OEC or Transitional Cut?

[heyjudes]

Would you guys mind looking at this image and letting me know if the diamond is an OEC or transitional cut? The culet looks a bit too small to be an OEC and the cut a bit too modern..

Thanks in advance!

 

[Bella_mezzo]

My guess is late OEC?early transitional, but there are many experts who I''m sure will have a better idea...

 

[stci]

IMO it''s an OEC. OEC''s cullets are not always medium or large. There are plenty of OEC with small culet.

It''s a beautiful stone for sure!

 

[clgwli]

I would guess a well cut OEC as well. From that picture the table looks relatively small. Not an expert but a lover of older cuts. And I have to say that one looks beatuiful

 

[ericad]

From that single image I would say OEC!

 

[Allison D.]

From that single image, I''d say OEC. The pattern, the small table (which I believe would also translate to a high crown), etc. suggest OEC.

 

[heliotrope]

I also agree with everyone else here and feel that the stone in your pic is an OEC

my only qualification is that I have an OMC and I am currently on the hunt for some of transitionals which have tiny culets (I like their checkerboard effect)

when viewed straight down from above - my OMC has a culet that looks the same size as the one in your photo - so I don''t think yours is too small

it''s a pretty stone!!

 

[Al Gilbertson]

Without seeing a profile of the diamond, this is much more difficult. The small or larger culet issue is less relevant than most think here. This round shape began to be cut in the US about 1870 and as it became so very popular in the US, overseas cutting shops (London, French Jura, Switzerland, Antwerp, Amsterdam) that were cutting for the US market made various variations. If the crown angles are 34-37 and the pav angle 39-41, it is an early American Cut round. Crown or pav angles that are steeper would indicate an Antwerp or Amsterdam influence after 1900. Culet sizes were at first varied, then very small and then were all over the place, depending on who was doing the cutting (in the US most were very small, while London and some Europeans cutting for the US market were larger). Then some European companies added shops in the US and in the US by 1900, the culets sizes were quite varied. This trend continued until the 1930’s. By the mid 1940''s lower halves were longer, the girdle thicker and the culet smaller from most cutters.
Hope this helps
Al

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/26/2010 12:18:16 PM
Author: Al Gilbertson
Without seeing a profile of the diamond, this is much more difficult. The small or larger culet issue is less relevant than most think here. This round shape began to be cut in the US about 1870 and as it became so very popular in the US, overseas cutting shops (London, French Jura, Switzerland, Antwerp, Amsterdam) that were cutting for the US market made various variations. If the crown angles are 34-37 and the pav angle 39-41, it is an early American Cut round. Crown or pav angles that are steeper would indicate an Antwerp or Amsterdam influence after 1900. Culet sizes were at first varied, then very small and then were all over the place, depending on who was doing the cutting (in the US most were very small, while London and some Europeans cutting for the US market were larger). Then some European companies added shops in the US and in the US by 1900, the culets sizes were quite varied. This trend continued until the 1930’s. By the mid 1940''s lower halves were longer, the girdle thicker and the culet smaller from most cutters.
Hope this helps
Al

Just so you guys are informed,

Al Gilbertson wrote a book entitlted "The American Cut The First 100 Years" and it highlights his very thorough research with numerous old drawing and posters, picture examples, and interesting historical commentary. If anyone could be considered an expert in this area it would be him.

It always pleases me that such prominant researchers casually post here from time to time. We are really lucky to have his posts here.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/26/2010 12:31:12 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/26/2010 12:18:16 PM
Author: Al Gilbertson
Without seeing a profile of the diamond, this is much more difficult. The small or larger culet issue is less relevant than most think here. This round shape began to be cut in the US about 1870 and as it became so very popular in the US, overseas cutting shops (London, French Jura, Switzerland, Antwerp, Amsterdam) that were cutting for the US market made various variations. If the crown angles are 34-37 and the pav angle 39-41, it is an early American Cut round. Crown or pav angles that are steeper would indicate an Antwerp or Amsterdam influence after 1900. Culet sizes were at first varied, then very small and then were all over the place, depending on who was doing the cutting (in the US most were very small, while London and some Europeans cutting for the US market were larger). Then some European companies added shops in the US and in the US by 1900, the culets sizes were quite varied. This trend continued until the 1930’s. By the mid 1940''s lower halves were longer, the girdle thicker and the culet smaller from most cutters.
Hope this helps
Al

Just so you guys are informed,

Al Gilbertson wrote a book entitlted ''The American Cut The First 100 Years'' and it highlights his very thorough research with numerous old drawing and posters, picture examples, and interesting historical commentary. If anyone could be considered an expert in this area it would be him.

It always pleases me that such prominant researchers casually post here from time to time. We are really lucky to have his posts here.

Yes indeed, Al might not be a prolific poster but when he does participate his input is greatly appreciated.

Hi Al - good to see you!!

 

[heyjudes]

Date: 4/26/2010 12:18:16 PM
Author: Al Gilbertson
Without seeing a profile of the diamond, this is much more difficult. The small or larger culet issue is less relevant than most think here. This round shape began to be cut in the US about 1870 and as it became so very popular in the US, overseas cutting shops (London, French Jura, Switzerland, Antwerp, Amsterdam) that were cutting for the US market made various variations. If the crown angles are 34-37 and the pav angle 39-41, it is an early American Cut round. Crown or pav angles that are steeper would indicate an Antwerp or Amsterdam influence after 1900. Culet sizes were at first varied, then very small and then were all over the place, depending on who was doing the cutting (in the US most were very small, while London and some Europeans cutting for the US market were larger). Then some European companies added shops in the US and in the US by 1900, the culets sizes were quite varied. This trend continued until the 1930’s. By the mid 1940''s lower halves were longer, the girdle thicker and the culet smaller from most cutters.

Hope this helps

Al

I''m honored that you would step in and provide your expertise Al. I don''t have good pictures of the profile, but the one I received I''m attaching to this thread. I don''t know if you can tell anything based on this picture.

Where does the American Cut fall in the whole timeline of cuts?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/26/2010 10:03:57 PM
Author: heyjudes

Date: 4/26/2010 12:18:16 PM
Author: Al Gilbertson
Without seeing a profile of the diamond, this is much more difficult. The small or larger culet issue is less relevant than most think here. This round shape began to be cut in the US about 1870 and as it became so very popular in the US, overseas cutting shops (London, French Jura, Switzerland, Antwerp, Amsterdam) that were cutting for the US market made various variations. If the crown angles are 34-37 and the pav angle 39-41, it is an early American Cut round. Crown or pav angles that are steeper would indicate an Antwerp or Amsterdam influence after 1900. Culet sizes were at first varied, then very small and then were all over the place, depending on who was doing the cutting (in the US most were very small, while London and some Europeans cutting for the US market were larger). Then some European companies added shops in the US and in the US by 1900, the culets sizes were quite varied. This trend continued until the 1930’s. By the mid 1940''s lower halves were longer, the girdle thicker and the culet smaller from most cutters.

Hope this helps

Al

I''m honored that you would step in and provide your expertise Al. I don''t have good pictures of the profile, but the one I received I''m attaching to this thread. I don''t know if you can tell anything based on this picture.

Where does the American Cut fall in the whole timeline of cuts?

The American Cut, meaning stones cut in or for the North American market

.
Unlike Al, I cannot judge a crown and pavillion angle just by looking at it. Do you have the certificate data? Does it have a diagram showing the angles?

 

[heyjudes]

Date: 4/26/2010 10:55:56 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover
The American Cut, meaning stones cut in or for the North American market

.

Unlike Al, I cannot judge a crown and pavillion angle just by looking at it. Do you have the certificate data? Does it have a diagram showing the angles?

No, I have to ask the buyer for more information in order to get angles.

I thought maybe there were specific years the American Cut was "cut" - like Old Europeans.

 

[Al Gilbertson]

Thanks for the kind words Chunkycushionlover and Lorelei...

Trade terms evolve and often leave behind the truth. The term Old European in many cases is a misnomer—yet it is the one the trade uses, so we cannot abandon it. If the crown angles are in the range of 34-37, pav angles 39-41 and table size is around 40-50%, accompanied by short lower halves and a thin girdle, it was cut in or for the American market somewhere between 1870 and 1940 and was known through at least the 1960''s as the American Cut. The term Old European and Transitional are both applied to certain variations of these—the term Old European being propagated in the early 1930s by some misunderstanding about their origin and the term ''transitional'' appearing after a wonderful article by David Federman in Modern Jeweler in 1985. There, he used the term ‘transitional period’ and a number of the trade misapplied "transitional" to a certain set of angles, etc. Steeper crowns are indeed European in influence and in some cases (late 1920’s and early 1930’s) referred to as ideal cut in Germany (with steeper crown angles over 40 degrees!!).

The photo of the girdle seems to indicate that this girdle is not knife edged (although it''s not a great photo)—and I see no girdle chipping common for these stones from the early period. I suspect that someone has touched this stone up. In that case, some of the angles, etc may not be original; depending upon how much repair was needed. This is not uncommon as most don’t like buying damaged diamonds or diamonds that have knife-edged girdles that can damage easily. At one point the knife-edged girdle was the standard and considered best. Even Tolkowsky’s proportions only used a knife-edged girdle. Hope this helps a bit--
Al

 

[Lorelei]

You are welcome Al, its always a pleasure to see you!

 

[heyjudes]

Date: 4/27/2010 10:10:47 AM
Author: Al Gilbertson

The photo of the girdle seems to indicate that this girdle is not knife edged (although it''s not a great photo)—and I see no girdle chipping common for these stones from the early period. I suspect that someone has touched this stone up. In that case, some of the angles, etc may not be original; depending upon how much repair was needed. This is not uncommon as most don’t like buying damaged diamonds or diamonds that have knife-edged girdles that can damage easily. At one point the knife-edged girdle was the standard and considered best. Even Tolkowsky’s proportions only used a knife-edged girdle. Hope this helps a bit--
Al

Thanks so much for your insight. I really appreciate it. If the girdle is not knife sharp - does that decrease the value/quality of the stone? If so, how much?