#JOTW Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut joy

[Maisie]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I didn't see this thread back in January. Your ring is beautiful. It must be lovely to have two blinging rings to choose from!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Very nice! I love the new photos.

I admit to being sad you won't reset for the sole reason that I would have loved to know the weight of this diamond, and also perhaps the opportunity to convince you to run a sarin scan I would love to see its proportions. It looks like a very early modern round brilliant more than a "transitional" in the way we always talk about them here. I would be so interested to see its proportions in writing! I think it has very long lower halves, perhaps even in the same range as an MRB, creating that cool shardy look. At the same time, the high crown and small table give it a distinct appearance. Do you notice any darkness under the table when you look at the stone up close?

 

[Circe]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Circe, I've been wondering about your reset and was going to veer off-topic in another thread to ask about it, but now I don't have to! I for one am thrilled for you that you are feeling happy and excited about your ring! Changing the stones is such a subtle change, and IMO the change has just become part of the piece's long and varied history! And it sounds like it's made such a big difference in your enjoyment of the ring! As a 50+ woman, my new philosophy is to do whatever we can to eek out a little joy and happiness from this life because it goes by really freakin' fast!! (eloquently put, huh? )

I absolutely love your ring, it looks SO beautiful on your hand, and I for one have always adored the setting! I'm actually pretty excited you've decided not to change it - Sometimes it just doesn't pay to mess with success! Looking down on the hand and absolutely loving what you see is such a great feeling!

your pics are beautiful!!! what a gorgeous stone!

Junebug, that is such a wonderful way to put it - I love it! And I think your philosophy is a very wise one. I think I will adopt it as my own.

I didn't see this thread back in January. Your ring is beautiful. It must be lovely to have two blinging rings to choose from!

Maisie - thank you so much! I have to admit, it's hard to pick so I wind up wearing both as often as not. I probably look a little outre ... but I'm okay with it.

Very nice! I love the new photos.

I admit to being sad you won't reset for the sole reason that I would have loved to know the weight of this diamond, and also perhaps the opportunity to convince you to run a sarin scan I would love to see its proportions. It looks like a very early modern round brilliant more than a "transitional" in the way we always talk about them here. I would be so interested to see its proportions in writing! I think it has very long lower halves, perhaps even in the same range as an MRB, creating that cool shardy look. At the same time, the high crown and small table give it a distinct appearance. Do you notice any darkness under the table when you look at the stone up close?

Heheheh - Dreamer, I have to admit, that was/is my last big motivation. And if the right setting ever comes along, I'll do it! But I don't want to risk 80 year old prongs to find out. But I WILL strongly suggest Al Gilbertson's American Cut - I think you'd get a huge kick out of it, loving old cuts as you do. His whole theory of parallel evolution (old-style pavilion and "modern" crown vs. old-style crown and "modern" pavilion on the way to MRB) made a whole lot of sense to me.

For a rough sense, there are the numbers Dave Wolf came up with for my evaluation - they're on the first page, and you are correct! He estimated the lower halves at 76.5, which would be in keeping with the typical MRB proportions ... and with what Gilbertson noted as a popular cutting style in the teens. SO FASCINATING, I WILL NOW USE THE UBERGEEK ICON.

... and at the risk of sounding like an ignoramus, could you tell me what "darkness under the table" means? Is it like a nailhead? I keep seeing people use that term in old cut threads, and it makes me scratch my head. Is it like what Gary posted as an example in this thread? https://www.pricescope.com/communit...monds-revisited.150108/#post-2722883#p2722883 This stone doesn't exhibit anything like that, but it does get a nice contrast pattern going if you block the light, in a way that my MRB doesn't. It hasn't struck me as a negative ... but we all know I have idiosyncratic taste. If you could link me to a video or something, I'd be v. grateful.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I don't have a video... but let me perhaps explain. When you have a nicely cut stone and you move your hand around you get light play consiting of facets turning off and on accross its whole face. If you look at most nicely cut diamond at about arms length and move your hand in a rolling motion with the table still generally facing your eyes, you get that nice play of light accross the whole face. In a poorly cut stone you will find the facets under the table are "lazy" and seem to stay mostly dark as you move your hand, or else the on and off of light and dark is in very large chunks -- so large that huge sections of the under table area are dark at once.

In most diamonds if you hold the stone closer to to your head, say about 12 inches, and tilt it in certain ways, you get a darkness in the under-table area that you do not see in the periphery facets. Again, it is fleeting. In really well cut stones you see hardly any darkenss/obstruction no matter how close you hold the stone to your face! I have seen this in an AVC and in some OECs I have owned. In most old cuts, you will see some darkening of the central facets on close examination, though, it is just one of the features of those oldies. They are prone to obstruction. It would be subtle in your diamond because from the photos it is clearly well cut! But if you are not sure what to look for, and if you don't have a sample size of 20+ diamonds to compare with (in memory or in person at one time I suppose) then it is not something you would be aware of or able to note qualitative differences from stone to stone, most likely.

 

[TravelingGal]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Circe, it's gorgeous and I wouldn't feel bad one whit about improving those side diamonds. You just took something lovely and made it even lovelier, is all!!!

 

[Snicklefritz]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

What a beauty!!! So glad you're happy with the new, lovely sidestones!

 

[Circe]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I don't have a video... but let me perhaps explain. When you have a nicely cut stone and you move your hand around you get light play consiting of facets turning off and on accross its whole face. If you look at most nicely cut diamond at about arms length and move your hand in a rolling motion with the table still generally facing your eyes, you get that nice play of light accross the whole face. In a poorly cut stone you will find the facets under the table are "lazy" and seem to stay mostly dark as you move your hand, or else the on and off of light and dark is in very large chunks -- so large that huge sections of the under table area are dark at once.

In most diamonds if you hold the stone closer to to your head, say about 12 inches, and tilt it in certain ways, you get a darkness in the under-table area that you do not see in the periphery facets. Again, it is fleeting. In really well cut stones you see hardly any darkenss/obstruction no matter how close you hold the stone to your face! I have seen this in an AVC and in some OECs I have owned. In most old cuts, you will see some darkening of the central facets on close examination, though, it is just one of the features of those oldies. They are prone to obstruction. It would be subtle in your diamond because from the photos it is clearly well cut! But if you are not sure what to look for, and if you don't have a sample size of 20+ diamonds to compare with (in memory or in person at one time I suppose) then it is not something you would be aware of or able to note qualitative differences from stone to stone, most likely.

Hm ... I'd say photos 1, 2 and 4 of the last batch basically show what I see then, only on-off, on-off - sort of like those shots we see of older cut stones where it seems like every other "petal" is bright? There is more dark/bright contrast then there is in my MRB, for sure - but when I compare them, I actually prefer the transitional! I think this is one reason why I tend to side with RockDiamond in a lot of the cut debates, and why I loooooooooooooved the point Alj made about facet arrangement in Mara's recent thread. It may be less light return, but it's so much more pleasing to my subjective eye. Unt, thank you! But if you were to, say - ::cuts eyes shiftily:: - want to include this issue in that hypothetical thread on old cuts you were considering, I would be VERY interested.

Circe, it's gorgeous and I wouldn't feel bad one whit about improving those side diamonds. You just took something lovely and made it even lovelier, is all!!!

TG, thank you! That is precisely what I shall tell myself. And since I have no intention of selling it, and every intention of sharing the tale with whoever gets it from me in the end - that's what I'll tell them, too!

What a beauty!!! So glad you're happy with the new, lovely sidestones!

Snicklefritz, thank you! And, btw, can I tell you how much I love your username? Makes me smile every time!

 

[Skippy123]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I missed this thread; wow, 2 gorgeous old cut stones!!!

 

[whatamiwithoutapurpose]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Beautiful!

 

[onedrop]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Somehow I never saw you ring the first time around, Circe. It's absolutely gorgeous! I am sure the upgraded side stones make even more lovely. It's amazing how a really small change can completely change a look.

 

[Newjewels]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I love it!

Do the sidestones go all the way around the band?

 

[Circe]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Hey, cool - look, Ma, I'm on TV! Thanks for the shout-out, Coati.

Skippy, WAIWAP, Onedrop, Newjewels, thank you so much! Nope, it's a half-eternity, but considering how much I do with my hands - probably all to the good!

 

[Mara]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Circe I missed this thread originally and wow what a stunner!! It does look like a very late tranny but it still has that look that I'd associate with an older stone, I kind of love stones like that, where they almost straddle the old and new looks. It looks like an awesome performer too.

BTW what is that 'sheet of diamonds' it looks to be resting on in the newest pics? Is that like some giant bracelet of OEC's or something?

And good for you for replacing those sidestones...I don't know if you saw my vintage OEC ring but it had 2 sidestones that were very much not OEC's...in fact badly cut RB's with lots of fluor and giant tables so I sourced true 3.5mm OEC's and had them replaced and wow it makes such a difference in the overall look of the piece. Much more period correct and the sparkle is so much better than before. I don't know if they were replaced at some point or something but so much better. Sounds like you feel the same way about your modification!

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I absolutely LOVE this ring. The stone is stunning and beautiful. I love how it picks up and reflects back so much color. I love its fluorescence. I love the fishtail prongs and the setting. I love the fact that you will wear it on the middle finger of your right hand. It is simply beautiful. I am finally becoming a diamond lover!

 

[Circe]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

I missed these last week! Sorry, guys.

Mara, thank you! I'm glad to know I'm not alone, both in loving the limbo stones, and in keeping them in tip-tip condition for their historically head-scratching position! The background is yet another of my vintage treasures - a little old evening purse that probably dates to the 1920s or so (so, maybe a contemporary of the ring!). It's diamante on the outside and white moire satin on the inside, and I loves it, precious, yeeeeeeeeeees.

MinousBijoux - did I ever mention how much I love your username? - thank you! Now I just need my hands to admit defeat and revert to their normal sizes entirely - for now, the rings are on opposite ring fingers. Bah, elastic fluctuating fingers!

 

[Austen22]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Circe,
I am new to this site because I found your ring on Erika Winters' blog. Wow! My boyfriend and I (well, mostly me) have been looking for the perfect ring and have something just like yours in mind. Are the second stones next to the marquise cuts round? And how big are the side stones? Do you have a pic from the side? Also, our jeweler is asking if I want "football" or "sailboat" marquise cuts on the side - which would you say yours are?
Many thanks!!

 

[Circe]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

Circe,
I am new to this site because I found your ring on Erika Winters' blog. Wow! My boyfriend and I (well, mostly me) have been looking for the perfect ring and have something just like yours in mind. Are the second stones next to the marquise cuts round? And how big are the side stones? Do you have a pic from the side? Also, our jeweler is asking if I want "football" or "sailboat" marquise cuts on the side - which would you say yours are?
Many thanks!!

What a lovely thing to find on checking in! The end-point stones area indeed rounds, old single cuts. I believe the marquise are about .12 points each, and the rounds about .08 points each. I'm having a hard time visualizing what t your jeweler means by football vs. sailboat ... fat marquise vs. loner skinny ones? If so, definitely the latter.

Sadly, this ring met an unfortunate end during an attempt at rebuilding a prong, but I had it remade with the same stones: you you click my username and then "all posts," it should show you what a modern version of it looks like. I will very much look forward to seeing what you wind up choosing to go with!

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Re: Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut

It's really, really pretty. I thought I liked your first one-now this! Fun faceting and fluor, eh? And yay for the baby coming and indulgent husband. Revel in all the good. Love all around to you!