Another OEC Question -- Pics Included!

[MrsBettyBoop]

This striking ring has marquise and round diamonds in the shoulders (total weight .24 cts). A vintage stunner from the 1930s. Platinum.

I love this setting.

 

[kennedy]

Gotta run, but wanted to see what you guys thought of the pattern of the stone in "my" ring. Just got a close up shot.

 

[kennedy]

Love the setting! Know nothing about those diamonds so no help from me, but it sure is nice!

I wasn't sure about the setting at first, but it's growing on me.

By the way, I saw in your other thread that you also have a 3 month old (well, mine isn't 3 months quite yet...11 weeks tomorrow). Getting any sleep? Mine is sleeping next to me right now which is what I should be doing!

But if you sleep when baby sleeps then you have no life! I think our older ones are the same age too, about 2.5?

My 3 mo is sleeping well for naps finally. He would not sleep at first unless on my chest or snugged up next to me in bed, then he slept on his stomach, and now he sleeps swaddled on his back. I think he read the safe sleep guidlines and decided to toe the line I slowly started putting him down while still awake but drowsy and he finally started putting himself to sleep. He is napping right now! But it is touch and go, some days he opts to throw a curve ball. At night he still sleeps in bed with me for some of the night. On the whole though much easier than the first go around.

The toddler is the one causing more pain He is jealous and fiesty. Thank goodness for daycare!

As to rings I really like the setting of the second to last you posted, much more my style, and the diamond looks smashing as LGK said. The last one you posted the setting is not floating my boat, and can't tell much from the picsof the diamond.

I agree -- sleeping when baby sleeps = no free time. And I'm not really that tired. She's a much better sleeper than my first and I'm much more relaxed this time around. I am having so much fun with her and enjoying this newborn phase much more than I did with my older daughter.

I'm surprised that my older daughter isn't showing more signs of jealousy. She's actually almost 5, so that might have something to do with it. She just started kindergarten, so I'm really enjoying the time I have to spend with the baby while she's at school.

I'm a huge co-sleeping advocate and love snuggling up with my baby at night. I did the same thing you did having the baby sleep on my chest for the first few weeks. She's actually doing that right now as I type. She's my last, so I'm just trying to enjoy every last minute of her being this tiny!

 

[LGK]

Gotta run, but wanted to see what you guys thought of the pattern of the stone in "my" ring. Just got a close up shot.

Looks like it's got a lovely pattern! I'd say it looks quite promising. I really love that setting, I bet it makes it look huge on the hand.

I love OECs- like that one- that show the Kozibe effect when you look straight down at it- it takes a pretty dang small table to get that. My larger OEC does that; I believe the table is somewhere between 52%-45%... my guess is closer to 45%.

 

[kennedy]

Gotta run, but wanted to see what you guys thought of the pattern of the stone in "my" ring. Just got a close up shot.

Looks like it's got a lovely pattern! I'd say it looks quite promising. I really love that setting, I bet it makes it look huge on the hand.

I love OECs- like that one- that show the Kozibe effect when you look straight down at it- it takes a pretty dang small table to get that. My larger OEC does that; I believe the table is somewhere between 52%-45%... my guess is closer to 45%.

Awesome! I'm SOOO glad you like it. It's not a great picture, but I remember just loving that diamond so much! It was SOOO firey as I recall, but I didn't know anything back then so was worried I wasn't remembering correctly how gorgeous it was.

Yes, I love the Kozibe effect, too.

I really want to thank you for your continued help, LGK. I REALLY appreciate it!!!!

 

[Gypsy]

What do I think?

BUY IT. BUY IT. BUY IT.

 

[Dreamer_D]

What do I think?

BUY IT. BUY IT. BUY IT.

yes

 

[kennedy]

I'm baacck....with another option maybe.

I know the consensus now is to get my old ring back, but price is an issue. I need to unload a few things before I can buy it and that might not be super easy or fast. I'm hoping that maybe the seller will come down a little tiny bit, but I'm not terribly hopeful.

I'm waiting to hear from Leigh Nacht who says he has a stunning OEC he will send me pictures of tomorrow. In the meantime, I found this pretty ring from the seller of the first ring. The ring features a .98 ct I, SI1 in an art deco platinum mounting for $6350. The pictures show the stone much more clearly than the first ring and it looks really bright. Whether the stone is big enough for me, I'm not sure.

ETA I'm curious about the cut on this stone. Is this a true OEC or does it look like it's verging on a transitional cut? The stone looks uniformly so bright. Which stone do you guys prefer: this one or the one in "my" old ring?

 

[kennedy]

one more...

 

[LGK]

I suspect it's a TC- that flashlight-bright look and a big table, and that faceting (sort of quilty) says TC to me, or at least late OEC. I like yours better, but I'm just not a TC fan, I like fire more than white light return. Still- gorgeous setting. Price seems highish though, considering it's under a carat, but I still get stuck on the higher pricing these days! FWIW, the faceting pattern is gorgeous- that's often where TCs excel, with faceting pattern; but it's so hard to tell if it would be fiery in person or not. The super-white-light looks kinda makes me think maybe not. The pics are so fuzzy, though, I could be off base here!

Between the two, I still say your original- the size and the cut look better to *me*; but I hear ya on pricing. Sometimes you just gotta cut yourself off and stick to a budget; though, other times, it's more worth it to just go for spending a bit more if you will be dissatisfied eternally with whatever you settled for. I have that issue with settings all. the. time. I hate spending $$$ on them, but I'm a picky picky about workmanship and I like ornateness which leads to major irritation!

 

[Gypsy]

I think the price is high. There's a lovely one carat in a platinum setting on Ruby Lane for less. And I'm querrying a few 1.0 to 1.2 stones on ebay at under 4500 myself.

Of course, I'm very willing to have my OEC recut slightly to get the faceting I want so what I am looking for is size and depth and color and clarity with only a little bit of work needed. But again, I'm willing to have that work done.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Again, no expert here, but i feel like the price is on the high side for the ct weight on that most recent post. I also feel like a lot of the price is the setting, and I personally prefer to spend most on the diamond. The facet pattern is really pretty though!

 

[kennedy]

LGK -- As always, super helpful post. I've seen a couple of diamonds online that have the "flashlight-bright" look (good description) and couldn't quite decide if I liked it. I think I don't. The stone seems to lack a certain depth when it has that edge to edge brightness. And if the stone lacks fire in person, I definitely won't like that. And yet I do love the quilt pattern (another good description). So, in general, would you say that transitional cuts are more symmetrical than a true OEC? I am still hoping I can swing it to get my old ring back.

Gypsy -- I think I might know which ring you're talking about. I do agree that the price seems high, especially given that she sold me the first ring with significantly more carat weight and a more ornate setting for almost the same price. I wonder if the price is higher because the center stone is a better cut?

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

 

[LGK]

LGK -- As always, super helpful post. I've seen a couple of diamonds online that have the "flashlight-bright" look (good description) and couldn't quite decide if I liked it. I think I don't. The stone seems to lack a certain depth when it has that edge to edge brightness. And if the stone lacks fire in person, I definitely won't like that. And yet I do love the quilt pattern (another good description). So, in general, would you say that transitional cuts are more symmetrical than a true OEC? I am still hoping I can swing it to get my old ring back.

Gypsy -- I think I might know which ring you're talking about. I do agree that the price seems high, especially given that she sold me the first ring with significantly more carat weight and a more ornate setting for almost the same price. I wonder if the price is higher because the center stone is a better cut?

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

I'd say that yes, often TCs have the best symmetry of older cuts. It's hard to really characterize them though, as there's no official designation for transitional cuts, and the true experts don't use the term at all (Al Gilbertson has posted a couple of times explaining why he doesn't like the term, for example).

But for us laypeople it's a fairly useful term referring to stones that have some characteristics of OECs and some of modern RBs. Usually TCs have bigger tables because they had invented the method of sawing rough in half to create two diamonds, rather than just one from a piece of rough (OECs). I was personally surprised after I bought a TC with a pretty facet pattern, that living with it- I just didn't like it. They photograph amazingly well sometimes- that faceting pattern is just to die for in still photos often- but the lack of fire, and too much white light return? I didn't like it much IRL. Not all TCs are like that but the shallow crown and big table, which many often have, lends itself to that type of light return (brightness over fire).

Heh. Jewelry shopping is fun, irritating and occasionally over-the-top frustrating, huh. But when you get the right thing on your finger, you will be super, super excited, and it'll all have been worth it!

 

[kennedy]

LGK -- As always, super helpful post. I've seen a couple of diamonds online that have the "flashlight-bright" look (good description) and couldn't quite decide if I liked it. I think I don't. The stone seems to lack a certain depth when it has that edge to edge brightness. And if the stone lacks fire in person, I definitely won't like that. And yet I do love the quilt pattern (another good description). So, in general, would you say that transitional cuts are more symmetrical than a true OEC? I am still hoping I can swing it to get my old ring back.

Gypsy -- I think I might know which ring you're talking about. I do agree that the price seems high, especially given that she sold me the first ring with significantly more carat weight and a more ornate setting for almost the same price. I wonder if the price is higher because the center stone is a better cut?

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

I'd say that yes, often TCs have the best symmetry of older cuts. It's hard to really characterize them though, as there's no official designation for transitional cuts, and the true experts don't use the term at all (Al Gilbertson has posted a couple of times explaining why he doesn't like the term, for example).

But for us laypeople it's a fairly useful term referring to stones that have some characteristics of OECs and some of modern RBs. Usually TCs have bigger tables because they had invented the method of sawing rough in half to create two diamonds, rather than just one from a piece of rough (OECs). I was personally surprised after I bought a TC with a pretty facet pattern, that living with it- I just didn't like it. They photograph amazingly well sometimes- that faceting pattern is just to die for in still photos often- but the lack of fire, and too much white light return? I didn't like it much IRL. Not all TCs are like that but the shallow crown and big table, which many often have, lends itself to that type of light return (brightness over fire).

Heh. Jewelry shopping is fun, irritating and occasionally over-the-top frustrating, huh. But when you get the right thing on your finger, you will be super, super excited, and it'll all have been worth it!

Very interesting info -- especially the bit about transitional cuts photographing well since that's all I have to go on right now. I definitely favor fire over white light return and I know that the diamond in my old ring was super firey. Gosh, I just wish they would lower the price just a little bit. What do you think is a reasonable price for that ring with a 1.55 ct J, SI2 center and 80 points on the side?

In other news, I got an email from Leigh Nacht with a picture of two rings whose center stones he really likes. One of them is the ring I posted earlier with the 1.01 center. The other one has a 1.11 ct center for $8450 -- GIA certed J, VS1.

 

[kennedy]

on the finger...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

HAHA! Take a depp breath and remember this is fun and you are fortunate to have a great budget to buy something beautiful. That is what I am telling myself anyways. I also am struggling to decide on a replacement ring for the ring I sold.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like the bottom one in the pics. Cannot get over the prices though, that is steep.

 

[Rhea]

I prefer the look of the bottom stone. It's beautiful! High price though.

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DIAMOND-CLUSTER-RING-Old-European-Cut-Stones-2-65-carats-Antique-3N36-/220860172897?_trksid=p3286.m7&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D3%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D2950484191892992020 WANT IT NOW DAMNIT. And I can't have it so I thought I'd share.

It's stunningly beautiful at 7K.

 

[kennedy]

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

HAHA! Take a depp breath and remember this is fun and you are fortunate to have a great budget to buy something beautiful. That is what I am telling myself anyways. I also am struggling to decide on a replacement ring for the ring I sold.

Thanks, Dreamer. Are you thinking about an antique ring for your replacement (saw your Lang's thread)? Can't wait to see what you get!

 

[kennedy]

Dreamer and Addy -- Interesting you both prefer the stone on the bottom. I actually prefer the one on top since it looks more like an OEC to me. That said, neither one really does much for me. The prices are steep and make my old ring seem like not such a bad deal. Bottom line is I think I just really want my old ring back

Gypsy -- You know, it's funny -- I've seen that ring many times. I believe it's been for sale for months and months. Sometimes I think it's beautiful and sometimes I think it looks too much like a cocktail ring. I think I would like it better if the stones surrounding the center stone were just a hair smaller. It's a pretty good price, though, considering the carat weight.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Dreamer -- I, too, would prefer to spend most of the money on the diamond. Sometimes I think I should spend all the money on a loose stone and spring for the setting later, but I'm just not sure when I'll have more jewelry money and I do want an antique setting with sidestones which are both hard to find and pricey. Why is nothing easy when it comes to jewelry?

HAHA! Take a depp breath and remember this is fun and you are fortunate to have a great budget to buy something beautiful. That is what I am telling myself anyways. I also am struggling to decide on a replacement ring for the ring I sold.

Thanks, Dreamer. Are you thinking about an antique ring for your replacement (saw your Lang's thread)? Can't wait to see what you get!

I don't think so, I think I am going for an AVC or AVR or RB. That narrows it eh? I am not one for old cuts, too much uncertainty, too hard to find, no tradesies. But I am painfully indecisive so have been driving myself and Good Old Gold mental I am sure. I have no idea how I will ever narrow it and make a choice, but I suppose I will eventually.

And I meant to respond to your post about being a second time mom. I feel the same way, it is so much better and easier and sweeter the second time. Our older son is 2.5 but in daycare full time (he is happier, I am happier, we are happier that way) and so I spend my days with my second son and it is very nice. He is also likely our last, so I am trying to savour the moments. He is 3 months this weekend!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Dreamer and Addy -- Interesting you both prefer the stone on the bottom. I actually prefer the one on top since it looks more like an OEC to me. That said, neither one really does much for me. The prices are steep and make my old ring seem like not such a bad deal. Bottom line is I think I just really want my old ring back

Gypsy -- You know, it's funny -- I've seen that ring many times. I believe it's been for sale for months and months. Sometimes I think it's beautiful and sometimes I think it looks too much like a cocktail ring. I think I would like it better if the stones surrounding the center stone were just a hair smaller. It's a pretty good price, though, considering the carat weight.

I thought in the second pic you posted of the top ring, the hand shot, that it looked really dark, that is why I passed on it.

I sort of think you should either go for your old ring or else buy the stone from Adam (some stone or other) and find a setting later. Seems simpler. Sort of. But I feel your pain/joy in the process.

 

[Rhea]

Dreamer and Addy -- Interesting you both prefer the stone on the bottom. I actually prefer the one on top since it looks more like an OEC to me. That said, neither one really does much for me. The prices are steep and make my old ring seem like not such a bad deal. Bottom line is I think I just really want my old ring back

Gypsy -- You know, it's funny -- I've seen that ring many times. I believe it's been for sale for months and months. Sometimes I think it's beautiful and sometimes I think it looks too much like a cocktail ring. I think I would like it better if the stones surrounding the center stone were just a hair smaller. It's a pretty good price, though, considering the carat weight.

I like OECs better as well, though I don't dislike trannys! The bottom stone is way outperforming the top stone. It's so much brighter and lighter and shiny. That's why I like it better.

 

[vintagelover229]

In other news, I got an email from Leigh Nacht with a picture of two rings whose center stones he really likes. One of them is the ring I posted earlier with the 1.01 center. The other one has a 1.11 ct center for $8450 -- GIA certed J, VS1.


I REALLY REALLY love the 2nd one in the picture with the side stones and the fishtale prongs. Wow wow WOW!

 

[kennedy]

Dreamer and Addy -- Interesting you both prefer the stone on the bottom. I actually prefer the one on top since it looks more like an OEC to me. That said, neither one really does much for me. The prices are steep and make my old ring seem like not such a bad deal. Bottom line is I think I just really want my old ring back

Gypsy -- You know, it's funny -- I've seen that ring many times. I believe it's been for sale for months and months. Sometimes I think it's beautiful and sometimes I think it looks too much like a cocktail ring. I think I would like it better if the stones surrounding the center stone were just a hair smaller. It's a pretty good price, though, considering the carat weight.

I thought in the second pic you posted of the top ring, the hand shot, that it looked really dark, that is why I passed on it.

I sort of think you should either go for your old ring or else buy the stone from Adam (some stone or other) and find a setting later. Seems simpler. Sort of. But I feel your pain/joy in the process.

Yes, this is my thinking as well. My husband is against getting a loose stone, though, because he says the torture of indecision will be prolonged as I save up for and search for the "perfect" setting. I see his point.

 

[kennedy]

Dreamer and Addy -- Interesting you both prefer the stone on the bottom. I actually prefer the one on top since it looks more like an OEC to me. That said, neither one really does much for me. The prices are steep and make my old ring seem like not such a bad deal. Bottom line is I think I just really want my old ring back

Gypsy -- You know, it's funny -- I've seen that ring many times. I believe it's been for sale for months and months. Sometimes I think it's beautiful and sometimes I think it looks too much like a cocktail ring. I think I would like it better if the stones surrounding the center stone were just a hair smaller. It's a pretty good price, though, considering the carat weight.

I like OECs better as well, though I don't dislike trannys! The bottom stone is way outperforming the top stone. It's so much brighter and lighter and shiny. That's why I like it better.

I agree with you and Dreamer -- the picture of that ring on the hand is not very impressive. The stone looks totally dead. Not what you want for $7350! Weird, though, because the facet pattern looked so pretty on the picture I first posted of that ring a page or two ago.

 

[kennedy]

Calling Dreamer!!! So, I'm in talks with the seller of my old ring and he said he might be able to take in on trade a few pieces I would like to sell, but to give me an exact amount he needs to see them first. I plan to send them via Canada Post as I'm not able to use the seller's Fed Ex account. Do you know if there will be any customs problems with me sending jewelry I already own into the US? Do I say I'm sending them in for repairs? These are pieces I owned before moving to Canada. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Well first, are they insured pieces? You cannot buy insurance for jewelery in Canada for more than $500

Second, when I have sent goods down to vendors, I have marked it as something like "US goods, return and repair" and have had to also include the vendor's tax id or some such thing. And then you put the value of the goods as their actual value. But I think you should call Canada customs to find out how to fill out the paper work and make sure it is done right.

It would be way easier to go to the US and ship them, but then you need a return address in the US. Hmmm...

The vendor will likely not give you much, and it is sort of a "foot in door" technique for him to want to see them like that -- after you have shipped them, even if you are not happy with the price (and I am betting it will be so low) you are really unlikely to want to go throug hall the hassel of having them sent back to you, plus you will feel invested in the purchase because you already sent the goods (sorry, psychologist here ). Have you considered selling them privately or going to visit local jewlers first to see if they will give you a decent price? At least it would be a comparison for what he offers.