Oops I did it again!

[Iowa Lizzy]

I''ve changed my mind yet again!

I thought I had my mind set a classic RB somewhere between 1.8 and 2.2 cts. Low and behold, I''ve now found myself drawn to antique diamonds. I can''t keep my eyes off them.

I had originally made my BF a "cheat sheet" for diamonds. With the basics of what I wanted for color, clarity, and carat (believe me, he KNEW not to get anything other than an IDEAL cut). Now I''ve gone and told him I might be interested in an antique. At this point I wouldn''t be surprised if he just told me to pick out what I want and bring him the receipt.

He doesn''t have a firm grasp on that whole, um, ''romantic'' concept. But I digress....

IT''S THOSE CHUNKY FACETS!!!! I can''t get enough of them. Now everytime I look at the James Allen RB ideal diamond images I used to drool over, I just get bored. Seriously, who needs symmetry, hearts and arrows when you can have all those chunky monkey facets?!? Is this just a phase? Would I someday get sick of the "chaos" of an antique and wish I''d gotten something more "classic and uniform?"

Somebody slap some sense into me. Please. I really don''t know much about the difference between today''s round diamonds and the OMCs, OECs and Antique Cushion Cuts. It''s time for a crash course.

I need to make up my darm mind. I (and my BF) thank you.

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 7/12/2008 2:18:41 AM
Author:Iowa Lizzy
IT'S THOSE CHUNKY FACETS!!!! I can't get enough of them.

It is! I love them.

You need a link to celebehbra's cushion thread- forgive the spelling. I hope someone knows what I'm talking about and can provide it. She researched this very thoroughly. I can't find it in the search engine because my spelling is wrong.

 

[LGK]

Have you seen a nice antique diamond in person? Played with it in different lighting? If you have, and you still adore them, I'd say it's probably more than a phase! If you haven't looked at one in person, I'd do that before deciding; pictures online just don't do diamonds justice.

They also perform a bit differently than a RB, usually; you don't get that super white light return with many OECs, instead you get more fire... at least that's what it seems like to me, I'm sure some stones are exceptions. The flashes of fire are also medium-to-large, because of those yummy facets, so you don't get that glittery/pinfire type effect that RBs do. There is also a definite pattern you see inside a symmetrically cut OEC too. Some are more chaotic, and are just chunky & gorgeous with no major pattern showing, and I like that too... but the almost perfect snowflake I see in my larger one is soooo beautiful.

I am a total antique cut fan so take my opinion with a grain of salt. For what it's worth, though, I have never wished I went with a RB instead of an antique stone. I did seriously consider an ideal cut RB when I got my replacement/upgrade e-ring about 6 months ago, but I am very, very happy I went with what I'd always preferred, an OEC.

Plus, if you like the look of it, you can get away with lower color IMO (and thus bigger diamond!) because a hint of color looks so beautiful in an antique cut. Though I tend to like warmer colors in general, I love them in old cut diamonds and indeed prefer warmer ones.

Oh, and the antique cuts:

The Old Mine Cut was more or less from the early 1830s to mmmm, 1880/1890ish? These are softly out of round, barely squarish in out line. Their table was quite small, the crown very high, and a very large culet usually. They are chunkier and more chaotic in appearance than an Old European Cut.

The Antique Cushion Cut was more or less from the same time period as the Old Mine, and looks very similar usually- but instead of being almost-round, they're definitely square with round corners or rectangular. Otherwise they look a LOT like the Old Mine cut.

The Old European Cut was made from around 1880/1890 through 1930s-ish. They're round, not square-ish, and less deep than an OMC usually. The table is typically a bit larger than the OMC but still very small, and they still had a pretty high crown, though not as high as an OMC. The culets of early OECs are usually a bit larger than the later ones. The OEC, if cut symmetrically, shows a "snowflake" or "spear" type pattern.

The Transitional Cut was more or less from 1920/1930-1940ish. The transitionals were all slightly different, but mostly can be characterized as mixing the modern round brilliant features with an OEC. So you'll see many with small to very small culets, larger tables, some with smaller, less chunky facets etc.

I'm totally pulling these dates out of memory, too lazy to look em up, so if anyone cares to correct me feel free; they're approximately right though I think.

The antique cuts were designed to look fabulous in lower light conditions like candle light, and boy do they.

 

[gemgaga]

Perhaps descention among the PSers ranks but...

Personally I am just a little tired of the H&A, perfection, ideal cut , light retun, blah, blah, blah of the quintessential RBC! Cookie cutter diamonds of spectacular performance. Snore !

Give me something with a distinct personality that doesn''t perform like everyone else out there. I like setting myself apart sometimes with a little "imperfection".

Just my ...

 

[RxTechRN2b]

Go for the antique cut! I love them and just think that in people who want the larger diamonds over 1.5 carats, that an antique "chunky" faceted stone, cushion, emerald cut, or asscher lend a more classy understated look than the common RB (which in my opinion the RB can look ostentatious in the larger sizes).

 

[scarlet16]

I''m clearly biased and say go for the antique! I previously had a round brilliant and now have a super chunky cushion. They are VERY different, and I definitely recommend seeing both styles in person before you decide. But if you''re concerned about not having enough fire, etc., I can personally tell you NOT to worry...the fire that comes out of my stone is AMAZING with big bold flashes of color!

 

[Iowa Lizzy]

Wow! We''ve got a quite a few antique lovers here, huh? I rather suspected it it be the other way around! I think I honestly hoped people would post the opposite and I''d get over myself!

Here''s another question: Do antiques look too much like (forgive me, this is the only thing I can think of) "ring pops?" You know, just a really big crown, small table, almost (dare I say) fake looking? Also, I do kind of have an issue with the large cutlet of an antique. Is that enough to make me go for an RBC?

My mother has a beautiful RB set in the classic Tiffany six prong (high profile) setting. It''s one carat, but on her tiny 3.5 fingers it looks just spectacular. I''m always looking at the way the light bounces off of it. I just love it when you don''t notice someone is even wearing a diamond until you catch it sparkling. I''m worried that an antique just won''t have that same glittery effect.

As for color, I really don''t mind a little warmth. I mean, how often am I actually going to hold my diamond up to a colorless one and compare? That said, I don''t want one that looks too warm or yellowish.

RxTechRN2be: Does an antique diamond of the same ct weight as a RB appear smaller? I guess I haven''t really looked at the dimensions and compared them. I feel like, if I wanted something understated, I''d just go with a smaller diamond and save some money.

I live in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, so the chances of getting to view an antique next to a new one are probably pretty slim. We do, however, travel to Las Vegas a few times a year. Does anyone know of a place there that specializes in antique cuts?

Liz

 

[rcrosier]

Phase... you''ll grow out of it, at least that''s my opinion, but obviously I''m not a huge fan of anything other than RB diamonds when discussing engagement rings... Maybe princess or a variation, but not OMC/OEC... Sorry, but I simply can''t agree with everyone else on this matter. Just get whatever you like and hope that you continue to like it!

 

[han001]

I LOVE antique cuts. I might get some flack for saying this, but while RB are incredibly beautiful - they just don''t have that same personality, that same character, that same OMPH. I love having something unique and out of the ordinary.

To answer your question, I don''t think going for a larger antique cut stone will look fake. My sister has a 3ct antique cushion. You are right in that it has a lot of depth, but I love the chunky look and think it looks classier and actually, more understated, than a 3ct RB would look.

Now - I *think* that a 1ct antique cushion or OMC would look smaller from above than a 1ct RB because they are typically cut deeper than RB. I''m not so sure about OEC though. I''m pulling this out of memory so anyone, please feel free to jump in and correct me!

I vote antique!

 

[MMT]

I think we all get too caught up in the letters and numbers. If you love it get it. I just love diamonds.

 

[kcoursolle]

Have you gone out and viewed older cuts compared to round brilliants in person? I think looking at stones in person is a great way to nail down what you really want. On pricescope everything looks beautiful and it''s so easy to change your mind, but I think in person it''s much easier to get a real feel for what you like the most.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/12/2008 6:15:55 AM
Author: gemgaga
Perhaps descention among the PSers ranks but...

Personally I am just a little tired of the H&A, perfection, ideal cut , light retun, blah, blah, blah of the quintessential RBC! Cookie cutter diamonds of spectacular performance. Snore !

Give me something with a distinct personality that doesn''t perform like everyone else out there. I like setting myself apart sometimes with a little ''imperfection''.

Just my ...

Hmmm..of course, you are entitled to your opinion and tastes. But perhaps while voicing them you can try Not to offend the tons of people here who do own and love "cookie cutter" ideal diamonds. These are people''s engagement rings you are trashing, after all

 

[gemgaga]

Atjunajane

You''re absolutely right. Sorry.

 

[loverocks]

How about a transitional cut? That may be great balance for you? A little bit chunckier but with more modern proportions.

 

[omieluv]

Date: 7/12/2008 2:18:41 AM
Author:Iowa Lizzy
I've changed my mind yet again!

I had originally made my BF a 'cheat sheet' for diamonds. With the basics of what I wanted for color, clarity, and carat (believe me, he KNEW not to get anything other than an IDEAL cut). Now I've gone and told him I might be interested in an antique. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he just told me to pick out what I want and bring him the receipt...

I am in a similar situation. Last year, I gave my BF a cheat sheet based of what I have learned off of PS for a RB, but now having second thoughts, as I have really grown to appreciate antique stones as well. The thing is, unless you get lucky, it takes so much time and effort to find the right one and I am not sure I want to put him through all of that. Maybe I will get a nice antique RHR down the road.