A new home for an heirloom OEC--also, advice please!

[glitterata]

I have a beautifully cut OEC that used to belong to my grandparents. It's about 1.65 carats, K/L color, SI2. Grandpa gave it to Grandma set in an engagement ring in the very early 1920s. At some point after that, probably when 1920s settings went out of fashion, Grandma had it reset in a man's ring and gave it back to him. It's twinkling on his pinky in all my childhood memories of him. Later on, after he'd died, she reset it in a necklace and gave it to me as a graduation present. But I rarely wore the necklace--not my style.

After I got married, it occurred to me I could wear the diamond as a ring. I looked for an antique setting from c. 1920, but I didn't find anything quite right, so I bought an inexpensive reproduction Edwardian setting "for now," planning to reset the diamond at some point. The repro setting is a cast of an antique. It's nice enough, but neither a genuine antique nor especially well made.

That was more than 20 years ago.

A month or two ago I spotted a well-priced 1920s setting on ebay that was just the right size for my grandparents' OEC. I have quite a few 1920s deco platinum rings by now, and I told myself I didn't need another, but I kept going back to it. Finally I bought it. It arrived today, and it's PERFECT! It's in great shape--it looks like whoever had it originally barely wore it. It's big, bold, and showy, which fits with my grandparents' taste--I can imagine my grandfather choosing it and my grandmother loving it. It's pretty good quality, like the diamond--not perfect, but looks great from normal viewing distance. It's so clearly handmade. And I love the design. To me it feels like the ring equivalent of a beautifully cut, quirky OEC.

As a bonus, moving the OEC into this new antique setting would free up the repro setting (which I'm very fond of after wearing it for two decades) to hold a lab OMC I recently bought and hadn't decided what to do with.

My grandparents' OEC in its repro setting at my knuckle, and the new, antique setting below (with my wedding band at the bottom):








Here it is with the lab OMC sitting in it, to show how it would look with a diamond. Imagine the lab OMC in the top setting and the OEC that's currently in the top setting in the bottom setting instead.

 

[glitterata]

Oh, I forgot to ask for the advice! Should I send the OEC to GIA while it's out of its setting? I would kind of like to know what they think of the cut (e.g., is it strictly an OEC, or a transitional, or what?) and what color and clarity they would call it. (It was cut no later than 1921--is that too early for it to be a transitional?)

But I don't ever plan to sell it, so I don't need a certificate for documentation, just for curiosity. So maybe not worth the bother?

 

[luckygreen317]

Oh, I forgot to ask for the advice! Should I send the OEC to GIA while it's out of its setting? I would kind of like to know what they think of the cut (e.g., is it strictly an OEC, or a transitional, or what?) and what color and clarity they would call it. (It was cut no later than 1921--is that too early for it to be a transitional?)

But I don't ever plan to sell it, so I don't need a certificate for documentation, just for curiosity. So maybe not worth the bother?

I love the idea of your inherited diamond in the new setting.

I need peace of mind and have sent my diamonds for grading before resetting. If you insure your jewelry, the GIA grading will definitely help document the value. I personally would send it in for grading.

 

[LilAlex]

That's an amazing ring -- and an amazing fit.

From your description, I would not send to GIA unless you were planning to insure it and even then an appraisal would probably do.

I may be nuts but not sure that's an everyday ring (?). Others here would know better. Lots of tiny meet-points for the design elements. Looks Edwardian to me, when they went nuts with the architecture but were less focused on durability. Still my favorite era for rings and I love yours!

 

[glitterata]

That's an amazing ring -- and an amazing fit.

From your description, I would not send to GIA unless you were planning to insure it and even then an appraisal would probably do.

I may be nuts but not sure that's an everyday ring (?). Others here would know better. Lots of tiny meet-points for the design elements. Looks Edwardian to me, when they went nuts with the architecture but were less focused on durability. Still my favorite era for rings and I love yours!

Thank you, LilAlex!

I don't expect to wear it every day, and certainly not for anything strenuous or messy. It's too big and fancy. (I know PSers think a 1.65 ct diamond is a modest size, but it's pretty big in my circle of friends and colleagues.) The only ring I wear every day is my wedding ring, which is a thick, plain, solid platinum band. But I do have several rings from around the same period with similar designs that have held up pretty well. As long as it keeps my grandparents' diamond safe, I won't be too disappointed if it loses a single cut now and then, or gets a bit worn and dented.

(Edited to say: A jeweler friend says it's die-stamped and then hand pierced, and the die-stamping will have made the metal very dense and strong. She says a modern ring that looks like this would be fragile, but not a genuine, die-stamped antique.)

My guess is it was probably made right around 1920, give or take three or four years, which is the right age for the diamond. This is based on examining jewelry store catalogs from that era.

 

[CHRISTY-DANIELLE]

I really like the ebay find! Can't wait to see the oec in it!

 

[glitterata]

For example, here's a page from a 1921 catalog from a Toronto jewelry store:

Several of the rings, including 403 and 422, include calibre-cut sapphires as well as diamond melee.

 

[glitterata]

@CHRISTY-DANIELLE , take a look at # 422 on that catalog page--"Diamond circled with small square Sapphires, small diamonds on shoulders, $500." That's about $5800 USD in today's dollars at today's exchange rate. (But of course we don't know the specs on that diamond in the catalog.)

 

[Lookinagain]

I wouldn't send it to GIA mainly because, who cares? It's a family heirloom and regardless of what GIA says, it will always be one. If you are looking for insurance replacement value, then go to a local jeweler and ask for an insurance replacement value (not retail value but insurance replacement) so that you know what to insure for if that is your plan. But you don't need GIA for that.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I agree - I wouldn’t send it to GIA if I wasn’t planning to sell. Beautiful ring btw!

 

[Rfisher]

Oh, I forgot to ask for the advice! Should I send the OEC to GIA while it's out of its setting? I would kind of like to know what they think of the cut (e.g., is it strictly an OEC, or a transitional, or what?) and what color and clarity they would call it. (It was cut no later than 1921--is that too early for it to be a transitional?)

But I don't ever plan to sell it, so I don't need a certificate for documentation, just for curiosity. So maybe not worth the bother?

If I were curious - it’d be worth it to know the stats/measurements.
Then you could take it a step further and know what measurements of your stone may meet the GIA OEC standards and what meet the GIA circular brilliant standards. Because curiosity!


Lovely setting and wonderful history to your stone.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

i love grandma jewlery
this is so special because it was also worn by grandad also
im so glad that the diamond is going to be worn again

 

[glitterata]

The ring is back from my jeweler with the OEC in it. I'm so pleased with how it came out. I can't imagine a more appropriate setting for this diamond--the period is exactly right, and it's extremely showy, just like my grandmother and grandfather in their different ways.

 

[lulu_ma]

It's simply gorgeous!

 

[HGar]

@glitterata you must be so chuffed - your ring is stunningly gorgeous. What a gorgeous reminder of your loved ones.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

The ring is back from my jeweler with the OEC in it. I'm so pleased with how it came out. I can't imagine a more appropriate setting for this diamond--the period is exactly right, and it's extremely showy, just like my grandmother and grandfather in their different ways.

i love this
its a true love story
i bet this would have made your grandparents so happy
it is a show stopper
and hopefully (all in good time) the next generation will fall in love with it also

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Gorgeous new home for your lovely! Stunning.

 

[CHRISTY-DANIELLE]

A cannot imagine a better pairing. That stone in that setting--stunner!

 

[SparklieBug]

This pairing is sheer perfection! Congratulations on a gorgeous heirloom ring. It looks fabulous on you!

 

[glitterata]

Thank you for the kind words, jewelry friends!

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Gorgeous is the word. It's absolutely beautiful, and to me the perfect size. I think they would be so happy with your choice and having you carry a bit of them with you.
Plus, that lab OMC is going to be quite a stunner as well.
Love.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Love it! Very pretty OEC, I love how she is right at home in that setting.

 

[Lookinagain]

It looks wonderful!

 

[glitterata]

At risk of boring everybody, more angles on my OEC in its new antique setting:







And here it is with my other grandmother's 1929 engagement ring (F VS2 transition cut) on my index finger. One shot shows the engagement rings by themselves and the other shows them with each grandmother's wedding band. The OEC is a little bigger than the transition cut--1.65 compared to 1.4ish or so--but it looks huge in comparison in this setting. In its old setting they looked around the same size.





And just for fun, here are all my about-a-carat-and-a-half diamond rings.
Top to bottom:
1.45 ct I1 S CBI set in Argentium silver
1.65 K/L SI1 OEC
1.4ish F VS2 transition in its original 1929 setting
1.51 E VS1 lab OMC in the setting the OEC used to be in.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

At risk of boring everybody, more angles on my OEC in its new antique setting:







And here it is with my other grandmother's 1929 engagement ring (F VS2 transition cut) on my index finger. One shot shows the engagement rings by themselves and the other shows them with each grandmother's wedding band. The OEC is a little bigger than the transition cut--1.65 compared to 1.4ish or so--but it looks huge in comparison in this setting. In its old setting they looked around the same size.





And just for fun, here are all my about-a-carat-and-a-half diamond rings.
Top to bottom:
1.45 ct I1 S CBI set in Argentium silver
1.65 K/L SI1 OEC
1.4ish F VS2 transition in its original 1929 setting
1.51 E VS1 lab OMC in the setting the OEC used to be in.

Oooh, they're tickling my perfect proportion area of my brain caaase.

 

[JV36912]

At risk of boring everybody, more angles on my OEC in its new antique setting:







And here it is with my other grandmother's 1929 engagement ring (F VS2 transition cut) on my index finger. One shot shows the engagement rings by themselves and the other shows them with each grandmother's wedding band. The OEC is a little bigger than the transition cut--1.65 compared to 1.4ish or so--but it looks huge in comparison in this setting. In its old setting they looked around the same size.





And just for fun, here are all my about-a-carat-and-a-half diamond rings.
Top to bottom:
1.45 ct I1 S CBI set in Argentium silver
1.65 K/L SI1 OEC
1.4ish F VS2 transition in its original 1929 setting
1.51 E VS1 lab OMC in the setting the OEC used to be in.

You can't bore us with this beauty! LOVE your collection! Your OEC looks right at home!

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

At risk of boring everybody, enjoy !

Had to fix it for you

more angles on my OEC in its new antique setting:







And here it is with my other grandmother's 1929 engagement ring (F VS2 transition cut) on my index finger. One shot shows the engagement rings by themselves and the other shows them with each grandmother's wedding band. The OEC is a little bigger than the transition cut--1.65 compared to 1.4ish or so--but it looks huge in comparison in this setting. In its old setting they looked around the same size.





And just for fun, here are all my about-a-carat-and-a-half diamond rings.
Top to bottom:
1.45 ct I1 S CBI set in Argentium silver
1.65 K/L SI1 OEC
1.4ish F VS2 transition in its original 1929 setting
1.51 E VS1 lab OMC in the setting the OEC used to be in.

 

[Ally T]

@glitterata This is perfection to me. This diamond as been on one hell of a journey & I love that you know its history & that it’s still in your family, being worn & treasured. I think that ‘new’ setting is substantial & sturdy enough to wear every single day. Show that dazzler off & let her shine! You’ll get used to the size in no time & I’m sure your friends & colleagues appreciate the story & love behind it. Nobody will judge you because you have a larger than average ring around those parts.

Please, please wear her every day.

Also, I absolutely LOVE that you have your other grandmothers ring & both wedding rings. That’s quite a special picture with the diamonds paired once again with their bands

 

[glitterata]

I stopped by a favorite antique jewelry store yesterday, Pippin Vintage Jewelry in NYC. The lovely owner complimented me on my ring, cleaned it, and told me the top is original from the 1920s, but it was reshanked at some point by a skillful jeweler--he could tell because the top is die stamped (and hand pierced and engraved), while the shank is cast and engraved to match the top.

I tried on the most gorgeous Edwardian unheated Burmese ruby ring. If only I had 60+K to spare!

https://pippinvintage.com/ (but most of their stuff is not listed on the website, so it's better to go in person)

 

[LightBright]

At risk of boring everybody, more angles on my OEC in its new antique setting:







And here it is with my other grandmother's 1929 engagement ring (F VS2 transition cut) on my index finger. One shot shows the engagement rings by themselves and the other shows them with each grandmother's wedding band. The OEC is a little bigger than the transition cut--1.65 compared to 1.4ish or so--but it looks huge in comparison in this setting. In its old setting they looked around the same size.





And just for fun, here are all my about-a-carat-and-a-half diamond rings.
Top to bottom:
1.45 ct I1 S CBI set in Argentium silver
1.65 K/L SI1 OEC
1.4ish F VS2 transition in its original 1929 setting
1.51 E VS1 lab OMC in the setting the OEC used to be in.

What an absolutely stunning collection.. I love how each grandmother’s diamond ring works so well with their respective wedding bands. I love your choice of Argentium silver for your CBI (I’m going to go back and look for your thread on that). Your new OMC which is slightly squared and I recall has a tiny table and high crown and squarish shape plus defined “rays” in the middle looks fantastic in its new home. I love that it looks vaguely reminiscent of an Asscher or French Cut (at least from the photos). And I love that it is also chunky and an E color. You’ve done a wonderful curation. Inspiring!