Search for biggest OEC for 10k

[archaeopteryx]

These two images show what I’m talking about tilt. Top shows darkness under table, but slight tilt and it all brightens up.

This is representative of what I see. I notice it way more in dimmer, indoor evening light, which is so interesting because “it was cut to sparkle in candlelight ” has been something I tell people about my first OEC, however my soft and warm indoor lamps aren’t really candlelight, ha. Perhaps I need to run the candlelight experiment on this diamond.

I didn’t notice the dark flash as I’m calling it nearly as much in brighter natural light, essentially the perfect golden hour lighting. It just sparkled and danced in that light.

I’ve felt like I am hyperfocusing on the dark flash, and I’m only noticing it a lot more because I’m looking for it. I didn’t notice it until I started to really study the stone and it was already darker outside.

The darkness blinks in and out very fast and it was hard to capture in photos. I’m trying to get a sense of the frequency of dark vs light flash - like I can’t tell what percentage of time it’s obstructed/dark vs not. The think this is actually the key for me. I think I’m happy with it if the dark flash represents less than 50% of the way the diamond looks in most lighting. I need to take it to my office, actually. Hmm how does one assess this qualitatively?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I’d like to hear other people’s observations as well, to reality check mine. If you are seeing darkness in the center, that’s real. It could be from the recutting process, the edge to edge brightness might be on purpose, but it might accentuate the darker center (all about the angles). The center of well cut OECs should not be dark typically.

If you can, please examine the facet junctions on the crown and pavilion. You can see slightly abraded facets on the pavilion which are antique (maybe it’s from the old type of cutting tools? It’s common in old stones) but not on the crown. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not seeing what I think I see, but the sharp facet junctions on the crown and table contrasted with the rougher type faceting on the pavilion indicates a modern touch up/recut.

The frosted girdle doesn’t necessarily indicate antique. Modern cutters can and do “hand brute” girdles. They don’t like to though, because it’s by hand! One indication of a modern bruted girdle vs antique is how fine the frosted edge was ground. Old girdles on OECs can and typically have little teeny chips (flea bites), rough frosting. New frosted girdles are done very finely, so it’s white powder looking and very smooth, not ground down and rougher. Is it possible to show us a couple photos of the girdle? Top down and sides?

I dunno…. Some of these facets meets look fuzzy to me.




But in others they look very crisp.

However, I am not sure how definitive the crown facet meets are for determining age. I looked closely at my macro photos of my old cuts and most have very crisp facet meets in the crown. Where I tend to notice the age more is the girdles, where even when they are very clean they still tend to have some feathering. I’d very much like to see the girdle of this stone.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This is representative of what I see. I notice it way more in dimmer, indoor evening light, which is so interesting because “it was cut to sparkle in candlelight ” has been something I tell people about my first OEC, however my soft and warm indoor lamps aren’t really candlelight, ha. Perhaps I need to run the candlelight experiment on this diamond.

I didn’t notice the dark flash as I’m calling it nearly as much in brighter natural light, essentially the perfect golden hour lighting. It just sparkled and danced in that light.

I’ve felt like I am hyperfocusing on the dark flash, and I’m only noticing it a lot more because I’m looking for it. I didn’t notice it until I started to really study the stone and it was already darker outside.

The darkness blinks in and out very fast and it was hard to capture in photos. I’m trying to get a sense of the frequency of dark vs light flash - like I can’t tell what percentage of time it’s obstructed/dark vs not. The think this is actually the key for me. I think I’m happy with it if the dark flash represents less than 50% of the way the diamond looks in most lighting. I need to take it to my office, actually. Hmm how does one assess this qualitatively?

I think a balance between critical examination and just raw sensory experience is important for assessing old cuts. For me anyway. I know for a fact there are a bunch of people reading this who are like “stop ruining it with this gobbledegook it is gorgeous!!!” They just aren’t posting. Come out with ye!

I like to analyze my old cuts (I’m also a scientist) and I like knowing their features and characteristics. But in the end I need to love them and that isn’t about critical analysis. So make sure you take time to play with her in different lighting and just tap into your sensory experiences and emotional reactions. Does she spark joy? lol Would you be heartbroken to send her away? Do you get pleasure watching her scintillate? Will she make you happy every time to gaze upon her on your finger? EDIT for the scientific record this method would be called a type of reflexivity, where you tap into your emotional reactions and the cognitive associations the object of analysis sparks for you to better understand it and make sense of its symbolic meaning for you, so it is a valid qualitative methodology for assessing an object of study

 

[LightBright]

I think I mentioned I have two OECs, both half carat, that have a similar make to your big boy. One has an issue of obstruction and the other doesn’t. It has to do with the angles not lining up but I think it also has to do with the length of the lower halves.

Here is my one showing slight obstruction. You can see how the facets under the table are darker than the periphery. This looks similar to yours!



And here I have outlined the pavilion main facets. Each is big and shaped like a pie. This is bc the lower girdle facets are short and so they don’t interrupt the mains at all. Yours has big pie facets like this.



My other OEC of this make never goes dark. It’s basically impossible to make it show obstruction. Even though the proportions are very similar to the above. This is a little blurry but you’ll just have to trust me lol



Among other things, notice the under table facets. The pavilion mains are not big pie pieces. They are interrupted by the lower girdle facets, making a more coffin shape as @Inked called it once. Some people call this “petal” faceting, too. This is very helpful because it breaks up the angles under the table and can make over darkness less likely. This photo is slightly tilted but it shows the facets well.



Here she is set in my pendant.



HOWEVER the first stone that shows obstruction is still gorgeous and I have her set in a ring. I have to really search for the obstruction. In this case she is set to the sides of a five stone so usually I see her at a slight angle. So the obstruction is less obvious. Bet you can’t pick her out in this image! Both diamonds we’ve been discussing are in this photo.



Another example, face on showing obstruction (she’s on the left)



Slight tilt so she faceting away from the camera and the darkness is gone (she’s on the right now)

Your photos and descriptions/analysis are so helpful. Thank you!

I dunno…. Some of these facets meets look fuzzy to me.




But in others they look very crisp.

However, I am not sure how definitive the crown facet meets are for determining age. I looked closely at my macro photos of my old cuts and most have very crisp facet meets in the crown. Where I tend to notice the age more is the girdles, where even when they are very clean they still tend to have some feathering. I’d very much like to see the girdle of this stone.

Interesting! Thank you for showing this. You are right. I was looking at some very crisp facet meets or at least I thought they looked crisp and new (I might be wrong). This diamond needs to be all over examined. If the girdle looks original maybe the stone is not recut at all. We should examine the entire girdle. And if the diamond is not recut, then I forgive its minor darkening the center.

 

[LightBright]

“I think a balance between critical examination and just raw sensory experience is important for assessing old cuts.” -Dreamer D.

Yes, exactly. I actually don’t care if it was touched up or not, the entire visual/sensory experience is how one should choose. My only concern is that IF this was a recut diamond does it perform well, and if no, do you like it.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

finger? EDIT for the scientific record this method would be called a type of reflexivity, where you tap into your emotional reactions and the cognitive associations the object of analysis sparks for you to better understand it and make sense of its symbolic meaning for you, so it is a valid qualitative methodology for assessing an object of study

Thank you for giving the words to explain to my husband why jewelry appreciation is a scientific endeavor.

 

[archaeopteryx]

I think a balance between critical examination and just raw sensory experience is important for assessing old cuts. For me anyway. I know for a fact there are a bunch of people reading this who are like “stop ruining it with this gobbledegook it is gorgeous!!!” They just aren’t posting. Come out with ye!

I like to analyze my old cuts (I’m also a scientist) and I like knowing their features and characteristics. But in the end I need to love them and that isn’t about critical analysis. So make sure you take time to play with her in different lighting and just tap into your sensory experiences and emotional reactions. Does she spark joy? lol Would you be heartbroken to send her away? Do you get pleasure watching her scintillate? Will she make you happy every time to gaze upon her on your finger? EDIT for the scientific record this method would be called a type of reflexivity, where you tap into your emotional reactions and the cognitive associations the object of analysis sparks for you to better understand it and make sense of its symbolic meaning for you, so it is a valid qualitative methodology for assessing an object of study

I love you for this response, for adding the technical terminology and descriptors of reflexivity. 100% agree. Fan-girling over your description on assessing objects of study I want to read your thesis!

Satisfying these two sides, emotional and technical, is exactly how I feel like this is going for me. Because I’m a technical and analytical person, I get pleasure from observation, learning, and deepening understanding, so my emotions are enhanced by the analysis and learning process. Breaking out my diamond grading textbook and old notes on diamonds from 20 years ago has been super fun (with limited applicability, because antique cuts), and I am learning a lot from all of you too. It’s the best! In addition, lots of meaning going into this whole ordeal, lots of symbolism for meeting life goals and achievements.

I love the idea of this stone. It should check all the boxes but the more I give it a chance the more I notice the dark flash in the center, which I see it more than 50% of the time and it bugs me. I hate that this is true because this is a fabulous stone and a great deal. I really really want to love it, but I don’t. I think I’d prefer a shallower stone to a deeper one.

As Lala said - I like this stone but I don’t LOVE it. It sparks joy but not always. I’ve enjoyed studying it, but I cannot get over the dark center, it pops up and I find myself thinking “I wish it didn’t do that”.

I love so much about the stone but I think it’s going back. If I’m making a terrible mistake, please tell me!

 

[Dreamer_D]

No not a terrible mistake. I tend to err towards @lala646 impression. I prefer a slightly different make. Don’t chalk this up to depth. It’s about the whole combination of proportions. You want a stone that is more lively across its face and doesn’t go dark. I have very deep stones and very shallow ones like that.

 

[archaeopteryx]

I think I mentioned I have two OECs, both half carat, that have a similar make to your big boy. One has an issue of obstruction and the other doesn’t. It has to do with the angles not lining up but I think it also has to do with the length of the lower halves.

Here is my one showing slight obstruction. You can see how the facets under the table are darker than the periphery. This looks similar to yours!



And here I have outlined the pavilion main facets. Each is big and shaped like a pie. This is bc the lower girdle facets are short and so they don’t interrupt the mains at all. Yours has big pie facets like this.



My other OEC of this make never goes dark. It’s basically impossible to make it show obstruction. Even though the proportions are very similar to the above. This is a little blurry but you’ll just have to trust me lol



Among other things, notice the under table facets. The pavilion mains are not big pie pieces. They are interrupted by the lower girdle facets, making a more coffin shape as @Inked called it once. Some people call this “petal” faceting, too. This is very helpful because it breaks up the angles under the table and can make over darkness less likely. This photo is slightly tilted but it shows the facets well

This explanation really helped me see it. The description of the pavilion facets forming pie shapes is what I’m seeing, and it would be less an issue if they weren’t all dark at once.

I got a ring try on stone holder and I photographed the diamond on my hand, and none of my shots showed the dark center, but I kept seeing it in person, from the angle looking down at my hand, and especially face on. It must be tilted to not see obstruction. I don’t love that quality in this stone.

 

[lulu_ma]

No not a terrible mistake. I tend to err towards @lala646 impression. I prefer a slightly different make. Don’t chalk this up to depth. It’s about the whole combination of proportions. You want a stone that is more lively across its face and doesn’t go dark. I have very deep stones and very shallow ones like that.

+1

It’s not just the depth-it’s this particular combination of angles, table size etc.

 

[archaeopteryx]

No not a terrible mistake. I tend to err towards @lala646 impression. I prefer a slightly different make. Don’t chalk this up to depth. It’s about the whole combination of proportions. You want a stone that is more lively across its face and doesn’t go dark. I have very deep stones and very shallow ones like that.

I think my favorite stone so far is the 3.06ct from Ivy & Rose (#5 in the Ivy & Rose post) and I realize that one isn’t technically perfect but it didn’t have the dark flash at all and I loved it in person. If I see it a second time with more knowledge, would I reject it? Unsure, but it did have the emotional part going for it, so perhaps that is enough for me.

That stone is shallower. I also went to a jeweler today to see it under the fancy jewelry store lighting, and to see my stone in different semi-mounts, white metal and yellow metal. Even under those lights, I still noticed both the beauty of the stone and the center darkness. So in the most ideal conditions I’m still noticing the dark center. This is what truly convinced me I had to send it back. The jeweler also had a beautiful ring from Single Stone with a similar sized OEC but larger spread and I preferred the facets play of light in the center of that stone to mine. I didn’t get video of it, or the cert number but I will gather that info so we can theorize why I liked it better. It was kinda shallow, 57%, and a larger spread, 3.59 ct OP, VS2. Will report back on it.

Edit: https://www.reisnichols.com/product...iamond-engagement-ring?variant=51382815293747

Here’s the ring I saw today. I’ll update when they get me the cert number and post specs.

 

[lulu_ma]

I think my favorite stone so far is the 3.06ct from Ivy & Rose (#5 in the Ivy & Rose post) and I realize that one isn’t technically perfect but it didn’t have the dark flash at all and I loved it in person. If I see it a second time with more knowledge, would I reject it? Unsure, but it did have the emotional part going for it, so perhaps that is enough for me.

That stone is shallower. I also went to a jeweler today to see it under the fancy jewelry store lighting, and to see my stone in different semi-mounts, white metal and yellow metal. Even under those lights, I still noticed both the beauty of the stone and the center darkness. So in the most ideal conditions I’m still noticing the dark center. This is what truly convinced me I had to send it back. The jeweler also had a beautiful ring from Single Stone with a similar sized OEC but larger spread and I preferred the facets play of light in the center of that stone to mine. I didn’t get video of it, or the cert number but I will gather that info so we can theorize why I liked it better. It was kinda shallow, 57%, and a larger spread, 3.59 ct OP, VS2. Will report back on it.

Edit: https://www.reisnichols.com/product...iamond-engagement-ring?variant=51382815293747

Here’s the ring I saw today. I’ll update when they get me the cert number and post specs.

I *think* the setting is enhancing the faceting. If you ever want to reset the stone in a different type of setting, you may find the center lacking.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think my favorite stone so far is the 3.06ct from Ivy & Rose (#5 in the Ivy & Rose post) and I realize that one isn’t technically perfect but it didn’t have the dark flash at all and I loved it in person. If I see it a second time with more knowledge, would I reject it? Unsure, but it did have the emotional part going for it, so perhaps that is enough for me.

That stone is shallower. I also went to a jeweler today to see it under the fancy jewelry store lighting, and to see my stone in different semi-mounts, white metal and yellow metal. Even under those lights, I still noticed both the beauty of the stone and the center darkness. So in the most ideal conditions I’m still noticing the dark center. This is what truly convinced me I had to send it back. The jeweler also had a beautiful ring from Single Stone with a similar sized OEC but larger spread and I preferred the facets play of light in the center of that stone to mine. I didn’t get video of it, or the cert number but I will gather that info so we can theorize why I liked it better. It was kinda shallow, 57%, and a larger spread, 3.59 ct OP, VS2. Will report back on it.

Edit: https://www.reisnichols.com/product...iamond-engagement-ring?variant=51382815293747

Here’s the ring I saw today. I’ll update when they get me the cert number and post specs.

Yeah se show the table facets are not big pie shapes? They are broken up by the lower halves. That is preferable. Regardless of depth.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I *think* the setting is enhancing the faceting. If you ever want to reset the stone in a different type of setting, you may find the center lacking.

Yeah enclosed settings can enhance contrast which can improve some stones appearance for sure. I can’t tell enough from just that one image and I didn’t look for more.

 

[LightBright]

I just did an excursion on the internet looking for Old Euros 3 carat and up. I reviewed #5 from Ivy and Rose and it is a very beautiful OEC with a beautiful cut. Would you keep the setting if you reconsidered that diamond again? A new setting will add to the price with any loose or reset diamond.

I think at your current price point, which is still a lot of money, you will need to tolerate some flaws, it’s just which ones you will need to tolerate. Or get very lucky, which is still possible, but with luck, you often have to accept whats presented, not have a flavor of cut you want to have.

The bargain stone you posted before does have flaws (not sure what they’d look like in person or your tolerance for them), but it looks at first glance like a nice cut (I’m not sure if the stills indicate camera obstruction or something you’d see in person, but the video looks pretty.

2.94 Carat Old European Cut Diamond color O Clarity SI2

Shape:Old European Cut, Carat Weight:2.94, Color Grade:O, Fancy Color:N/A, Fancy Color Intensity:N/A, Fancy Color Overtone:N/A, Clarity Grade:SI2, Length:9.16 , Width:9.04 , Depth:5.67 , Cut Grade:N/A, Polish:Good, Symmetry:Good, Fluorescence:None, Stone Ratio:1.01, Table %:53, Depth %:62.3...

47jewelry.com

 

[LightBright]

I’m still in awe of Dreamer’s description. I have no idea how lower girdle facets can interrupt the mains, so they look like coffins rather than pies or vice versa. Is that pie shape linked to crown angles being low and pavilion high eg a steep deep stone? Is there any tutorial somewhere or link to a discussion on PS so I can learn how this happens, visually?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I’m still in awe of Dreamer’s description. I have no idea how lower girdle facets can interrupt the mains, so they look like coffins rather than pies or vice versa. Is that pie shape linked to crown angles being low and pavilion high eg a steep deep stone? Is there any tutorial somewhere or link to a discussion on PS so I can learn how this happens, visually?

The lower girdle facets can be really short, so they don’t bisect the mains, or they can be longer, so they do. Table size affects things too bc it determines how long the lower girdle facets need to be to reach the table and thus appear to bisect the mains.

OEC faceting in left with short lower girdle facets and a small table resulting in large pie slice mains (marked in blue). MRB in right with larger table and lower lower facets resulting in coffin shaped mains (marked in blue). OEC can fall in between the two extremes.

Shorter vs longer lower girdle facets.


Table superimposed on pavilion (red circle) showing how the mains will look from top view though table, creating pie slice or coffins (when culet is present)

 

[archaeopteryx]

The lower girdle facets can be really short, so they don’t bisect the mains, or they can be longer, so they do. Table size affects things too bc it determines how long the lower girdle facets need to be to reach the table and thus appear to bisect the mains.

OEC faceting in left with short lower girdle facets and a small table resulting in large pie slice mains (marked in blue). MRB in right with larger table and lower lower facets resulting in coffin shaped mains (marked in blue). OEC can fall in between the two extremes.

Shorter vs longer lower girdle facets.


Table superimposed on pavilion (red circle) showing how the mains will look from top view though table, creating pie slice or coffins (when culet is present)

This perfectly illustrates the phenomena, thank you for diagramming it out, this is really helpful.

Do you ever find examples where the “pie shaped” effect with the lower pavilion facets don’t all blink out at once, especially looking head on vs tilted? Are most pie slice patterns going to lead to the dark table reflection? I’m curious if you’ve ever seen one with this phenomena that doesn’t go completely dark. For example, in a stone with a smaller, less steep pavilion angle, as suggested by @LightBright?

Fascinating.

 

[archaeopteryx]

I just did an excursion on the internet looking for Old Euros 3 carat and up. I reviewed #5 from Ivy and Rose and it is a very beautiful OEC with a beautiful cut. Would you keep the setting if you reconsidered that diamond again? A new setting will add to the price with any loose or reset diamond.

I think at your current price point, which is still a lot of money, you will need to tolerate some flaws, it’s just which ones you will need to tolerate. Or get very lucky, which is still possible, but with luck, you often have to accept whats presented, not have a flavor of cut you want to have.

The bargain stone you posted before does have flaws (not sure what they’d look like in person or your tolerance for them), but it looks at first glance like a nice cut (I’m not sure if the stills indicate camera obstruction or something you’d see in person, but the video looks pretty.

2.94 Carat Old European Cut Diamond color O Clarity SI2

Shape:Old European Cut, Carat Weight:2.94, Color Grade:O, Fancy Color:N/A, Fancy Color Intensity:N/A, Fancy Color Overtone:N/A, Clarity Grade:SI2, Length:9.16 , Width:9.04 , Depth:5.67 , Cut Grade:N/A, Polish:Good, Symmetry:Good, Fluorescence:None, Stone Ratio:1.01, Table %:53, Depth %:62.3...

47jewelry.com

You make a good point, if I liked the whole package, the retail price isn’t far from what I’d pay in total for setting + loose diamond. As @Dreamer_D and @lulu_ma mentioned, the Ivy stone might be enhanced by the setting, which I don’t love and would change. However I do like a delicate bezel like it, so perhaps that would be a design constraint for a new ring, must go with a bezel to enhance the diamonds appearance. The setting is also a size 8.75 and I wear a 4.75 on a hot day, so with the amount of detail on the shoulders and delicate filigree design, I don’t think sizing that ring down so far would be wise.

Without the setting they said they’d do it for $18k which is more than I can do for just the stone. Since it’s not a motivating savings without the mounting, I could consider taking it as is, repurposing the mounting for an aquamarine or another gem, then I’m creating another project, oh dang!

The bargain stone looks beautiful to me in the video. I’m hesitant to buy it because I think I will not be able to tolerate the inclusions, but I think it’s a contender. Let’s see how much buy/return fatigue I accumulate.

I’m waiting now to see what becomes available the next week or two with the Vegas show.

I also considered the recent stone from SinCityFinds (3.99 ct, huge spread & possibly too warm and shallow for my happiness, but insane great deal).

 

[EllieTO]

I just came here to post the stone from Sincityfinds

Also, to read and re-read to try to understand all the wisdom Dreamer is sharing.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This perfectly illustrates the phenomena, thank you for diagramming it out, this is really helpful.

Do you ever find examples where the “pie shaped” effect with the lower pavilion facets don’t all blink out at once, especially looking head on vs tilted? Are most pie slice patterns going to lead to the dark table reflection? I’m curious if you’ve ever seen one with this phenomena that doesn’t go completely dark. For example, in a stone with a smaller, less steep pavilion angle, as suggested by @LightBright?

Fascinating.

It may be possible but in my experience stones that have this combo of very tiny tables with very short lower halves leading to these pig perfect pie slice facets do have the tendency to go dark like you are observing. It’s just part of how they function. As an aside this is a problem with most modern antique style cuts. Over in the lab forum when I see people hunting for a modern cut antique style they almost all have this problem.

There may be some with this flavour that donut less. Ideally you want to see the pavilion mains light up independently or in little clusters so it’s not all dark all at once. We used to write about this all the time way back in the day talking about old cuts. Sometimes a little less symmetry in the faceting can help with this. So this one you have is actually very symmetrical for an OEC and so the faceting is super uniform. I feel like that can exacerbate the issue of darkness under the table. A little chaos breaks it up. Maybe there’s more to it but that’s my feeling.

I want to point out a couple things about the I&R stone we all love.

First, notice how nicely chaotic the unest table faceting is in the face on shot? Some are bright white and some dark and it’s unusual for two adjacent pavilion mains to be dark at the same time. We like that. We don’t want it all dark at once.



Also notice that the table is a little larger than the one you have in hand that goes dark. It is shallower too, but I would focus on the table because it being slightly larger means that the lower girdle facets can reach into the table periphery and break up the pavilion mains…



Causing… drum roll, our friend coffin shaped pavilion mains.



@EllieTO recently had a similar search and she ended up with a very nice “classic” OEC but once again, you can see the mains light up and go dark independently and they also have a petal (or) coffin shape not pie slice shape. The table on hers is also closer to 50%


She does ask about the obstruction in her thread:

Yes, I think so! It has exactly the facet pattern and overall look I was going for. It's so crisp and lively and the right amount of chunky! The one thing I'm unsure about is that I do notice the center going dark at the same time, but it's only in a very specific position, and I can only "find it" sometimes. As soon as I tilt even a tiny bit, they start going on and off independently. I can't even catch it on camera - on camera, they all look like slightly different shades of dark, rather than all dark. This is the closest I could find, still shots from one of the videos. Do all OECs do this to a certain extent? Not that I'm bothered by it, just wondering.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I just came here to post the stone from Sincityfinds

Also, to read and re-read to try to understand all the wisdom Dreamer is sharing.

Lol

The SinCity stone is very large and it has an interesting chaotic faceting. Both pluses. It has two areas, again under the table, that have leakage and seem to stay dark independently most of the videos. In person and in motion this may not be very noticable, or it may not be bothersome bc it’s not the whole table going dark at once. But it’s something to be aware of.

I circled them in this still from the video but I think you can see those darker areas in other videos too (not in the same spot bc the stone is rotated about)


Unless you have an unlimited budget some compromises will be made. We’ve seen your ideal stone (I think the I&R is close) but it was nearly double your OG budget!

 

[lulu_ma]

Lol

The SinCity stone is very large and it has an interesting chaotic faceting. Both pluses. It has two areas, again under the table, that have leakage and seem to stay dark independently most of the videos. In person and in motion this may not be very noticable, or it may not be bothersome bc it’s not the whole table going dark at once. But it’s something to be aware of.

I circled them in this still from the video but I think you can see those darker areas in other videos too (not in the same spot bc the stone is rotated about)


Unless you have an unlimited budget some compromises will be made. We’ve seen your ideal stone (I think the I&R is close) but it was nearly double your OG budget!

The last pic that Dreamer posted is very similar to issue that I had with my old stone. It was set into a faux bezel that helped, but I ultimately decided that the center wasn’t lively enough for me.

 

[LightBright]

@Dreamer_D can you explain (again) what -causes- short lower girdle facets? Does that mean the pavilion is steeper? Or shallower? For example you mention modern antique cuts often have pie shaped centers, but why would modern cutters intentionally cut short lower girdle facets into a diamond if it has that undesirable artifact?

“It may be possible but in my experience stones that have this combo of very tiny tables with very short lower halves leading to these pig perfect pie slice facets do have the tendency to go dark like you are observing. It’s just part of how they function. As an aside this is a problem with most modern antique style cuts. Over in the lab forum when I see people hunting for a modern cut antique style they almost all have this problem.” -Dreamer_D

 

[LightBright]

OP, I think you might becoming aware that compromises are to be made with bargain stones unless you find one that’s under the radar, so to speak.

I don’t know how to advise you on this, many would say don’t compromise. I have found nice stones accidentally, it takes months of looking and sometimes a few returns.

I have returned really rare diamonds because of a perceived flaw that someone else found important, that I totally regret returning now (just saying). I’m not implying anything just letting you know.

But you may want to make a mental list of your “must haves” (for example minimum mm diameter) and your “can’t dos”. Then post your list so we can look for you. I think a very nice 3 plus carat OEC will take time to find, at the current price point.

Here’s a really nicely cut OEC but lower than the colors you’ve been looking at, and higher price. The video shows the type of edge to edge interest you would be looking for.

https://eragem.com/a26234.html

 

[Dreamer_D]

@Dreamer_D can you explain (again) what -causes- short lower girdle facets? Does that mean the pavilion is steeper? Or shallower? For example you mention modern antique cuts often have pie shaped centers, but why would modern cutters intentionally cut short lower girdle facets into a diamond if it has that undesirable artifact?

“It may be possible but in my experience stones that have this combo of very tiny tables with very short lower halves leading to these pig perfect pie slice facets do have the tendency to go dark like you are observing. It’s just part of how they function. As an aside this is a problem with most modern antique style cuts. Over in the lab forum when I see people hunting for a modern cut antique style they almost all have this problem.” -Dreamer_D

Lower girdle facets are just one of the facets in a diamond. They are cuts (facets) in the pavilion of the stone. They make the arrows in modern rounds. So they can be cut any length you like I suppose! In modern rounds they are like 75-80% of the pavilion depth (I think that’s what the number represents, I can’t be bothered to look it up lol). In OECs they used to be cut much shorter, like 60% or even shorter. I don’t recall why they used to be shorter… probably a feature of the evolution of diamond cuts from old old to more modern as tools got better, and possibly because it reflected candle light better. I’m sure Al Gilbertsons book explains it but I don’t recall. But I think they lengthened them in MRBs in part to solve this issue we are talking about. And it works well. Arrows break up the pavilion mains and lead to a much livelier center. The ideal length for lgf is related to pavilion and crown angles somehow. I’ve seen Karl talk about it… like really long lgf can help with a steep deep or something. But honestly I don’t tend to get that in the weeds about cut shockingly. And since old cuts are soooooo varied and random I’m not sure that level of analysis is helpful other than purely intellectual exercise. Mostly my posts are aimed at trying to articulate how I recognize potential red flags in picture and videos of old cuts. Like I was concerned about this stone being over dark based on pictures showing some of the red flags I described, and it turned out to be an issue for OP. That’s enough analysis for me!

Why are they still cut too short in modern attempts to create antique flavours? Partly because the big pavilion mains is really distinctive of antique cuts. It’s such a huge part of their flavour. And maybe because most modern cut antique styles — and here I don’t mean the boutique versions that cost a lot where designers invested in developing great antique style cuts, I mean the generic ones sold for a pittance and mass produced — are not cut by masters of old style cutting. They are going for fast and easy ways of making a chunkier cut and from what I can tell it means taking an MRB and just shortening the lgf. The really nice examples we’ve seen, like custom cuts people have done or some examples from Park or others, cost more bc they are taking time to cut a nicely proportioned stone.

That’s my take, anyway.

 

[Dreamer_D]

OP, I think you might becoming aware that compromises are to be made with bargain stones unless you find one that’s under the radar, so to speak.

I don’t know how to advise you on this, many would say don’t compromise. I have found nice stones accidentally, it takes months of looking and sometimes a few returns.

I have returned really rare diamonds because of a perceived flaw that someone else found in important, that I totally regret returning now (just saying). I’m not implying anything just letting you know.

But you may want to make a mental list of your “must haves” (for example minimum mm diameter) and our “can’t dos”. Then post your list so we can look for you. I think a very nice 3 plus carat OEC will take time to find, at the current price point.

Here’s a really nicely cut OEC but lower than the colors you’ve been looking at, and higher price. The video shows the type of edge to edge interest you would be looking for.

https://eragem.com/a26234.html

Shocked bc they are high or low?

I agree OP should sit with this decision a while bc you are right about compromise. I would personally rather have a smaller stone with superlative cut, but that may not be OPs priority.

It’s also worth considering whether budget is a real constraint based on finances or an artificial constraint based on what you think is an acceptable amount to spend on a frivolous purchase. When possible, for something that can bring so much joy, sometimes it can be better to just spend what’s needed to get what you really want.

 

[LightBright]

OP, I’m likely the opposite of everyone on PS because my objectives are budget first, and type of gem or type of cut, not perfect specimen with an at market price. For example, I have a chipped Peruzzi cut that I got for the price of the modest setting, but it’s my Peruzzi. I have a bright blue sapphire, but it’s tiny. Etc.

So, I’m not going to have a popular opinion on this.

I shouldn’t keep harping, but the old cut stone you linked to in the beginning from 47, which I reposted the link to, with the black spots, I still think has a draw. It seems well cut, and antique. Price is within your budget. Maybe others can comment on advisability. I am drawn to its solid cut.

And I also think circling back to the one you currently have in hand, just because it is pretty and not too far from budget and large might be reconsidering. This is with budget, diameter and carat weight, and nice cut/pretty in mind versus great cut, no flaws really over budget. Just food for thought. This idea may not appeal to you.

I’ve also learned in life that sometimes in order to get exactly (or close to) what you want you have to pay market price. And if you select carefully you can still stay reasonable. Dreamer is right to suggest considering imposed versus real budget and if this purchase is really important that you get it right.