Step Cut Experts -- Thoughts on Vintage Emerald Cut?

[Demelza]

Hi all,

Was at one of my favorite vintage jewelry stores today and saw a gorgeous 1930's ring with a 2.07 ct emerald cut in the center and 3 baguettes on each side. Wondering if this is an example of a good antique step cut. It looked gorgeous in the store, but I know very little about step cuts and have been disappointed in the past with the performance of emerald cuts I've owned. Would appreciate any thoughts!

First two are vendor photos. Next few are bad iphone pics. I'm not sure what to make of the darkness in the stone in the first vendor photo.

Thanks in advance for any input!

 

[Demelza]

Another vendor photo.

 

[Circe]

I *love* the design of the ring - those barrel-set baguettes get me every time. But the darkness of the stone under the table in that first shot makes me hesitate, alongside the narrow pavilion facets on the corners. I'm no EC expert, mind - that's just a gut reaction. And you've seen it in person! If you love it, that's all she wrote.

As with most things, I think for me it would depend on the price. If it's a steal ... Go-go-Gadget-go! If it's priced comparably to what it might cost to hunt down a kicken' stone and have a repro made ... maybe wait and see what said kicken' stone might look like in person?

 

[arkieb1]

It looks way way better on your hand than the first vendor pic. They must have done something weird with the lighting when they took the pic or maybe it's reflecting the camera if it's black back too. You should ask Kenny he is the photography wiz when it comes to step cuts!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yeah, I think that is camera reflection in the first picture. It looks great on your hand! All I can tell you is that I would be very interested in it, too! An antique cushion/AVC and an old or new EC are the top diamonds on my wish list!

 

[Demelza]

Circe -- Yeah, the setting is amazing! And the stone is pretty dazzling, too. The first picture is not at all representative of how it looked to me in real life. But I feel less confident about my ability to assess a step cut than I do, say, an OEC or OMC. I saw it next to another vintage EC and it was much more lively whereas the other had a very glassy look. That said, it's not a steal and it would require me to trade in or sell something else. I am again revisiting the idea of somehow unloading my MRB. Would I rather have this? That's the question!

Arkieb -- Yes, I am fairly certain the blackness is a lighting issue. Hopefully Kenny will happen along this thread.

DS -- The reason I was drawn to this ring is that I want to round out my collection. I feel that I have a lot of rounds/OECs and I want something different. Would you rather have this vintage EC or my MRB? The store would take my MRB in on trade, but I would lose quite a bit. Sigh. I've been hemming and hawing about my MRB for years now. It's a tough decision!

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think some of y'all do more research into antiques than me.....but is there some sort of provenance here?
To me, the stone doesn't necessarily look like an 1930's vintage emerald cut-
The faceting looks newer than that- the culet for one thing is a keel line- as opposed to what I might expect see- an open culet, and possibly a smaller table. Yes, the hand shot looks better- but the straight on shot seems to show a lot of darkness, and a lack of distinct steps....cold be a bad photo- or it could be showing us aspects that are true to life.
Again, I'm not saying that I'm sure- but asking if anyone reading this has seen other stones that they knew were actually from the '30s that looked like this.

Call me a skeptic- but there's nothing about this piece that suggests it could not have been built 20 years ago- or less.
it doesn't even look all that worn....not that that guarantees that it's not old....but if a piece was that old- wouldn't it usually show more signs of wear.....

Demelza - the last thing I want to do is rain on anyone's parade- if it's a great price and you love it, enjoy!
But you did ask.....

 

[Demelza]

I think some of y'all do more research into antiques than me.....but is there some sort of provenance here?
To me, the stone doesn't necessarily look like an 1930's vintage emerald cut-
The faceting looks newer than that- the culet for one thing is a keel line- as opposed to what I might expect see- an open culet, and possibly a smaller table. Yes, the hand shot looks better- but the straight on shot seems to show a lot of darkness, and a lack of distinct steps....cold be a bad photo- or it could be showing us aspects that are true to life.
Again, I'm not saying that I'm sure- but asking if anyone reading this has seen other stones that they knew were actually from the '30s that looked like this.

Call me a skeptic- but there's nothing about this piece that suggests it could not have been built 20 years ago- or less.
it doesn't even look all that worn....not that that guarantees that it's not old....but if a piece was that old- wouldn't it usually show more signs of wear.....

Demelza - the last thing I want to do is rain on anyone's parade- if it's a great price and you love it, enjoy!
But you did ask.....

This is very helpful info and exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for! Thanks!

 

[arkieb1]

Maybe you should try listing your RB on Bistro, you would probably get more for it than trading it if you do wish to sell it and then if you have cash you have more bargaining power to haggle if you do buy something else.

I also agree its a great point it depends if its a genuine Vintage Emerald where you could be a bit more forgiving of the cut, or if its a modern emerald in a vintage style setting. Some of the true or real Art Deco settings did indeed look like this one so it could be genuine or a repo, did you ask them?

 

[Karl_K]

I think some of y'all do more research into antiques than me.....but is there some sort of provenance here?
To me, the stone doesn't necessarily look like an 1930's vintage emerald cut-
The faceting looks newer than that- the culet for one thing is a keel line- as opposed to what I might expect see- an open culet, and possibly a smaller table. Yes, the hand shot looks better- but the straight on shot seems to show a lot of darkness, and a lack of distinct steps....cold be a bad photo- or it could be showing us aspects that are true to life.
Again, I'm not saying that I'm sure- but asking if anyone reading this has seen other stones that they knew were actually from the '30s that looked like this.

Call me a skeptic- but there's nothing about this piece that suggests it could not have been built 20 years ago- or less.
it doesn't even look all that worn....not that that guarantees that it's not old....but if a piece was that old- wouldn't it usually show more signs of wear.....

Demelza - the last thing I want to do is rain on anyone's parade- if it's a great price and you love it, enjoy!
But you did ask.....

I agree. Nothing stands out as being vintage to me.

As far as cut goes, huge table so not as many small and medium flashes than a smaller table high crown.
Could be bright, the one pic has me concerned about obstruction up close around 1/2 arm length.

 

[Demelza]

I think some of y'all do more research into antiques than me.....but is there some sort of provenance here?
To me, the stone doesn't necessarily look like an 1930's vintage emerald cut-
The faceting looks newer than that- the culet for one thing is a keel line- as opposed to what I might expect see- an open culet, and possibly a smaller table. Yes, the hand shot looks better- but the straight on shot seems to show a lot of darkness, and a lack of distinct steps....cold be a bad photo- or it could be showing us aspects that are true to life.
Again, I'm not saying that I'm sure- but asking if anyone reading this has seen other stones that they knew were actually from the '30s that looked like this.

Call me a skeptic- but there's nothing about this piece that suggests it could not have been built 20 years ago- or less.
it doesn't even look all that worn....not that that guarantees that it's not old....but if a piece was that old- wouldn't it usually show more signs of wear.....

Demelza - the last thing I want to do is rain on anyone's parade- if it's a great price and you love it, enjoy!
But you did ask.....

I agree. Nothing stands out as being vintage to me.

As far as cut goes, huge table so not as many small and medium flashes than a smaller table high crown.
Could be bright, the one pic has me concerned about obstruction up close around 1/2 arm length.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Karl. I've moved on from this piece -- over it already. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for me, I saw something rare and amazing today but cannot figure out a fair asking price. Or whether I want to part with my MRB for this piece. I am going to start a new thread now. Thanks!