What do you think of the IS image of this OEC?

[zhuzhu]

My limited understanding of ideal scope is that the more pink, the better. I hope this pink coverage shows well? I was mostly surprised and happy to see the arrows, as this stone was cut in the art deco time period (20-30).

Your opinions on the cut quality is much appreciated!

 

[stone-cold11]

looks good.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/23/2010 10:53:20 PM
Author:zhuzhu
My limited understanding of ideal scope is that the more pink, the better. I hope this pink coverage shows well? I was mostly surprised and happy to see the arrows, as this stone was cut in the art deco time period (20-30).

Your opinions on the cut quality is much appreciated!

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I don't see a culet, and the arrows are too thin(and LGFs too long) to be an OEC, it looks more like modern round brilliant with an unsymmetrical girdle outline.

 

[yssie]

was just thinking that ccl

 

[stci]

Absolutly! For me, it''s not an OEC at all!

 

[zhuzhu]

There is actually a culet, just very small.
In this picture, does the cut still look NOT like a OEC?

 

[Gypsy]

Not to me either. Zhu... I don''t think that ring is mind clean for you. You seem to be waffling on it. I''m pretty much of the opinon that if you don''t love it when you open the box, try it on and wear it for 5 minutes... it''s not right for you. Hope you don''t mind my saying so.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/24/2010 2:41:26 AM
Author: Gypsy
Not to me either. Zhu... I don''t think that ring is mind clean for you. You seem to be waffling on it. I''m pretty much of the opinon that if you don''t love it when you open the box, try it on and wear it for 5 minutes... it''s not right for you. Hope you don''t mind my saying so.

Of course I don''t mind at all.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Nope not an OEC that pictures makes it even easier to conclude.

 

[zhuzhu]

From 1 to 10, how would you rate the cut of this diamond?

 

[Gypsy]

I''d rate it as ''traditional'' borrowing from GOG''s classifications on cut. Which means well... not great.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 3/24/2010 1:12:37 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/23/2010 10:53:20 PM
Author:zhuzhu
My limited understanding of ideal scope is that the more pink, the better. I hope this pink coverage shows well? I was mostly surprised and happy to see the arrows, as this stone was cut in the art deco time period (20-30).

Your opinions on the cut quality is much appreciated!

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I don't see a culet, and the arrows are too thin(and LGFs too long) to be an OEC, it looks more like modern round brilliant with an unsymmetrical girdle outline.

It reminds me of 2 stones I have from that time period. They have been labeled by my jeweler as transitional cuts. Both of mine have a very small culet that doesn't always show in pictures. Both have some symmetry and outlines of arrows, but they aren't near as small of table or high of crown as the OECs have.

I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't say they are a regular modern RB yet they aren't an OEC either. Kind of like I have read about the AVOECs, mine show a lot of rainbow of colors more often than just white light. I don't know if that makes sense or not, but just an observation I have when I compare my two stones (one from '25 and the other about then too) to the modern RBs that I own. I really like them a lot though. More so than modern RB or OECs actually.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/24/2010 2:41:26 AM
Author: Gypsy
I''m pretty much of the opinon that if you don''t love it when you open the box, try it on and wear it for 5 minutes... it''s not right for you. Hope you don''t mind my saying so.

Ditto.

It looks great with the style of your engagement and wedding rings (your other threads) but I''m getting the feeling, reading your threads, that this ring is just not what you thought it would be.

I think this ring is a modern day reproduction of a 1920s style -- which is fine; I wear a copy of a vintage design on my hand -- but if what you wanted and what you paid for was a genuine antique ring, this one is not it.

 

[zhuzhu]

Actually, I really do love this ring. I am disappointed this may not really be an OEC (would of been my first OEC) but its beauty is unquestionable.

How do I get a antique cut professional on Pricescope to tell me for sure what it is? Thanks!

 

[Upgradable]

I''m not a professional, but a vintage cut afficianado who has seen many old cuts first hand. So for what it''s worth, it looks like you have an average cut modern round brilliant with a small culet. It may have been cut anytime from the 1940''s onward. I wouldn''t call it a transitional cut. However, I do not think the cut distracts from the beauty of the piece. You have a very pretty ring there; one I would be happy to wear.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 3/24/2010 1:38:19 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Actually, I really do love this ring. I am disappointed this may not really be an OEC (would of been my first OEC) but its beauty is unquestionable.

How do I get a antique cut professional on Pricescope to tell me for sure what it is? Thanks!

I would take it to an appraiser or someone who specializes in antique/vintage jewelry. See what they think. I remember thinking that a ring I had was set with an OEC as well but amazingly it is really transitional. That one I have paperwork for and it was cut in 1925. The profile of the stone shows how shallow it is compared to real OECs. I love it all the same. Though I do understand the disappointement. Whether it is an OEC, Transitional cut or modern RB, it is a beautiful setting!

It may be really hard to tell what your stone really is from pictures. My ring was dated not just from the stone appearance (proportions, culet size, girdle condition etc) but also from how the ring itself was made.

That said do you have any pictures of the ring with profile shots or the like? I''d love to see more of it.

 

[oldminer]

A good photo without the red of the I-S might be revealing, but it currently does NOT look like an older cut to me.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Where did you get the ring Zhuzhu? I love that style and think it makes a great RHR. Any bigger and it would compete with your E-ring I think. Anyhoo, not an expert but it does not look like an OEC to me. Still, the stone somehoe doesn''t look like a modern RB either.

 

[Hest88]

Can we get a real photo (not of the IS)? It really doesn''t look like an OEC but an actuall photo could confirm it.

 

[zhuzhu]

Thanks all!

This is the best photo I can take up close. I have double-checked with the seller, whom I trust and have a long term relationship with. This is what they said: "The center stone is definitely 100 percent european cut diamond. Although the culet is not open like most older european cut stones, this stone is more of a modern european cut diamond. Within time, they improved their technology and started to close the culet. But nevertheless it is still antique. " I have no reason to think they would be lying because they have been very professional and are excellent in customer service all the way. Is it possible that there are different school of thoughts on the definition of european cut? The curiosity is killing me, what do YOU call this cut?

The silly thing is I have already had this ring evaluated by my local jeweler. I asked for the confirmation on the color, weight, and clarity, but failed to ask him what he thoughts the cut type is (duh!!!).

Regardless, this ring is beautifully elegant, brilliant, and scintillating all in one. I love it! It would be nice to put a universally-agree-upon cut name to it though!

 

[stci]

Date: 3/25/2010 12:08:35 AM
Author: zhuzhu
Thanks all!

This is the best photo I can take up close. I have double-checked with the seller, whom I trust and have a long term relationship with. This is what they said: ''The center stone is definitely 100 percent european cut diamond. Although the culet is not open like most older european cut stones, this stone is more of a modern european cut diamond. Within time, they improved their technology and started to close the culet. But nevertheless it is still antique. '' I have no reason to think they would be lying because they have been very professional and are excellent in customer service all the way. Is it possible that there are different school of thoughts on the definition of european cut? The curiosity is killing me, what do YOU call this cut?

The silly thing is I have already had this ring evaluated by my local jeweler. I asked for the confirmation on the color, weight, and clarity, but failed to ask him what he thoughts the cut type is (duh!!!).

Regardless, this ring is beautifully elegant, brilliant, and scintillating all in one. I love it! It would be nice to put a universally-agree-upon cut name to it though!

Here are comparaison pics.

Now... If I refer to what the seller said it''s probably true. If European cut wants to say the diamond was cut in Europe ok but it is certainly not an Old European Cut diamond.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 3/25/2010 12:08:35 AM
Author: zhuzhu
Thanks all!

This is the best photo I can take up close. I have double-checked with the seller, whom I trust and have a long term relationship with. This is what they said: 'The center stone is definitely 100 percent european cut diamond. Although the culet is not open like most older european cut stones, this stone is more of a modern european cut diamond. Within time, they improved their technology and started to close the culet. But nevertheless it is still antique. ' I have no reason to think they would be lying because they have been very professional and are excellent in customer service all the way. Is it possible that there are different school of thoughts on the definition of european cut? The curiosity is killing me, what do YOU call this cut?

The silly thing is I have already had this ring evaluated by my local jeweler. I asked for the confirmation on the color, weight, and clarity, but failed to ask him what he thoughts the cut type is (duh!!!).

Regardless, this ring is beautifully elegant, brilliant, and scintillating all in one. I love it! It would be nice to put a universally-agree-upon cut name to it though!

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I was told by my family member who deals in actual antiques that the item needs to be 100 years older to be considered as such. If what this person is saying is true, your ring would be from 1910 or prior. From what I also understand newer cutting techniques didn't happen for a little while afer that.

That said, the very way this man is discussing the stone would make me say transitional cut at the very least. The way transitional cuts have been described it is the period of time when the crown got smaller, the tables got bigger and the culet shrunk.

Again I am no expert but I think you have a transitional (also called Early American cut) or a very early modern RB.

Do you have a side shot of the profile? To me that is more telling than the over head shot too.

Do you know when the ring was supposedly made? That kind of thing will also help identify the kind of cut you have.

I have to also bring up something about the setting. I see that there seems to be some texturing (maybe old milgrain worn away) around the outside edge of the blue stones. The interior bezel seems to be *very* smooth by comparison. I wonder if it is likely that this stone had been replaced at some point?

I don't mean to say this seller is trying to lie to you, but I cannot agree that is an OEC. If that is what you are looking for, then this is not it.

 

[jewelz617]

That to me looks more like a RB, maybe? I like the setting more than the diamond, if I''m being honest.

 

[MustangGal]

It looks similar to a "transitional" cut ring I had, small culet, sharper facets, and no flower pattern. It was probably just towards the end of OEC/transitional cutting, and therefore looks more like an RB. I love the ring though!

 

[LGK]

Well, I'd say (without actually handling the ring) that it is almost certainly modern reproduction. That style, though marketed as "antique look" really wasn't common as an actual antique setting... the halo style setting is a modern design really- while I'm sure there are a few out there that are actual antiques, I've never seen one out of the hundreds of antique settings I've seen over the years. Especially that particular style with the sapphires as the halo. There's about two brand new settings in a showcase about ten feet away from me that look virtually identical.

The cut looks like a RB to me. Possibly an earlier one, but definitely not an OEC.

It is a pretty setting however. I would say that your seller may not be actually trying to deceive anyone- he may have in fact had someone deceive him. It happens, unfortunately.

ETA: Cldwi, you're right. To be technically an antique something has to be 100 years old or older. However people (including antique dealers) often use it loosely and inaccurately. I know I do.

ETA yet again: I see you got it from Dover Jewelry, right? I've gotten inaccurate info from them in the past... I have a ring that has a transitional M/N color (sold by them as an I colored OEC) in a modern repro setting that they sold as a '30s piece. It is a used setting- it isn't new, it's been sized- but it is definitely a modern repro. Just FYI. Their prices are, however, awesome, so I really didn't care that it wasn't what they said it was. And your ring is a beauty. But, it is good to know what you have and if it's what you want, and if the price was right for what it was.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Ditto on the request for a profile shot - a clearer view of the table will most certainly help in this case!

 

[denverappraiser]

57 facets.
Long lower girdle facets.
Biggish table.
Nicely round.

That all sounds pretty modern to me.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/25/2010 4:52:07 PM
Author: denverappraiser
57 facets.
Long lower girdle facets.
Biggish table.
Nicely round.

That all sounds pretty modern to me.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

As a general guideline GIA graders would use the following to distinguish between an Old European Cut and Round Brilliant:

i) Table equal to or less than 53%
ii) Culet Equal to or larger than Slightly Large
iii) Crown Angles Equal To Or Greater than 40 Degrees
iv) Lower Half Length Equal To Or Smaller than 60% (by visual inspection only not by measurement)
These criteria are meant as a general guideline and there are exceptions where these parameters are close but the table is not as small or pavilion is not as deep. In these rare cases, the stones still possess the typical appearance of the older-cut stones.
-------------------

The stone being considered above does not satisfy any of the four criteria for an OEC.

 

[zhuzhu]

Not sure how to get a profile view of the diamond in a bezel setting, however here is (I think) a better pic showing the facets of this European cut diamond (newer cut).
Thank you!

 

[Upgradable]

Here is a side view from another of your threads. I don''t see the high crown expected from an oec.