Questions about clarity and vintage settings.

[MyDiamondSparkles]

Hi everyone,

I am pretty new at this diamond stuff but you all are helping learn a lot...thank you.

Here's my question:

I found a vintage ring I like....online of course and those photos are just okay. I have attached a photo. The seller tells me it is from the 1920's. The setting looks like a fishtail setting--at least that is what I have heard them called. Is that appropriate to the 1920's?

It has a GIA appraisal, but I am not sure how old that appraisal is and it isn't a very detalied appraisal like some are. The clarity is I-1, which normally I wouldn't even consider BUT the seller says it is ful of fire, sparkle, etc and it is a super clear stone with no flouresence. So how can this be? So he tells me there are a few chips in the diamond. Would this give a better clarity diamond a clarity of I-1? Or could it? Is it possible that small chips can be polished out and how much would that cost? Just a general idea.

I can't tell by the photo if the diamond has fuzzies on it or if that is how the stone looks.

Sorry if I am not phrasing things correctly I am pretty new at this. Anyway, the ring is pretty inexpensive for me, so I would be sort of willing to take a chance on it and if it isn't what I want it wouldn't be earth shaking. The diamond is a bit smaller than I want but I like it and wouldn't mind adding it to my collection and using it as a right hand ring.

Thanks for all of your help.

MyDiamondSparkles

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

I forgot to say that the GIA appraisal does not inlude the diagram where the inlusions are. I wish it did! It would make things a lot more "clear" to me.

MyDiamondSparkles

 

[whatmeworry]

What does the GIA cert say that the inclusions are? Do you have a cert number because we can lookup the cert online. (need the cert number and the carat weight of the diamond)

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

No, the appraisal doesn't say what the inculsions are.

I tried to look the report up on the GIA web site but it doesn't show it exists. I think another seller told me that was because the ring was not sent to the GIA, rather a GIA certified appraiser did the appraisal. Does that make sense?

Oh I fogrot to say the ring is certified platinum...I am not sure if that helps date it or not as platinum is so poular these days.

I'm seriously such a newbie at this diamnd stuff that I am embarrassed at my lack of knoweldege.

MDSparkles

 

[RockHugger]

You CAN have sparkly I1s. It all depends on where the inclusion is. It looks to me from the picture it has several small crystal inclusions. They may make the diamond seem slightly grey due to them reflecting inside the stone, and give it an I1. Again this is a guess from the photo given.

I'm never afraid of an I1 if it is a cloud or small crystals. Its the feathers I worry about. I don't see any in the photo.

Do you have a return period? As long as you do, check it out and decide after seeing it face to face.

 

[whatmeworry]

Well it's hard to judge from the picture. I like the looks of it but the "fuzzies" bother me. Clouds really bother me when they affect the life of the stone. Just protect yourself and make sure you have enough time to inspect it and get your money back if it doesn't suit you. Good luck.

 

[LGK]

It's totally possible the chip(s) are the clarity graders in a chipped vintage stone. That's common. But, an I1 grade chip is pretty hefty however- would definitely be visible with the naked eye, and could be difficult to fix*. What the clarity grade making issue is, is really the question here- I'd almost *prefer* a crystal or something rather than a chip. I'm OK with small chips in vintage stones, but larger ones not so much.

The setting could be '20s. It looks a bit more like late '30s-early '40s to me, but it could've been ahead of it's time in terms of fashion. Fishtail settings like this were more common in the '30s & '40s than in the '20s. The stone does look like a classic OEC, so I'd say it's older than the setting, if indeed the setting is circa 1930s. Could be it was reset. Or it could be it was a seller matching up empty vintage settings with loose vintage stones more recently... that's very common, it's quite unusual to find a vintage ring that isn't altered in any way.

That being said, the setting is lovely and classic. the stone is more of a question, of course. I'd personally want to know more before I spent $ on it, regarding the size of the chips, and/or the nature of the inclusions. And a better macro image head-on if possible. Unless the price is ridiculously good, of course. And I wouldn't risk it at all, no matter what, if the seller doesn't have a good return policy.

*I've never bothered to have a chip cut out of a vintage stone, and of the 4 over a carat OECs I've owned, only one was not chipped. The risk of cutting a stone with an extremely thin girdle, with an existing chip, just isn't worth it unless you're planning to resell a stone IMO. However I don't purchase antique diamonds with chips that are eye visible so YMMV.

ETA: Platinum was a restricted metal in WWII, it was not allowed for use in jewelry during the war, so people used white gold and palladium instead. So you can be pretty sure it's pre WWII. And it wasn't used for fine jewelry prior to the Edwardian period. So you can date it for positive, positive sure as post 1900 to pre WWII, and I'd then narrow it down based on the style as follows: stylistically the fishtail prongs were very much a 1930s thru 1950s motif. So based on that, and the overall slightly less ornate look, I'd date it to the mid to late '30s, maybe a bit later.

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

So can chips on the diamond be considered inclusions and that is why it is an I-1? I imagine that ships have to be inclusions, right?

There's no return period at all. Hmmm....I was thinking that those fuzzy things are a dirty ring or perhaps a rag that was used to wipe the diamond clean. Do you suppose that is wishful thinking?

Also here are the measurements for the diamond: it's old european cut 9.02mm x 8.86 mm x 5.08mm. Depth is 64%. Polish and symmetry are good. Cutlet is abraided large and girdle is thick faceted. Color is J-K..which I do like for a OEC, I like the warmth.

Oh and I just noticed the appraisal was from 2005.

Thanks for your help everyone, I really do appreciate it.

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

Hi LGK, I htink we must have been posting at the exact same time. Thanks for your input. It's 2.52 carats (estimated) and the price is only (well what I think is cheap) $4100.

The ring belonged to the seller's Aunt and it is the original setting. The Aunt had no children he inherited it later in life but his wife doesn't wear it, so it sits in a box. She was married around 1920 in Chicago.

I do have my eye on a better diamond than this one but it is a 1950's vintage mount, 3.29 carat J-K (I think anyways, it might be a I-J, I can't remember) VVS2 but it is $22,000, which is well within my budget.

Big difference in price....hmmmm....I say I buy both!

MDSparkles

 

[whatmeworry]

No return period. Yikes. Maybe you can call the appraiser and see if they can give you more details. Ask for more pictures, to show the chips and the inclusions.

 

[LGK]

So can chips on the diamond be considered inclusions and that is why it is an I-1? I imagine that ships have to be inclusions, right?

There's no return period at all. Hmmm....I was thinking that those fuzzy things are a dirty ring or perhaps a rag that was used to wipe the diamond clean. Do you suppose that is wishful thinking?

Also here are the measurements for the diamond: it's old european cut 9.02mm x 8.86 mm x 5.08mm. Depth is 64%. Polish and symmetry are good. Cutlet is abraided large and girdle is thick faceted. Color is J-K..which I do like for a OEC, I like the warmth.

Oh and I just noticed the appraisal was from 2005.

Thanks for your help everyone, I really do appreciate it.

Yep, chips are considered inclusions and count against clarity. For example: my larger OEC is internally flawless, no inclusions even under a microscope. But it's got a chip on the girdle, a tiny one, but it's there. So it's a VS2, because the chip is the clarity grader.

No way to know if the chips are the reason the diamond grades as an I1. It could be the case, but hopefully the seller could tell you.

The fuzziness could for sure be dirt, but it could be the diamond. Again, sadly, no way to know without more info.

I'd ask for sure for a return period if you want to pursue it. Even if a seller doesn't offer one, sometimes if they realize they will make a sale then they'll make exceptions. I have good luck asking nicely for a return period most times, anyway! No way would I buy an I1 diamond without a return period though, I'd have to say, at least not without a boatload of pictures and a lot more info from the seller.

In this case I'd ask the seller: are the chips the clarity grade maker? Or are there other visible inclusions? Are the chips and/or inclusions visible to the naked eye? Where are the chips located- on the girdle? On crown edge or the pavilion edge? Or other? And the abraded culet- is it a chip as well? (A culet should be listed as a *size* like small, medium, large or none. I've never seen one labeled "abraded" and that concerns me- it sounds like it could be a chip or at least an issue you could see.

The depth sounds like it's within acceptable parameters for an OEC, a bit on the deep side for my taste but not bad.

I like that it doesn't have an xthin girdle like sooooo many antique cuts do. Those are irritating! (Basically, you have to either bezel the stone or worry about it constantly.)

Thanks for sharing the price. Yeah, that's a really good deal. Really, really. Still, I'd want it to be free of any HUGE issues, even for a great price. I mean, you don't want to see it and be like... well. There's $4K I'll never wear! you know? but for that price I'd be more forgiving. Still I'd want to know about the chips.

The other one sounds lovely too! VVS quality is very rare in old stones- most are chipped and bearded at some point. like my aforementioned OEC in fact.