Trying again. Possible OEC and question.

[Ellen]

Date: 9/5/2008 2:13:25 PM
Author: LittleGreyKitten
A lot of faux pearls were sold c.1900-1920s with very iffy, misleading sorts of descriptions (I''ve seen some of the actual antique ads and they really did flat out lie!), so tons of people bringing in ''grandma''s pearls'' get an unpleasant surprise- I see this a lot. Alexandrites also- synthetics have been around for forever, so people who think grandma has a huge gorgeous real alexandrite are also in for a surprise. (Actually my own grandmother has one- she believes implicitly that it''s the real thing, but it isn''t... not that I''ve ever said anything to her, it''s one of her favorite pieces of jewelery that she wears everyday and loves it, it would crush her to know it was synthetic.

Not so much the diamonds, people seem to generally know which pieces from their families are real or not. We do test diamond-test antique jewelry for people every so often, but I don''t really recall breaking anyone''s heart over a family ''diamond''. I suspect a lot of the good faux diamonds were sold as represented, but that the family might lose track of the provenance over the years (like you) or that the husband didn''t exactly fess up that it wasn''t real.

Advertising pracitices and rules have changed a LOT in favor of the consumer though!

I do think it''s 1920s or possibly early 1930s, it has that style.

Aw, that is sweet of you not to say. Of course, I wouldn''t either.

My mom took it well about this ring, so that was good. I gave her some info you guys had put forth, and she seemed to find it interesting instead of distressing. Yay!

And thank you for the info!



Mrs.2, thank you! It has been interesting, hasn''t it? And fun, even if it did turn out not to be a real diamond.

glitter, I was going to post my ring, I was just kind of waiting to make sure it was going to be ok with the moderators.

 

[glitterata]

Date: 9/5/2008 2:43:34 PM
Author: Ellen

glitter, I was going to post my ring, I was just kind of waiting to make sure it was going to be ok with the moderators.

Ellen, I reported the thread to the moderators, who seem to have moved it to the Jewelry forum rather than deleting it, so I guess that must mean it''s okay to post in it.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/3/2008 10:36:29 AM
Author:Ellen
I posted this before in another old cut thread, but didn''t get an answer, so thought I''d try again. I got this out of my moms bank box. It looks like an OEC, from comparing of pics I''ve done, but of course I''m not sure. The pics show a pattern that looks kind of like contrast, but I''m wondering if it''s actually leakage. The stone ''seems'' to be steep/deep. I can''t tell entirely because there is a metal piece over the bottom half of the stone, except for a tiny hole where the culet is. But judging from everything, it seems like it is. And I can see this patteren in some dimmer lighting at a distance. Does this look/sound right for a steep/deep? I can also get a dark rim right under the table (not all the way around) when I take pics at an angle. And in dimmer lighting, there is always a darker spot to the left of the center of the stone, no matter which way I put it on. (but there also appears to be a chip on the pavilion, as I can see it through the loupe. Would that do anything?) It seems rather beat up, girdle is very thin and rather rough. I''m wondering if it was in another setting (more open) before this....

I''m really just curious.

The pattern.

Ellen,
Yes . It is leakage most probably . See picture. Unfortunately your photos are not enough to build exact model.

 

[Serg]

Al, Diagem


Thanks for information
very interesting cut. Smart and simple. English star cut With small modification crown pattern has big potential
very sensitive to pavilion angle. just 0.25 degree could change ETAS dramatically

May be it is reason why this cut fall to RBC. even now cutter have no technology to do optical clones for English star cut ( Like RBC H&A)

 

[Serg]

-0.25 degree just