1.56ct M VS2 Old Euro Cut Round - Opinions Please

[joolsiepetunia]

Hi All,

I'm looking to get an antique stone to swap out my current round brilliant. I've been looking at a few sites to get a gauge for pricing, quality etcs. I found one beautiful one on GOG. My current RB is G1 colored and this one a M and just looks like it would melt! I'm curious why the pricing is so low though. Could it be because the shallowness of the diamond? Any input would be great from you gals. Thanks!

Shape: European cut
Carat Weight: 1.56ct
Color: M
Clarity: VS2
Fluorescence: None
Culet: None
In House: Yes
Width: 7.87mm
Length: 7.97mm
Depth: 4.07mm
Table Percentage: 63.90%
Depth Percentage: 51.40%

GOG Website Link: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9724/

 

[Rhea]

It's too shallow and the middle of the stone looks dead. Have you had the chance to see it in person?

 

[joolsiepetunia]

Hi Rhea - I haven't had a chance to see it in person. I think it might not even be worth it, but wanted some thoughts from some PSers first It is very shallow, which is what made me question in the first place.

 

[ecf8503]

The "dead" center (the white part) is just the culet area (the description says "no culet", but the white is surrounding the pointed culet). No biggie. The IS is ALL RED - that's awesome! Granted, it does have a large table for an OEC, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - the IS and ASET look good (but it may not have a ton of contrast). Talk to GOG - get their opinion - and ask them to make a video. That's the best way to find out if it it is to your liking.

 

[Dreamer_D]

It's too shallow and the middle of the stone looks dead. Have you had the chance to see it in person?

I agree with this. And by "dead" in the center I do not think Rhea means the culet, and nor do I. The faceting is rather indistinct, and the light return will lend a "flat" appearance to the stone. This does not mean no light will be returned, just that the quality of the light return will not be lively. The IS and ASET are showing good light return, but that is different from contrast and precision in the faceting, which adds life and movement. That would be seen in a pattern of blue and red in the ASET under the table, not all red. The IS also shows a circle of leakage around the perimeter of the table, which is common in very shallow stones.

Some shallow stones can work, but it takes very specific proportions on the other factors.

This diamond could be a decent pendant, or might be a good option for someone who likes a big spread and an old cut, but is not picky about cut.

For the price I would either get a smaller facing stone with better cut, or pay more for a better cut in that size. GOG has many other well cut examples in their inventory.

 

[yennyfire]

I'd pass and keep looking.

 

[yssie]

It's too shallow and the middle of the stone looks dead. Have you had the chance to see it in person?

I agree with this. And by "dead" in the center I do not think Rhea means the culet, and nor do I. The faceting is rather indistinct, and the light return will lend a "flat" appearance to the stone. This does not mean no light will be returned, just that the quality of the light return will not be lively. The IS and ASET are showing good light return, but that is different from contrast and precision in the faceting, which adds life and movement. That would be seen in a pattern of blue and red in the ASET under the table, not all red. The IS also shows a circle of leakage around the perimeter of the table, which is common in very shallow stones.

Some shallow stones can work, but it takes very specific proportions on the other factors.

This diamond could be a decent pendant, or might be a good option for someone who likes a big spread and an old cut, but is not picky about cut.

For the price I would either get a smaller facing stone with better cut, or pay more for a better cut in that size. GOG has many other well cut examples in their inventory.

Ditto all of this.

It's going into a ring... so you'll see it in lots of types of lights at different angles. This wouldn't be one I'd consider.

Those dead areas at the edges of the table will be exaggerated when you're looking at the stone IRL with two eyes, and even more so when the stone is tilted slightly.

Lots of light return doesn't necessarily equate to "life" IRL - as Rockdiamond notes that a mirror would produce a bright red IS too, but of course it's missing the contrast between brightness and darkness and the change in contrast as you tilt the stone that makes a diamond interesting. From the info available I wouldn't consider it further.

 

[joolsiepetunia]

Thanks all for your help

 

[Rhea]

By dead centre I was meaning the white facets which aren't giving anything back. It looks like what people talk about with nail head except white. I'll call it thumb tack head. It doesn't looks dark, just very boring, and I can't imagine it being very lively.

I'm fairly familiar with culets as an owner of mostly older cut diamonds

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with the dead center comments. I'd pass.

 

[globalmujer]

This stone has a video made by GOG- I requested more info and they made this...it looks beautiful on the video ...i am not sure i see the dead center....can you see the diamond here and let us know what you all think??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxheC9M1_qc&list=UUEV7slr-i-VduBBnfv9MxhA&index=1

 

[TitanCi]

Looks like I have much to learn (again) with these older cuts. I thought it looked nice, but I guess not!

Hours of research, here I come...

 

[hippi_pixi]

it depends what your after. its probably cheaper because of its color and cut. it looks pretty normal for what ive seen of antique cuts. it does have a dead spot in the middle but not what you would call nailhead. and it doesn't have much symmetry if that bothers you.

but that with all of that said and everything people have said before me, looking at the video though it does light up and sparkle. and it could be a bargain for that size and face up a bigger stone than you might otherwise be able to afford. is it the best stone out there? no. is it cheap for a stone that faces up more like 1.75 or 2 carat stone? yes.

so it just depends what your priorities lie and what your after. and if you can see it it person do it!

 

[justginger]

By dead centre I was meaning the white facets which aren't giving anything back. It looks like what people talk about with nail head except white. I'll call it thumb tack head. It doesn't looks dark, just very boring, and I can't imagine it being very lively.

I'm fairly familiar with culets as an owner of mostly older cut diamonds

I agree - and thumb tack head is a new term!

To me, this is not an attractive old cut. The area under the table is very bleh. It is "lit up" in the sense that it returning light, but offers no true sparkle, or scintillation. It looks very characterless, no good contrast, no on-off-on-off twinkling effect. Personally, it is one of the least attractive old stones I've seen, in terms of my preferences. The cut is so...odd.

 

[bunnycat]

Looks like I have much to learn (again) with these older cuts. I thought it looked nice, but I guess not!

Hours of research, here I come...

yeah- the numbers don't do mich good with these oldies though it's so shallow and spready I'd wonder about obstruction. That's kind of why you need to have a look at them in person to train your eye a little so you can figure out what types of stones might work for you and what bothers you in an old cut because you can't love them for their perfection....

 

[chrono]

A good portion of an old cut diamond's charm is its pattern be it flower-like or mosaic-like, of which this one does not. This one looks haphazard.

 

[JulieN]

It is ok. In the video at 4:30 minutes where it's under strong spotlight you'll see most of the action off the crown facets, but under the table not as much action.

 

[bunnycat]

I had to look at the video on my phone. I was surprised, it does better than I thought it would but does that have fairly continual dark area that's difficult to light up . I guess I'm one of those that doesn't mind if the facets are wonky as long as it helps the stone. One of my feelings with the old cuts (since so few of them seem to have great patterning combined with good performance) is that too much symmetry seems to hurt some of them (contributing to obstruction and nail head) that might otherwise be ok if a few facets had been wonkier. In other words, a great pattern doesn't really seem to insure good performance.