Old cuts - questions..

[dani13]

Oh my, your collection is GORGEOUS, glitterata!!!!

 

[glitterata]

Thanks, Dani. I don''t mean to hijack this thread. Later tonight or tomorrow I''ll start a new thread with the results of my shoot. But I thought people might like to see these old cuts close up here.

 

[LGK]

Your taste in the old cuts, AJ, sounds a lot like mine. I like the middle time period to later time period OECs best, like 1910ish on. They (speaking VERY broadly!) tend to have more symmetrical faceting, have better spread & be less super deep, and still retain the small table/high crown, and have smaller culets. I like that look a lot. It often gives you a lot of fire, OK white light return, and a flowerlike chunky facet pattern, with less leakage/maltese cross type patterning.

For my particular taste in OECs, I usually look for OECs with depths in the 61-63%, tables in the mid 50% and smaller, and a nice high crown.

The larger one I have has a (very small) 45% table, a medium or large culet (differing opinions by two appraisers- I'd call it medium in relation to the stone but big if it were on a smaller one!) and a 62% depth. This stone has amazing white light return for an old cut and killer fire, with no black leakage showing even in pics... my guess is that this stone is from 1910 to 1920ish. My smaller one has a 61.8% depth, a 17.7% crown and a larger table at 59%- I think it's a bit towards the end of the OEC period, like late '20s early '30s. Of course old cuts are so tough to generalize that you do have to see them in person or have a good vendor helping. (I saw one that matched my 1.22 almost perfectly by the numbers but the center was just dead, no fire at all from the middle of the stone, just around the edges.) And of course there are other beautiful ones with totally different stats.

The small table on the larger one creates that neat Kozibe effect of mirroring the culet around quite prominently- you only have to tip it a tiny bit to see it do that. If you don't like that effect look for a bit larger of a table!

Transitional cuts are a bit harder to find IMO. Also some of them almost look like sloppily cut RBs, though some are gorgeous and antiquey looking with chunkiness and fire (well, you know that- Surfgirl's is smashing!) It's the fact that there are fewer and they're more varied- some are more OEC like and some are more RB like- that makes specifically looking for a transitional tougher. There was one on Old World Diamonds that was a hair under a carat that looked a lot like a round brilliant with a tiny culet... he had it listed as an OEC but I guess the actual cert said transitional.

Is this another project???

 

[LGK]

Glitterata you have some gorgeous stuff!!!

This is a pic that shows what the patterning on my larger (3.55ct) OEC looks like pretty well. You can see how the culet mirrors around with just the slightest tip of the stone.

 

[arjunajane]

Wow, so many great responses and examples, thankyou so much everyone who has answered so far !

(no time for proper response at the moment, at work - will be back later..)

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Jumping into the fray here. Attached is another photo of the SAME diamond as the very first photo above. Notice how the maltese cross is barely noticeable due to the slight angle of the camera?

I have actually come across many stones that photograph with these maltese crosses but they are practically invisible IRL. Snooper''s 2.75 cushion is a perfect example. I have attached another photo of the same diamond prior to setting.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Snooper''s 2.75ct cushion:

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

One of the best examples of contrast that I could find: a 1.96ct Transitional diamond (from my collection):

 

[swingirl]

Oh, what beautiful rings and stones. The old cuts are beautiful with their chunky facets.

Ericad, tell us about the setting on your middle finger. Is that an original setting? It's beautiful!

I wish I got turned on to the old cuts a few years back!!

 

[strmrdr]

One word WOW

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/1/2008 10:21:22 PM
Author: HeartingDiamonds
Jumping into the fray here. Attached is another photo of the SAME diamond as the very first photo above. Notice how the maltese cross is barely noticeable due to the slight angle of the camera?


I have actually come across many stones that photograph with these maltese crosses but they are practically invisible IRL. Snooper''s 2.75 cushion is a perfect example. I have attached another photo of the same diamond prior to setting.

When the darkness is caused by obstruction it will usually change very quickly when titled.
It will also go away when you remove the obstruction.
If its caused by leakage then it wont.

The obstruction you commonly see is a result of huge pavilion facets at shallow angles.
The amount of obstruction shown face up is dependent on the pavilion angle and the lgf% for any given degree of obstruction.

 

[strmrdr]

For example this is 22 degrees obstruction

 

[strmrdr]

this is 30
Compare the blue to the black above.

 

[strmrdr]

tilt it 10 degrees and the obstruction it shows is much reduced.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Veddy veddy cool, Strmrdr! Thanks for the great info!

 

[strmrdr]

Just for the fun of it I designed a monster oec with a 25.7% crown height but its pretty much impossible to cut as the pavilion has a .3 range from awful to good to awful.

 

[ericad]

Date: 9/1/2008 8:05:16 PM
Author: Snooper
Interesting thread!


Although the pic of my ring shows a strong maltese cross, it''s very VERY subtle in person. Thanks again Ericad!!!

Yes, photographing stones that exhibit reflection is so very difficult because in person it''s barely visible, but is picked up so strongly in pics, especially with a black camera!

Interesting example - this transitional stone photographed very dark and reflected a lot of the black camera. But when I used a white sheet of paper with a hole in it, to hide the black of the camera case, the diamond completely changed.

Regular pic, with reflections:

 

[ericad]

Same stone, only the camera lens was pushed through a hole in a white sheet of paper:

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 12:16:59 AM
Author: ericad
Interesting example - this transitional stone photographed very dark and reflected a lot of the black camera. But when I used a white sheet of paper with a hole in it, to hide the black of the camera case, the diamond completely changed.

The diamond didn''t change the environment did.
It is still reflecting what is above it but what is above it changed color.
Try it with red paper and it will turn red.

 

[arjunajane]

Thankyou everyone for making this an educational and also visually stunning thread !

Especially thankyou to Erica and Grace for the great pics, Strm for all the info, Ellen and Glitterata for sharing your lovelies, and LGK for the detailed post ..

It definately seems like these stones bring out a passion in PS''ers, and I can see why !



....next project, OEC, here I come, lol..........

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 12:39:54 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 12:16:59 AM
Author: ericad
Interesting example - this transitional stone photographed very dark and reflected a lot of the black camera. But when I used a white sheet of paper with a hole in it, to hide the black of the camera case, the diamond completely changed.

The diamond didn''t change the environment did.
It is still reflecting what is above it but what is above it changed color.
Try it with red paper and it will turn red.

Thats why its very hard to almost impossible to translate the true beauty and patterns of Diamonds via still images...
A photographer can shoot pictures until he believes he got the best one (but that is only one frame)...

Thats why Pictures (even great ones) only tell/exhibit a tiny fraction of the Diamonds true beauty and life...

 

[Lorelei]

Great job on this thread everyone, I am going to link it in the Helpful Thread archive

 

[dani13]

Awesome pics, Erica!!! And Strm, thanks for all of that good info. Great thread.

 

[Ellen]

Great pics everyone! And glitterata, that shot of all 3 is really neat!

I was going to make a thread on the following photos, but since the main thing I had a question about is being discussed in this one, I''ll post in here. Hope you don''t mind aj!

I am thinking this is an OEC, from all the searching/comparing I''ve done. I am also thinking this pattern is from leakage, the stone "seems" to be steep/deep. I can''t tell entirely because there is a metal piece over the bottom half of the stone, except for a tiny hole where the culet is. But judging from everything, it seems like it is. And I can see this patteren in some lighting at a distance. Does this look/sound right for a steep/deep? (I can also get a dark rim right under the table (not all the way around) when I take pics at an angle)

 

[Ellen]

Again.

 

[arjunajane]

Ellen, of course not , ask away !
It would be great for this thread to continue with questions and examples.

Is this another from your collection?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/2/2008 8:51:53 AM
Author: arjunajane
Ellen, of course not , ask away !
It would be great for this thread to continue with questions and examples.

Is this another from your collection?

If by "collection", you mean the pieces I''ve posted recently of my moms that were in the bank box, yes. I am thinking of calling dibs on this one.

And thanks aj, glad you don''t mind! I thought it might be helpful too.

 

[ericad]

Date: 9/2/2008 12:39:54 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 12:16:59 AM

Author: ericad

Interesting example - this transitional stone photographed very dark and reflected a lot of the black camera. But when I used a white sheet of paper with a hole in it, to hide the black of the camera case, the diamond completely changed.

The diamond didn''t change the environment did.

It is still reflecting what is above it but what is above it changed color.

Try it with red paper and it will turn red.

Thank you for the clarification - of course what I meant was that the diamond''s appearance completely changed (it''s not a magic diamond, after all!) My point being that in real life, diamonds that exhibit these "black" reflections will not always look like what you see in pics where a black camera is being used and the diamond is being held perfectly still. They will reflect the blue sky, green trees, pink shirt - whatever is facing the stone at a given moment, thought he diamond is almost always in motion. Even stones that exhibit a very strong maltese cross in pics are hard pressed to show this in real life.

In fact, for what it''s worth, we recently had a client SPECIFICALLY seeking this phenomenon. She loved it and preferred the older of the old cuts and adored the maltese cross she saw in one particular stone when holding it just so. So it''s really a matter of preference and what speaks to each person.

 

[ericad]

Date: 9/2/2008 3:13:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 9/2/2008 12:39:54 AM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 12:16:59 AM

Author: ericad

Interesting example - this transitional stone photographed very dark and reflected a lot of the black camera. But when I used a white sheet of paper with a hole in it, to hide the black of the camera case, the diamond completely changed.

The diamond didn''t change the environment did.

It is still reflecting what is above it but what is above it changed color.

Try it with red paper and it will turn red.

Thats why its very hard to almost impossible to translate the true beauty and patterns of Diamonds via still images...

A photographer can shoot pictures until he believes he got the best one (but that is only one frame)...


Thats why Pictures (even great ones) only tell/exhibit a tiny fraction of the Diamonds true beauty and life...

YES! Could not have said it any better!

 

[ericad]

Date: 9/1/2008 10:31:36 PM
Author: swingirl

Ericad, tell us about the setting on your middle finger. Is that an original setting? It''s beautiful!

No ma''am - the buyer of the diamond had it reset into a setting she found at a B&M. Because she is local to me, I was able to photograph the ring over coffee