Comparing three modern antique-ish diamonds.. thoughts?

[ladygert]

Hi friends! I'm back! I posted about wanting an OMC and kind of blacked out and ordered multiple diamonds that made my heart sing instead. Oops! Would anyone mind taking a look at these and letting me know your thoughts?

**WHY WONT PS LET ME POST LINKS WITHOUT MODERATOR APPROVAL?!**

They never get reviewed and approved ughhh

Since I can't post my IMGUR link, can you search my username on there to see? Same as here, ladygert

 

[Inked]

You didnt post stats like table/depth/angles on any of them, that would help us determine, but here's my thoughts.
Personally from the videos I felt they were moving too fast for me to see the faceting. On the 2.76 and the 2.99 I couldnt really see the facet patterns. I am not sure if it's the camera/lighting/speed of movement or the diamonds, but I couldnt really see what was going on at all, i didnt see clear faceting
The 2.76, I personally loved the shape, but not sure if the facets are good. I dont see any clear pattern.

On the 2.99, I dont know about the hybrid oval thing, looks like mushy facets.

This is a personal preference thing, i do not like the 2.42 type of "old cushion", i dislike the giant cross and line culet, thats just preference.

Maybe post stats and I am including the link so others can weigh in:
@Dreamer_D @lulu_ma @lovedogs @lavenderdragonfly23

https://imgur.com/a/6AfxRwV

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would rule out the first one, the 2.76. The cut is not great resulting in a flat look without enough contrast to actually appreciate the faceting like @Inked said.

The 2.99 also looks flat in some pictures and in others it looks better but not great. My issue is that this is not an authentic old style cut and I find that a little off-putting. So it doesn’t tick either of the boxes that I think are so important with these cuts: it’s doesn’t have really great optics and it doesn’t look authentic.

The 2.49 has the best cut. It also doesn’t look authentic, but at least the optics are better. This is a common style for modern antique cuts.

I personally prefer the really authentic looking old style cuts that I have seen Alex Park produce. Apparently Old World Diamonds now has a lab line. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are nice looking.

 

[ladygert]

You didnt post stats like table/depth/angles on any of them, that would help us determine, but here's my thoughts.
Personally from the videos I felt they were moving too fast for me to see the faceting. On the 2.76 and the 2.99 I couldnt really see the facet patterns. I am not sure if it's the camera/lighting/speed of movement or the diamonds, but I couldnt really see what was going on at all, i didnt see clear faceting
The 2.76, I personally loved the shape, but not sure if the facets are good. I dont see any clear pattern.

On the 2.99, I dont know about the hybrid oval thing, looks like mushy facets.

This is a personal preference thing, i do not like the 2.42 type of "old cushion", i dislike the giant cross and line culet, thats just preference.

Maybe post stats and I am including the link so others can weigh in:
@Dreamer_D @lulu_ma @lovedogs @lavenderdragonfly23

https://imgur.com/a/6AfxRwV

I would rule out the first one, the 2.76. The cut is not great resulting in a flat look without enough contrast to actually appreciate the faceting like @Inked said.

The 2.99 also looks flat in some pictures and in others it looks better but not great. My issue is that this is not an authentic old style cut and I find that a little off-putting. So it doesn’t tick either of the boxes that I think are so important with these cuts: it’s doesn’t have really great optics and it doesn’t look authentic.

The 2.49 has the best cut. It also doesn’t look authentic, but at least the optics are better. This is a common style for modern antique cuts.

I personally prefer the really authentic looking old style cuts that I have seen Alex Park produce. Apparently Old World Diamonds now has a lab line. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are nice looking.

Thank you both so much for looking and for your input! I agree that they are very atypical from the traditional OMCs. I think I am now approved to add links after reaching out to the moderators, so I added new videos with slower panning so you can see. along with IGI certs. I think the 2.76 faces up whiter and is a little more sparkly than the 2.99 (I have ruled out the 2.42 in favor of different faceting patterns even though it is the most crisp of them all). Would your opinions still stand? I also have been in touch with SinCityFinds about one of her cuts, and have messaged Alex Park about some OMCs I saw as well. Just waiting to hear from AP -- but I'm assuming that's probably the better route to go anyway. Just wanted to double check these diamonds since I already have them in-hand but definitely willing to just send them off and continue my search! Here is a link with new videos that are slower and hopefully more clear thank you thank you!!

I tried to post a link and it didn't work but it should be the first new video on my Imgur. Thanks for sticking with me through this. I'll e-mail Ella with the moderator group again.

 

[ladygert]

You didnt post stats like table/depth/angles on any of them, that would help us determine, but here's my thoughts.
Personally from the videos I felt they were moving too fast for me to see the faceting. On the 2.76 and the 2.99 I couldnt really see the facet patterns. I am not sure if it's the camera/lighting/speed of movement or the diamonds, but I couldnt really see what was going on at all, i didnt see clear faceting
The 2.76, I personally loved the shape, but not sure if the facets are good. I dont see any clear pattern.

On the 2.99, I dont know about the hybrid oval thing, looks like mushy facets.

This is a personal preference thing, i do not like the 2.42 type of "old cushion", i dislike the giant cross and line culet, thats just preference.

I would rule out the first one, the 2.76. The cut is not great resulting in a flat look without enough contrast to actually appreciate the faceting like @Inked said.

The 2.99 also looks flat in some pictures and in others it looks better but not great. My issue is that this is not an authentic old style cut and I find that a little off-putting. So it doesn’t tick either of the boxes that I think are so important with these cuts: it’s doesn’t have really great optics and it doesn’t look authentic.

The 2.49 has the best cut. It also doesn’t look authentic, but at least the optics are better. This is a common style for modern antique cuts.

I personally prefer the really authentic looking old style cuts that I have seen Alex Park produce. Apparently Old World Diamonds now has a lab line. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are nice looking.

Thank you both so much for looking and for your input! I agree that they are very atypical from the traditional OMCs. I think I am now approved to add links after reaching out to the moderators, so I added new videos with slower panning so you can see. along with IGI certs. I think the 2.76 faces up whiter and is a little more sparkly than the 2.99 (I have ruled out the 2.42 in favor of different faceting patterns even though it is the most crisp of them all). Would your opinions still stand? I also have been in touch with SinCityFinds about one of her cuts, and have messaged Alex Park about some OMCs I saw as well. Just waiting to hear from AP -- but I'm assuming that's probably the better route to go anyway. Just wanted to double check these diamonds since I already have them in-hand but definitely willing to just send them off and continue my search! Here is a link with new videos that are slower and hopefully more clear thank you thank you!!

I tried to post a link and it didn't work but it should be the first new video on my Imgur. Thanks for sticking with me through this. I'll e-mail Ella with the moderator group again.

 

[ladygert]

@Dreamer_D @Inked I will also add that the 2.99 has this extinction at the top when you're looking at it face on, it disappears as you move around the diamond but I can't help but continue to look at it. It probably has to do with the large girdle/depth being a little bit too much and causing subpar optics. Likely the same with 2.76 which has different extinctions in it, but I find them to be less distracting. The 2.76 definitely has smaller facets, that are less clear because there is some crushed ice going on between the outside and middle facets on the top and bottom. I really think I might just need to send them all back and start the process all over again, hoping I can get a deposit in with AP on one of his or going the SinCityFinds route with her beautiful cuts (though she said there's a wait.. but it's worth waiting for! I did love @peppermintpatty 's OMC from her, it was just a little bit too big for what I am looking for or I would have bought it when she sold it. So maybe that's the better route. The prices are similar if not better with AP and SCF so that also is favorable. I had ordered these a month ago and they just came in so I wanted to thoroughly vet them before making my final decision and just moving on and putting myself back out there in the diamond finding world!

 

[Dreamer_D]

The 2.76 also has a fish eye aka “ring of death” which could be girdle reflection.

I would not buy any of these. Why settle?

 

[ladygert]

The 2.76 also has a fish eye aka “ring of death” which could be girdle reflection.

I would not buy any of these. Why settle?

Oh it does?! I don't even notice that. And you're right. This is the kind of honest talk I need. I've already begun the return process. Thank you so much. Hopefully my next post will be with a better diamond!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Oh it does?! I don't even notice that. And you're right. This is the kind of honest talk I need. I've already begun the return process. Thank you so much. Hopefully my next post will be with a better diamond!!

Yes see this circle of grey mushy looking facets just inside the table?



Also notice how you can see through the 2.42 and see the ring holder and your finger right through it? Not good. That’s extreme leakage.

It’s hard to catch in nascent shot of the video but you can see the skin and holder in this shot st 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock. Watch the video and you can see the flashes of windowing more easily.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Try posting pictures/videos before you buy next time as some of these issues would be apparent even in vendor photos/videos.

 

[ladygert]

Yes see this circle of grey mushy looking facets just inside the table?



Also notice how you can see through the 2.42 and see the ring holder and your finger right through it? Not good. That’s extreme leakage.

It’s hard to catch in nascent shot of the video but you can see the skin and holder in this shot st 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock. Watch the video and you can see the flashes of windowing more easily.

I see! My eye was always drawn right to that part, like something just wasn't quite right but I didn't know if it was because it was more crushed ice effect of it.. apparently it's the mushiness then! So thank you for pointing all of this out. I tried posting these before buying them but because of my posts sitting in limbo with moderator approval they never went through hopefully that gets resolved quickly so it's easier for everyone to just click my links instead of having to hunt down my info elsewhere. Truly, thank you for your feedback! I'm hoping I can score one with AP here soon. I know he's very picky and has a good eye for these as well. But if I see anything else in the meantime I'll be sure to post here for the trained eyes to see. I so appreciate you all! Enjoy your weekend!

 

[ladygert]

I would rule out the first one, the 2.76. The cut is not great resulting in a flat look without enough contrast to actually appreciate the faceting like @Inked said.

The 2.99 also looks flat in some pictures and in others it looks better but not great. My issue is that this is not an authentic old style cut and I find that a little off-putting. So it doesn’t tick either of the boxes that I think are so important with these cuts: it’s doesn’t have really great optics and it doesn’t look authentic.

The 2.49 has the best cut. It also doesn’t look authentic, but at least the optics are better. This is a common style for modern antique cuts.

I personally prefer the really authentic looking old style cuts that I have seen Alex Park produce. Apparently Old World Diamonds now has a lab line. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are nice looking.

What are your thoughts on this one that I circled? No videos as of yet.. the Maltese cross was stronger in this whereas the others look to have a more floral pattern. It's off for grading right now so no other specs or info at this time but considering putting a deposit down on it.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Very good potential! It looks much more authentic. Will you be able to return it even if you put a deposit down?

 

[ladygert]

Very good potential! It looks much more authentic. Will you be able to return it even if you put a deposit down?

I could yes! They have a good return policy. Eek! Okay I'm glad I'm on the right track. In case this stone sells, I am looking at the top left one as well but I think with my deposit I'll be good to go as long as it isn't sold from underneath me.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I could yes! They have a good return policy. Eek! Okay I'm glad I'm on the right track. In case this stone sells, I am looking at the top left one as well but I think with my deposit I'll be good to go as long as it isn't sold from underneath me.

All three look promising to me. Much better than the others you had, both in cut quality and authenticity. You are in the right track!

 

[ladygert]

All three look promising to me. Much better than the others you had, both in cut quality and authenticity. You are in the right track!

OMC came back from grading, this is through Alex Park. What are your thoughts? The table is bigger than I anticipated, but I do like the shape and dimensions otherwise. Question, is the faceting in the middle that goes dark from top to bottom normal/acceptable or offputting?

I'm trying to post the IMGUR video but it keeps flagging me on PS. My Imgur username is ladygert

 

[Dreamer_D]

I can't see the video on your Imgur?

 

[ladygert]

I can't see the video on your Imgur?

Oh no really? I just double triple checked and it should be there! It's public. Someone I don't know already commented on it that "diamonds are cheap and useless" so it has to be visible

 

[Dreamer_D]

Oh no really? I just double triple checked and it should be there! It's public. Someone I don't know already commented on it that "diamonds are cheap and useless" so it has to be visible

I can only see the 5 videos you posted previously comparing the first 3 you got. I am not signed in as I don't have an account.

 

[ladygert]

I can only see the 5 videos you posted previously comparing the first 3 you got. I am not signed in as I don't have an account.

Oh that's annoying! I'm sorry. I have tried multiple times to post the link and it gets flagged for moderator approval every time. I have e-mailed the moderator team multiple times as well and they aren't sure why my account won't post videos.. womp womp!

After you type Imgur . com paste this: /P1pg35i

 

[Dreamer_D]

OK that worked.

Here it is for others:

https://imgur.com/P1pg35i

That is a very nice antique style cushion. The four large pavilion mains often make a strong pattern in this style of cushion and often flash on and off together. That feature is called a "maltese cross" and its desirable to many, though some find it annoying. In this diamond the NS pavilion mains are turning off and on (flashing light and dark)_ at the same time. In person it may not be as noticeable or all four mains might light up and go dark together. Either way I think its OK.

I think this is worth seeing in person if you haven't already!