine Cut vs Old European Cut. But what I have cookin' "may" also work with a Transitional...a NICE transitional...we'll see.

Also, many of the Good Old Gold videos state "many Mine Cut Diamonds and OECs are EGL Graded because GIAs standards don't quite work for the old stones, etc." Not quoting verbatim, but...

 

[rubybeth]

tlfiore, I totally understand. GIA is all over the place, an Erica at Love Affair Diamonds agreed, which is why she offered to help me. She totally understood my predicament. And I didn't go looking for a transitional or OEC per se, but I went looking for a stone that I liked. I don't really care if GIA calls it a "good" cut modern brilliant or that AGS calls it an OEC, as long as my eyes are happy, y'know? But I didn't want to pay to insure it as a "good" cut round brilliant valued at $11k. So it was worth it to me to get an AGS certificate that called it an OEC for replacement purposes, and lowered the value considerably so I'm not overpaying on insurance.

I think you just need to find a stone and setting you like, and not worry about the charts/parameters, etc. If GOG can do that for you, then yay!

 

[tlfiore]

rubybeth...I hear you, I really do. I feel the same way about the purchase. So, here's the secret...this all started a little while back on these forums...

A little background...I'm a 59 year old woman and my current dear husband is my 2nd marriage. We've been together nearly 20 years and married for 14 yrs. I've been through a whole lot over the past few years, including an ongoing battle with breast cancer, so as I enter my "60th year of life," I asked my husband for a special ring. I had a wonky, ugly Transitional Cut solitaire at one point in my life...something John and I picked up at an Estate Store...but I sold it years ago 'cause I never liked the ring or the diamond. I wear a 1.65 ctw, 5-Old Mine Cut diamond, white gold ring with my vintage diamond platinum wedding band. Or I just wear my little .48 carat Tiffany Legacy Eternity Band on its own, or whatever...but usually I wear either of my 2 wedding bands with no other ring next to/near whichever band.

I've looked high 'n low, purchased a few vintage/antique diamond rings online (returned them) and God knows done whatever else to find a special ring. Then someone (soxfan, I believe) referred me to Caysie @ CvB Inspired Designs when I posted about her Acacia Solitaire (not knowing what it was, or who made it). Well, of course I fell in love with her rings AND I initially commissioned her to make the Acacia Solitaire for me. Yet with that, I couldn't stop thinking about the Casablanca.

Here's the thing...there is no way I could afford the Casablance Setting custom designed AND a gorgeous (even a passable) 2.3-2.5 mm OEC or Mine Cut diamond to place in it! Also, I've been very unsure about how the SCALE of the Casablanca (at Caysie's standard size wih an approximat 8 mm stone) might work for me, appear on my hand, transition with my wedding band(s), etc. I am older, with horrible wonky fingers, 5'2" and 145 lbs. I have a size 5 or so ring finger and very very short/small hands.

My husband and I are not rich but comfortable...we work hard (he works very hard). So, I couldn't ask him to put out nearly $15,000 for a ring I might not like.

Anyhow, a while back, I finally took the leap and discussed with Caysie the possibility of designing a Casablance to accommodate a 7.0-7.5 mm center diamond. However, I feared the Casablanca with a 7.0 mm diamond might not look just right...be a bit too diminutive. Then I got discouraged with my search for an an affordable diamond and I scratched the entire custom design project thing...

So, I spotted a CvB Casblanca re-sale last night with a 8.3 mm light yellow CZ in it...and I JUMPED!

Buying a "used" Casablanca at a fraction of its custom-made cost "may" actually provide me with enough funds to purchase an 8.3 mm diamond IF THE ENTIRE SETTING IS NOT TOO LARGE ON MY HAND and IF I LOVE IT.

This is the reason I called Lynda at Good Old Gold...

 

[LightBright]

Tlfiore, to answer your question. A Transitional cut would have originally had a bruted (frosted looking) girdle. So yes, a faceted girdle would always indicate to me that the girdle was cleaned up. To tell the truth, that's likely all that was done (possibly because of a chip or flea bites on the girdle from normal wear and tear). Repolishing the entire stone can be costly, so I don't automatically assume that was done.

I agree that $9,000 is a little high for a rehabbed K color 1.34 carat weight Transitional stone in a setting.

 

[LightBright]

Tlfiore, I just got through reading your posts and am absolutely thrilled that you bought that beautiful pre-loved Casablanca. Don't worry about the size, you will definitely get used to it...

The advice I can give you is to take your time with finding your future 8.3mm old cut stone. You will find it, if you have patience. There are many places to find old cuts and GOG is one of them.

Familiarize yourself with antique cuts enough to know what will make your heart sing (to use a Pricescope adage). Please keep us posted on your progress and we will be here cheering you on!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Have Caysie watch out for a stone for you. She is a good diamond hunter and has found some good deals. I love the Casablanca, too. I hope you love the size of this one. It will be quite large! As to your original idea, I think a 7.5mm stone is great in that setting. She has set smaller stones than that in the Casablanca. I think you are going to need to increase your stone budget to get an 8.3mm stone, though.

I am glad you passed on the antique ring. Honestly, I do not like a 59 table in a modern round and would never buy an antique ring with a table that large. I really prefer a true OEC or an excellent transitional with a much smaller table than 59.