Opinion on antique diamond - your help please

[diamondseeker17]

Hello!
This is my first post on this forum I have read previous posts here and have found them very helpful and honest and hence, I have decided to post to get your opinions!

I have been searching for an antique diamond for my engagement ring. I love their unique cut and the idea of a romantic diamond with history. All to say that I have found one that has caught my heart and I needed your opinion to see whether it is truly antique. Below you will find picture, GIA certificate and live pictures (the diamond in question is the second bottom one). GIA states that the diamond is circular brilliant and by the way the cut looks, I assume it is an OEC but didn’t quite make the cut with GIA’s criteria (this is what the seller is also stating). Overall my question is, if GIA certifies a diamond as “circular brilliant”, does it always imply that it is an antique diamond and are there instances where a circular brilliant as certified by GIA would not be antique? And finally, regarding the diamond in question, would it be possible to tell me from which time period it is by it’s cut?

Thank you so much for your help!

 

[foxinsox]

That’s a pretty looking stone and has a lovely snowflake pattern around the outside. It’s nice and bright too.
I don’t know if you could ever definitively say a stone was definitely antique unless you knew the provenance for sure. It’s quite possible that a cutter could cut a new piece of rough to fit the parameters that GIA uses to decide if a stone is a circular brilliant but it’s more likely that it is vintage since the market for old cuts is much smaller than for MRB unless you’re looking for the precision ‘ideal light return’ OECs like the August Vintage ones. Maybe look at the girdle and see if it’s pristine or if there’s any small nicks or ‘fleabites’ as that could show it’s been around a long time.

 

[elliefire99]

Hello and welcome!

You have chosen a gorgeous stone But then again, I love old cuts of all shapes an sizes, so I'm a little biased. This one has some beautiful, even, almost checkerboard-y faceting, and you gotta love that high color....

What the seller is telling you about circular brilliants, and your own suspicions about it are entirely correct. GIA essentially created the "circular brilliant" category to encompass diamonds that don't quite meet the stringent OEC criteria set by GIA, but also more than just poorly-cut modern brilliants. More on this here: https://www.nationaljeweler.com/diamonds-gems/grading/1070-the-ongoing-debate-over-old-cuts

As foxinsox mentioned, there really is no way to tell from a GIA report if a diamond is a "true antique" or not, but the number of diamonds that are cut in antique style today is still a very small part of the modern diamond market. So it's pretty unlikely that your diamond would be modern cut without your knowledge. If the fact that the diamond is a true antique is very important to you, the fact that this stone has been classified as "circular brilliant" as actually in its favor. I would assume that any modern cutter making the effort to cut antique stones would make extra sure that those stones would be classified as such by GIA.

As for the time period.... This is by no means and exact science, but I would guess in the 1900-1920 range. Could be earlier. The slightly bigger table and more even (almost checkerboard) facets make it seem like a late OEC, as things were starting to move to transitional cuts.

But not an expert! You should just wear and enjoy!

 

[diamondseeker17]

Thank you so much for your answers!! It is really appreciated!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi and welcome to Pricescope.
As a seller, I feel that honest representation is essential. So, from my perspective, unless someone had firsthand and verifiable knowledge of a stones’ history, I won’t guarantee a stone to be a true Antique. A skilled cutter can cut a brand new stone in such a fashion that it’s virtually indistinguishable from a true antique.
It’s true that many of the newly cut antique style stones are symmetrical- I’ve also seen brand new rough cut to wonky proportions.
I’d advise making the decision based on how much you love a given stone, comfort with the seller, price, etc.

Funny story- at one point in my career I managed a parrot store. It’s said that parrots live long lives.
But there were cases of a bird thought to be 100 years old..... except they forgot that the first one died , and Granny bought a new bird that looked like the old one. This surely happened with diamonds too

 

[diamondseeker17]

Thank you for your feedback Rockdiamond!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I suspect this is a true antique stone that has been polished and cleaned up. No way to know for sure, but that is my guess.

As rock diamond said, the symmetry of the cut is not perfect on this one, and the depth is on the higher end. I absolutely think there are some newer cut diamonds (or old cuts that have been significantly recut) on the market that are being passed off as true old cuts, but I think most modern cutters aim for more symmetry and less depth (either to preserve rough or improve optics in overhead lighting, which does not actually favour true old cut optics in many cases). Some cutters may try to emulate the true wonk of older cuts, but I suspect that is a rare occurrence.

But I do think this diamond has been polished and cleaned up. Most "untouched" true antiques with this facet pattern have nicks in the girdle or at the very least have a bruted (i.e., very thick and rough) or knife edge girdle. This stone has a faceted girdle, which is a dead give away that it has been cleaned up, since a true antique diamond with this facet pattern would not originally have had a faceted girdle. How much tweaking was done to other facets during the polishing, if tweaking was done at all, is anyone's guess.

BTW have you seen this stone in person? Or a video? I would be concerned about dead areas under the table -- I can see the same facets look dark in both images (2 o'clock and 8 o'clock). If they light up with movement, fine, but if they are always dark you will have a dark or lazy center on your diamond. With this kind of depth, a smaller table (~45%) is more desirable because it minimizes under-table darkness.

PS: Do you have a profile shot to show the crown height?

 

[Rockdiamond]

dreamer_dachsie- I'm curious as to why you feel it's an old stone...
Regarding the symmetry...IMO, if a cutter was going to really mimic an old cut, they symmetry would likely be classified as "Fair" or even "Poor"
A symmetry grade of "Good" means the stone is very close to VG, or even EX
Few true antiques would achieve that IMO....

 

[diamondseeker17]

I suspect this is a true antique stone that has been polished and cleaned up. No way to know for sure, but that is my guess.

As rock diamond said, the symmetry of the cut is not perfect on this one, and the depth is on the higher end. I absolutely think there are some newer cut diamonds (or old cuts that have been significantly recut) on the market that are being passed off as true old cuts, but I think most modern cutters aim for more symmetry and less depth (either to preserve rough or improve optics in overhead lighting, which does not actually favour true old cut optics in many cases). Some cutters may try to emulate the true wonk of older cuts, but I suspect that is a rare occurrence.

But I do think this diamond has been polished and cleaned up. Most "untouched" true antiques with this facet pattern have nicks in the girdle or at the very least have a bruted (i.e., very thick and rough) or knife edge girdle. This stone has a faceted girdle, which is a dead give away that it has been cleaned up, since a true antique diamond with this facet pattern would not originally have had a faceted girdle. How much tweaking was done to other facets during the polishing, if tweaking was done at all, is anyone's guess.

BTW have you seen this stone in person? Or a video? I would be concerned about dead areas under the table -- I can see the same facets look dark in both images (2 o'clock and 8 o'clock). If they light up with movement, fine, but if they are always dark you will have a dark or lazy center on your diamond. With this kind of depth, a smaller table (~45%) is more desirable because it minimizes under-table darkness.

PS: Do you have a profile shot to show the crown height?

Thank you for your reply!

You can find a video of the stone here:

Please let me know what you think! I am aware that this stone is not perfect but that is what I find charming about it! It was also my guess that this stone was polished and cleaned up from its “faceted” girdle. However can we tell from its large facets that this stone was originally cut by hand and much of its original structure has been retained?

Thanks again!

 

[Dreamer_D]

@Rockdiamond I think I explained my thought process fairly well in my post.

But I've been away from the diamond world for a while and I am far more familiar with buying uncerted old cuts on the secondary market.

Are you suggesting that there are cutters out there who are producing replica old stones that are a little wonky under the table and deep enough that they would waste a lot of rough and then selling them for the same price that would be charged for a true old stone (i.e., less than modern-cut "old style" cuts usually sell for)? This just doesn't seem like a profitable practice to me, as evidenced by the fact that *known* replica old-cuts sell for a premium. Or has that price differential disappeared in the two years I have been gone? Are true old cuts now the same price as known modern replicas?

I suppose there is also the question of when "tweaking" or "cleaning up" the cut of an old stone causes the stone to no longer be considered a true old stone. There is evidence of a girdle repolish here. And you suggest that the "good" symmetry is suggestive of a newer cut. I poked around on some other sites and see that "Fair" is a more common symmetry. So perhaps there has been some recutting of faceting as well. How much tweaking can happen before we consider a diamond to be newly cut and not, in fact, an old cut at all? Who knows. We were having that discussion two years ago. I doubt it has been resolved.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The under-table movement looks OK. Seeing it in person before the sale is final, and examining it in lots of different lighting situations would be good to do. To my eyes, it meets the "bar" for being a nice cut, your eyes will decide if it is the right cut for you.

@diamondseeker17 said "However can we tell from its large facets that this stone was originally cut by hand and much of its original structure has been retained?"

No, that doesn't tell us anything. The girdle and, as David noted, the "Good" symmetry grade suggest some modern repolishing and/or recutting. But there is no way to know how much was done unless the seller is honest and tells you about it (if they even know, maybe it was done before they got it). As David said, it could even be a newly cut stone (but see my questions about this, above).

Is it important to you that the stone is a truly original old cut?

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI dreamer_dachsie!
Interesting discussion- sorry if my response came off snooty- because it's true, you did state why you felt that way.
A few points:
A clean up of girdle on an older stone is indeed common.
Also cleaning up abrasions on facets.
But none of that will increase a GIA symmetry grade. Based on the large photo posted above, I believe this stone was never truly "wonky"- or that it previously would have gotten a lower symmetry grade.

In terms of newer wonky stones.
A deeper stone wastes less rough than a more shallow stone, if cut from the same rough.
So there's more carat weight to sell. So if a cutter can get away with a deeper stone that looks good, they will.
In terms of pricing in general: The market for antique and replica stones, as a whole, is not as easy to gauge as the one for modern RBC stones.
I know from recent discussions with cutters that it's gotten harder and harder to buy the rough.
So surely some of the boutique cuts discussed here frequently have either gone up in price, or decreased in availability.
As we all agree- verifying a stone's age is pretty much impossible.
When we see circular brilliant, or OEC diamonds on the market they are commanding strong prices- even if there are abrasions/girdle chips and even if they are wonky.

 

[diamondseeker17]

The under-table movement looks OK. Seeing it in person before the sale is final, and examining it in lots of different lighting situations would be good to do. To my eyes, it meets the "bar" for being a nice cut, your eyes will decide if it is the right cut for you.

@diamondseeker17 said "However can we tell from its large facets that this stone was originally cut by hand and much of its original structure has been retained?"

No, that doesn't tell us anything. The girdle and, as David noted, the "Good" symmetry grade suggest some modern repolishing and/or recutting. But there is no way to know how much was done unless the seller is honest and tells you about it (if they even know, maybe it was done before they got it). As David said, it could even be a newly cut stone (but see my questions about this, above).

Is it important to you that the stone is a truly original old cut?

I guess my concern for an antique stone is that it would almost guarantee that the stone is 100% conflict free and unique. So from what I understand, if I aim for a stone labeled as an OEC by the GIA and with “fair” symmetry, there is a greater likelihood that the stone is a true antique (again with the possibility that it might be a stone cut in modern times to resemble an old cut). I have looked at many websites that sell antique diamonds (example: Old world diamonds) with good reputation (I would assume so) that sell OECs some with “faceted” girdles. Sometimes (again from my basic understanding of the diamond industry) cleaning up the stone can help increase the value of the stone while maintaining its original old cut...

Anyways, diamonds have become so commercialized and have lost their romantic and unique appeal and I want to make sure that by buying a true antique diamond it would be more personal to me and in line with my values...

Thank you again for your help.

 

[leukolenos]

I guess my concern for an antique stone is that it would almost guarantee that the stone is 100% conflict free and unique. So from what I understand, if I aim for a stone labeled as an OEC by the GIA and with “fair” symmetry, there is a greater likelihood that the stone is a true antique (again with the possibility that it might be a stone cut in modern times to resemble an old cut). I have looked at many websites that sell antique diamonds (example: Old world diamonds) with good reputation (I would assume so) that sell OECs some with “faceted” girdles. Sometimes (again from my basic understanding of the diamond industry) cleaning up the stone can help increase the value of the stone while maintaining its original old cut...

Anyways, diamonds have become so commercialized and have lost their romantic and unique appeal and I want to make sure that by buying a true antique diamond it would be more personal to me and in line with my values...

Thank you again for your help.

I don't think if you aim for one labeled as an OEC by GIA that it necessarily makes it more likely to be a true antique. I think it's more likely than not that this is a true old cut stone. Yes, the girdle has been cleaned up, but to me that is acceptable. One of my OECs has a faceted girdle, it may be silly but I feel "safer" wearing it, in that I worry less about chipping a very fragile stone.

I like the stone in the video. It looks likely and has a pretty facet pattern. I&R is a reputable vendor so I would have no qualms ordering it to check it out.

 

[diamondseeker17]

I don't think if you aim for one labeled as an OEC by GIA that it necessarily makes it more likely to be a true antique. I think it's more likely than not that this is a true old cut stone. Yes, the girdle has been cleaned up, but to me that is acceptable. One of my OECs has a faceted girdle, it may be silly but I feel "safer" wearing it, in that I worry less about chipping a very fragile stone.

I like the stone in the video. It looks likely and has a pretty facet pattern. I&R is a reputable vendor so I would have no qualms ordering it to check it out.

Thank you for your feedback!

 

[Dreamer_D]

@Rockdiamond Thank you! Learned a couple new things here today, and that is always a good thing. And no worries, I didn't think you were snooty, I just didn't want to repeat myself.

A few points:
A clean up of girdle on an older stone is indeed common.
Also cleaning up abrasions on facets.
But none of that will increase a GIA symmetry grade. Based on the large photo posted above, I believe this stone was never truly "wonky"- or that it previously would have gotten a lower symmetry grade.

So a simple "clean up" or the girdle and abrasions will not influence GIA symmetry. Great to know.

In terms of newer wonky stones.
A deeper stone wastes less rough than a more shallow stone, if cut from the same rough.
So there's more carat weight to sell. So if a cutter can get away with a deeper stone that looks good, they will.

I was remembering some discussions about depth and rough and old cuts, and some diagrams that @Karl_K posted showing how you can get a second stone from the rough when its cut to more modern proportions with a lesser overall depth and shallower crown... and also conversations from Jon when he was talking about cutting AVCs and how hard it was to find suitable rough that would allow for the depth without wasting too much. But perhaps that had more to do with the crown height than overall depth. This level of detail about diamond cutting is certainly outside my wheelhouse.

In terms of pricing in general: The market for antique and replica stones, as a whole, is not as easy to gauge as the one for modern RBC stones.
I know from recent discussions with cutters that it's gotten harder and harder to buy the rough.
So surely some of the boutique cuts discussed here frequently have either gone up in price, or decreased in availability.
As we all agree- verifying a stone's age is pretty much impossible.
When we see circular brilliant, or OEC diamonds on the market they are commanding strong prices- even if there are abrasions/girdle chips and even if they are wonky.

If it is hard to find the rough, then does it become more common to find true old cuts that are not great, and then recut them to look better? And if cutters do this, would they use the old facet patterning as a guide or just start over?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks dreamer!!

I was remembering some discussions about depth and rough and old cuts, and some diagrams that @Karl_K posted showing how you can get a second stone from the rough when its cut to more modern proportions with a lesser overall depth and shallower crown... and also conversations from Jon when he was talking about cutting AVCs and how hard it was to find suitable rough that would allow for the depth without wasting too much. But perhaps that had more to do with the crown height than overall depth. This level of detail about diamond cutting is certainly outside my wheelhouse.

About rough- and yeild.
This is a pet PS peeve of mine. Rough diamonds come in all shapes- the sort of rough used for rounds ( and many antique style cuts) is generally octahedron- and more "regular" shaped.
But there are all kinds of odd shaped rough- which can produce all different kinds of fancy shaped diamonds. Sometimes discussions here tend to take a tone of "that greedy cutter" made this stone deep ( or shallow) to try an "pull something"
Not always the case.
As an anaolgy, I look at it more like real estate.
A flat 100x100 plot is easy to develop.
What if the plot is an odd shape, and not level.
Then it takes creativity to build a house in a way that utilizes the natural characteristics of the land.
Shallow, and deep stones can be like that. Not to say they're all pretty- most aren't- but also not to preclude them for that reason alone.

If it is hard to find the rough, then does it become more common to find true old cuts that are not great, and then recut them to look better? And if cutters do this, would they use the old facet patterning as a guide or just start over?

Another insightful question!
The term "look better"....hard to quantify ( another PS peeve of mine- there's no absolute "better" cut)
I've had cutters/dealers present me stones which had abrasions and small chips- purposefully NOT repaired so that the stone shows age. Like a patina. They think that looks better. And they don't sell for less than repaired stones.
I personally don't love to see abrasions and chips on a stone.

Recut can take many different directions.
In the '70's-early 2000's many older stones were recut to RBC's.
Before the GIA cut grade- and in the days when my beloved 60/60 cutting style ruled, it was a good business decision to cut to a modern stone.
Today, a number of factors prevent that
1) GIA cut grade and other factors make anything but a "triple EX" form being desirable on the broad market.
2) antique stones are far more popular today than they were 20 years back.
Unfortunately, tons of older stones were recut in those days- and generally the higher color ones.
That's why stones that are likely antiques you find today are more commonly lower colors.

 

[Rockdiamond]

More....
It would be possible to improve the polish grade on a true antique.
Repairs- generally speaking: a girdle chip can be polished out by making a small, imperceptible flat spot on the girdle.
I've seen what looked like a large chip repaired by using this method- and the weight loss was incredibly small- .01ct
I've even seen chips repaired with no weight loss. Of course, there is some loss- but less than .01ct
When a stone is repaired- if it's an antique style circular brilliant, OMB, or OEC, the cutter doesn't even need to worry if there's visible asymmetry.

I've been seeing more and more stones categorized by GIA as "Circular Brilliant" lately.
The open culet allows better weight retention on newly cut rough- and again, no need for the cutter to go through the steps to get to triple EX.
I've seen newly cut stones that look exactly like the large photo above.
Some have been awesome.
I've also seen Circular Brilliant stones that had a visible fish eye.....and believe it or not, the fisheye wasn't ugly ( to my eye)

 

[LightBright]

Hi Diamondseeker17!

I agree with Elliefire99 about the age of this cut. 1900-1920ish. It’s the time when OEC cut stones started to transition to a shallower, blockier, more symmetrical predecessor of the modern cut. An OEC would have the depth of your stone or larger, whereas a transitional would have a smaller depth percentage. I don’t see a crown angle on your report, but an OEC would have a higher crown angle and smaller table percentage than a transitional. I have a classic Transitional cut diamond that is set into a ring dated 1913. The faceting looks a lot like this stone’s faceting.

I think your stone is an antique cut that had a girdle rehab (with faceting added) and potentially (maybe) a very light polish of the stone’s facets. The overall faceting is balanced and is not pinched, etc. indicating to me that there wasn’t too much alteration to the original faceting. It was likely a conservative refurbish that attempted to retain the most weight it could while also fixing a chipped girdle that wouldn’t be acceptable to buyers

The cut just looks original to me. I think it is very pretty and lively. It is better cut (IMO) than the H next to it. It is bright. If a modern cutter did this, I would say, you’ve got an artisan level cut. Enjoy.

Last, high color E is rare in antique cuts. Pretty!

Maybe Ivy and Rose can tell you the provenance of the stone? They might actually be able to tell you where the stone came from, who repolished it and what they did. I would be willing to bet it’s a true antique stone mined and originally cut at the turn of the last century, if not, it’s still a pretty cut. I think this stone is totally worth checking out.

 

[diamondseeker17]

Hi Diamondseeker17!

I agree with Elliefire99 about the age of this cut. 1900-1920ish. It’s the time when OEC cut stones started to transition to a shallower, blockier, more symmetrical predecessor of the modern cut. An OEC would have the depth of your stone or larger, whereas a transitional would have a smaller depth percentage. I don’t see a crown angle on your report, but an OEC would have a higher crown angle and smaller table percentage than a transitional. I have a classic Transitional cut diamond that is set into a ring dated 1913. The faceting looks a lot like this stone’s faceting.

I think your stone is an antique cut that had a girdle rehab (with faceting added) and potentially (maybe) a very light polish of the stone’s facets. The overall faceting is balanced and is not pinched, etc. indicating to me that there wasn’t too much alteration to the original faceting. It was likely a conservative refurbish that attempted to retain the most weight it could while also fixing a chipped girdle that wouldn’t be acceptable to buyers

The cut just looks original to me. I think it is very pretty and lively. It is better cut (IMO) than the H next to it. It is bright. If a modern cutter did this, I would say, you’ve got an artisan level cut. Enjoy.

Last, high color E is rare in antique cuts. Pretty!

Maybe Ivy and Rose can tell you the provenance of the stone? They might actually be able to tell you where the stone came from, who repolished it and what they did. I would be willing to bet it’s a true antique stone mined and originally cut at the turn of the last century, if not, it’s still a pretty cut. I think this stone is totally worth checking out.

Thank you for your feedback LightBright!

I feel like the overall consensus on this thread is that this diamond is most likely a true antique, however from other comments there’s also a possibility that it is a modern antique style cut diamond. I guess my best bet (as many have suggested) is to go see the diamond in person and ask the seller what is the story behind this stone. And I’ll see from there on!

Thanks again for all your comments!