Old Cut Lovers...... please sign in!

[LGK]

Date: 1/9/2009 3:45:17 PM
Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 1/9/2009 3:28:52 PM

Author: LittleGreyKitten

[snip]


Then I basically tripped over a huge 3.55ct OEC, that was vastly underpriced, and I knew it was a once in a lifetime find; and talked the DH into that one too. Heh. Originally I was planning to resell it- I have more avenues to do that, since I know a number of estate jewelry dealers- but parting with it once I''d put it on was SO NOT HAPPENING.

Yes, they don''t make glue like that anymore, do they? My DW has the same chemistry on her fingers. Rings slip on easily, they never come out.

Snort. So true. Better than superglue, it is!

(I doubt my whole ''but we can sell it honey'' song & dance fooled him for one second

)

 

[kimikocat]

I really like OECs, but am also partial to OMCs and antique cushions. I guess I just can''t pick a favorite child. my ering is an OEC so I voted for the OEC!

 

[Upgradable]

Here''s a picture of what I would consider an early oec. The faceting is not quite as regular as some of the later cuts. This happens to be a ring that I just picked up from my jeweler. Sorry for the dirty table on which it is laying. My son gunks this computer table up something fierce, and I wasn''t patient enough to take a proper photoshoot of this beauty before sharing it.

Grace, I just lumped antique cushions in with omcs for ease. I think I confused everyone enough with the early oec concept. Please, please, please add better examples of these cuts for all to see and enjoy. My purpose here was not to showcase my collection, but to get input and descriptions from others about what they love and why!!!

 

[beaujolais]

OMC - see avitar !

I prefer things to be asymmetrical.

 

[swingirl]

Thanks, Upgradable, for posting the photos. I didn't realize you already posted a transitional cut when I asked to see some. And now I am going to have to to study your early European cut to see if I can tell the difference between it and an OEC.

Your collection is beautiful!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Awesome stones UG! The vote is too tough for me--I love them individually for different optics.

 

[AmberGretchen]

That''s such a tough choice - I wavered between the OEC''s and the transitional cuts too, and ultimately went with transitional, but they are all so lovely

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 1/9/2009 3:37:11 PM
Author: swingirl
What is an early European cut?

Do we have any close ups on PS of nice transitional cuts?

My favorite is OEC but I might be missing something by not being familiar with all there is out there.

Hi swingirl, here is closeup of my 0.47 transitional, also an ebay find.
Not sure how much of a good example it is, but I think its nice ! (same one as in my av)..

 

[Gayletmom]

My interest in old cuts was sparked about 13 years ago when my husband gave me a ring that had been his grandmother''s to celebrate the birth of our first child. I''ve been told that the stone is about a carat, OEC and well cut-whatever that means. It''s in a beautiful WG bezel set with 8-10 smaller stones set pave-like on either side. I''ve worn the ring for years but only occasionally and as a RHR. I always kind of wondered why it seemed so alive but didn''t pay too much attention.

Fast forward to 2006 when I visited a well-known local antique jewlery shop. I had no idea what I was looking at but fell hard for some earrings that were described as OMC''s. My husband later bought them for me as an anniversary present. Each earring has a pearl in the center surrounded by 7 or 8 OMCs about .4-.5 cts each.

Recently I lost my original RB ering and started wearing the grandmother''s OEC almost daily. Then I found PS, started noticing the fire in the OEC and my earrings and looking around a bit. I''m still in the early stages of learning about older cuts so i don''t quite have enough info to decide on which I like best but I am fast becoming a fan of the older cuts-as many have said they have soul. As I am planning on replacing my ering, I''m really falling hard for the antique cushions which I suppose are OMCs. I am busy browsing PS and compiling a folder of some real beauties.

I promise to take some pics and post them soon. I''ve taken a couple of shots of the earrings that came out okay but I''ve got to do a search on how to get my camera to focus on the ring.

 

[chrono]

My answer is simple: I love them ALL, from OMC, OEC and transitionals. Each one has a different flavour so it''s hard to pick one.

The OMCs have the wonderful open culet and koizebe effect, the OEC has that gorgeous flower pattern, and transitionals have the chunky faceting pattern with some added modern symmetrical cut.

 

[RNgemlover]

Has anyone else here seen the Cullinan II? It is in the Crown Jewels of England. That diamond is probably my favorite "old cut" diamond. I also really really really love the Dresden Green''s cut.

 

[swingirl]

Thanks for posting the photo of your pretty little ebay find. ow yo''ve got me thinking. My mother''s diamond is from the mid 40''s. Could it be a transitional cut or were they already cutting the modern cut?

 

[Harriet]

Signing in. I just bought my first before Christmas.

 

[Vix]

Old cut lover signing in! Open to accepting any and all varities.

Though if I'm purchasing...well, pretty much the same.

I've always been intrigued by antique jewelry (with my heart going to Art Deco pieces), but I've owned my old cut for about 3 years now. That's what brought me to Pricescope -- a desire to learn about them ahead of acquiring!

Most of the Vix Household luxury spending budget goes to the Vix Household Money Pit er, our modest 1905 house. So to date I just own my .5 alleged European Cut [see below] ring despite hankering for . Does it count that I got my sister to trade in her original e-ring for an OEC?

I DO hope this thread will fill up with pics very quickly, but I wanted to post the below, too. It's what Al Gilbertson, author of "American Cut - The First 100 Years" wrote in response to my outlining Richard Sherwood's old cut definitions.

I think most PScopers respected Richard's knowledge, so Al's clarifications just go to show how "fluid" the definitions of old cuts can be out there. All I know is that I love my old cut and while I'd love to have Al confirm it's a Euro Cut, I can live without knowing!

ps I think DiaGem had some great information too...I just can't find the post I'm thinking of!

****** Al Gilbertson/"American Cut - The First 100 Years" author starts here ******

I’ll try and keep this simple. The post said (and is typically of what many in the trade incorrectly say):
Old Mine Cut stones (cushion shaped) are typically circa 1840-1890.
Mine cuts are a style of cutting associated with following the squarish shape of the crystal in a 58 facet brilliant style. This was a practice before 1750 (probably late 1600’s) and was in strong use until the late 1800’s.

Old European Cut stones (round, with small table, high crowns, and large to very large culets) are typically circa 1900-1920.
Not a good generalization. The description of the shape-- (round, with small table, high crowns, and large to very large culets) describes something that happened after the bruting machine was introduced (1870 in the US and 1890’s in Europe). In the US, crown angles were in the range of 30 to 38 degrees (centering around 34-36), and pavilion angles from 39 to 42. (Americans were seen as wasting material from the original rough by using these shallower angles). In Europe, they were all over the place, with many cutters still liking crown and pavilion angles that were close to 45 degrees. In the US, by the early 1890’s the style introduced in Boston in the late 1860’s was called: American Cut or Scientific Cut; by 1900 it was called Ideal Cut and by 1910, Perfect Cut. By 1910, a number of European factories were cutting to the US style (it was their biggest market). Marcel Tolkowsky admits in his book to have already cut “millions of pounds” worth of diamonds to the proportions others were calling American Cut. These all had larger culets than today.

European Cuts (larger tables, lower crowns, medium to large culets) are typically circa 1920-1940.
Another poor generalization. Larger tables came about with the advent of the mechanical saw, which allowed the crystal to be cut into two parts (before that, the area above the brilliant’s table on the crystal was essentially ground away). The saw was invented in 1899 and was patented in 1901. By 1903, DeBeers raised the cost of rough 30% because of the weight savings brought about by the saw. Before that, high crowns with small tables were considered best, since that didn’t waste the rough material. With the saw, saving weight was best done with large tables and shallow crowns. Europeans were still all over the place with proportions (For example, some Germans called diamonds with high crown angles ideal cut). However, the European cut should be typified with short lower half facets—longer ones came into vogue in the 1940’s and a the primary separation. Some of the “European Cuts” were cut with no culets, but most were cut with larger culets. Articles in the early 1970’s from the trade press talk about how Europeans still preferred larger tables than the US.


Transitional Cuts (transitioning between the European cuts and the modern round brilliant cuts) are typically circa 1940-1950.
The term’s wide use seems to have originated with an article by David Federman in 1985 (he may have gotten it from someone else in the trade). This generally describes a cutting style where the crown and pavilion angles are in the range associated with the modern brilliant, the table size varies from 40 to 60% (depends on who is using the term), but the lower halves are still short. The culet can be non-existent or somewhat large (again, it depends on who is using the term). This style of cutting originated with Henry Morse about 1870 and was the American Cut, Scientific Cut and early version of the Ideal Cut. It went away in the 1940’s, when lower haves were lengthened to the current range of 70% and more (previously 55 to 65% was typical).

I hope this helps. these are still generalizations. Cutters cut styles for cutsomers who want certain things. Just becauise they went out of vogue, doesn't mean someone wasn't still looking for them and they weren't being cut.

***** End Al Gilbertson *****

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/old-cuts-new-cut-eye-candy-a-question.94179/page-4

 

[Vix]

And since I was so edumacational above, here are some pics.

I mentioned above that I got my sister to trade in her bulky, not particularly well cut e-ring for an old cut. Here are some quick pics I grabbed after she''d been wearing the ring for a good 6 months without cleaning...I did what I could with some Dawn and hot water, but you should see that baby after it hits the ultrasound!

It''s def a warmer stone than many would like, but like many old cuts it tends to face up well. The cut is *miles* better than her old stone -- it''s a fireball -- and the .88 center looks bigger than her former center did despite being a bit smaller.

Not to mention that IMO the platinum setting is beautifully fluid and much more flattering on her finger than her prior one -- we have the same non-long.and.elegant fingers and tapered bands work wonders. I also love the triple-claw(?) prongs and just adore how flush to her finger it sits; it would be much more practical for me, ha.

 

[Vix]

...and this is my .5 (alleged) Euro Cut. The hex head is bog standard for the era, of course, but I adore the art nouveau influence seen with on the shank's "hearts" and the gallery's filigree work. [Ok, I also adore how much coverage this setting gives my size 5 finger!]

Though I believe the setting came with its original diamond, I had to replace it with another antique cut because I was a little tooooo in love with it and wore it hiking in rocky areas etc etc. A small chip turned into a big chunk and the fire was really affected.

So after I enabled my sister to get HER gorgeous ring I went back to my (now closed) old cut source and picked this one out from amongst a few loose stones. Unfortunately the reset was a bit of a hack job, but I try to just focus on how the "new" stone is prettier.

And I bought a little $150 1930's band with 5 *tiny* single cut diamonds to wear when fighting tigers, working on the chain gang, etc. so I have a little bling on me and a fighting chance of keeping my 2nd stone intact, sigh.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 1/9/2009 11:17:01 PM
Author: swingirl
Thanks for posting the photo of your pretty little ebay find. ow yo''ve got me thinking. My mother''s diamond is from the mid 40''s. Could it be a transitional cut or were they already cutting the modern cut?

You''re welcome swingirl - I will defer to the info posted by Vix above on that one. Do you have any pics?

 

[Imdanny]

"Has anyone else here seen the Cullinan II? It is in the Crown Jewels of England. That diamond is probably my favorite "old cut" diamond. I also really really really love the Dresden Green's cut." - shaunrice (sorry, I forgot to hit the quote function).

Yes! Yes! Yes! I was just going to say that. I've seen I and II (when I went I wasn't too young not remember both, and the Black Prince's Ruby). I is beyond words! But II is, to me, I don't know... my favorite diamond.

The brooch with the marquise on the bottom and rectangular stone on top (don't know their numbers) is stunning in pictures. If I saw these diamonds, these were a blur! I was fourteen. I'd surely remember them if I saw them today.

BTW, my grandmother had a .98 RB cut. Her friend down the street had a family ring, from the 20's, I think- I don't know the details, but as a child I remember looking at my grandmother's ring closely, and looking at her friend's ring from afar. I would never have told my grandmother this, but that's when I knew I preferred "old cut" diamonds.

 

[Miscka]

Vix-Thanks for posting all of that!!

Your ring/stone is GORGEOUS! I love your sisters as well. What is the color on that? You mentioned it being lower. I think it is stunning as well!

That info on the cuts was VERY helpful.

 

[cofor]

I have always preferred the pronounced dispersion in the older types of cuts over the extreme brilliancy in the so called modern.
Here is a Old Mine Cut in have had in my possession close to 20 years. Note the big culet facet.

 

[Upgradable]

Vix- thank you for adding the wonderful information!!! You gave the appropriate names and descriptions to my confusing personal terms!!! And congratulations on converting you sister too! Your stone is a perfect example of why I love these cuts. Look at all the glorious colors coming from that beautiful stone!!!! You don't have to be big to be beautiful!!!!

And cofor, WHY isn't that beauty mounted????

 

[Miscka]

Date: 1/10/2009 9:50:23 AM
Author: cofor
I have always preferred the pronounced dispersion in the older types of cuts over the extreme brilliancy in the so called modern.

Here is a Old Mine Cut in have had in my possession close to 20 years. Note the big culet facet.

THAT is one of the most stunning stones I have EVER seen. I love the shape. PLEASE come back with more details. That thing needs its own thread! We need stats! And WHERE did you find it?!?! AHHHH!

 

[Harriet]

Date: 1/10/2009 9:50:23 AM
Author: cofor
I have always preferred the pronounced dispersion in the older types of cuts over the extreme brilliancy in the so called modern.
Here is a Old Mine Cut in have had in my possession close to 20 years. Note the big culet facet.

Swoon.

 

[Vix]

Whoa...what she said --what a beauty!

Swingirl, if you can post a photo it wouldn''t hurt; DiaGem is one of the PS regulars who always has expert info on old cuts, so maybe this thread will get a visit.

Miscka and Upgradable, thank you for the compliments on the rings. I wish my photography skills were better -- I do read the tips threads but....I get constant flashes of true "rainbow" colors with mine, as does she (mine is mostly reflecting my pink shirt and the blue sky in that photo, along with my ear).

I have no idea what color either stone is; hers was set (I''d guess M+ since it does show a lot of color from the side but truly???) and while my replacement stone was loose my vendor never graded his smaller stones. With I love learning about the technical side of old cuts, I pretty much go by "Can I stare at this stone for hours?" and with settings I go by, "Does this flatter my finger?" I''m pretty sure any of the rings/stones posted here would meet my stringent criteria, ha.

My sister traded in her ring impulsively while visiting me. After wearing it for 40 minutes while browsing she could barely force herself to take the ring off to leave the shop and was back 15 minutes later. Sometimes I wish she''d just ogled and learned a bit, then taken her time to look around Singlestone, etc since she lives in S. CA, but then again...why wait?

 

[cofor]

Well I have been cutting, collecting and putting away stones for many years. Many have been mounted and yet many more sold. Some stones I have not had the heart to let go of. One day in the future I'm sure it will end up in a piece of jewellery. We are celebrating our 25th anniversary next year and maybe, just maybe, that is the right occasion...

Ooops... we have passed the new year already, 25th anniversary is this year...

 

[Harriet]

May we see more of your collection?

 

[cofor]

Of course you may. I will post images now and then. Just have to take some shots that I am satisfied with, which seems tougher than cutting the stuff

. After posting the one of my sapphire ring I was not really satisfied with the quality of the image as it does not show the stone to its best advantage.

 

[Harriet]

I can''t wait!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 1/10/2009 9:50:23 AM
Author: cofor
I have always preferred the pronounced dispersion in the older types of cuts over the extreme brilliancy in the so called modern.

Here is a Old Mine Cut in have had in my possession close to 20 years. Note the big culet facet.

WoW!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 1/10/2009 1:06:59 AM
Author: Vix
...and this is my .5 (alleged) Euro Cut. The hex head is bog standard for the era, of course, but I adore the art nouveau influence seen with on the shank''s ''hearts'' and the gallery''s filigree work. [Ok, I also adore how much coverage this setting gives my size 5 finger!]

This stone is gorgeous! I love this photo!