How to buy a vintage OEC?

[Dreamer_D]

I’ve been following along and stumbled on this one today … I think it has the pattern you’ve described?

2.08ct OLD EUROPEAN CUT DIAMOND GIA CERTIFIED I VS2 VINTAGE LOOSE NATURAL 2ct

Highlights:- 2.08ct size- Original vintage diamond- Beautiful old European cut. Gorgeous fire!- GIA certified- Nice white face up with I color- Excellent VS2 clarityAdditional Notes:The diamond is being sold loose, but it can be mounted upon request

ivyandrose.com

Dreamer_D, Luluma, some of these ladies are diamond whisperers and I’d trust their judgement based on videos. Not myself, but throwing this out there just in case

This is an excellent example of a transitional cut where the proportions support the larger table! Long pavilion mains, large table, visible arrows. I like this cut a lot but it’s not classically OEC. More angular. I love this make as I own one but it’s different than an OEC. Less romantic perhaps? Curious what OP says!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don’t disagree with you at all. You are correct it is on how one/the specific vendor wants to define a the word petals.

My point in saying it here in this thread to the OP, reflects on what I was shown by a specific vendor, what I was told by that specific vendor. Sounding familiar to what the OP has stated they are experiencing.
The stone the vendor was sending me, they claimed had the exact same center facet pattern I was looking for and matched my inspo pic I sent as example.

I cannot access that specific vendors photos of the exact stone anymore.
So I will use a different vendors listing photo & my in hand photo of the same stone to similarly illustrate what I mean.
To be clear - the vendor of the stone that I am picturing here did not make those same claims. And that I do not own this stone.

Plenty of educated people here would have not been ‘fooled’ in thinking this was a good contender to see a clear floral center pattern, once on the hand. So this was what was in my mind when I stated facet pattern vs optics. I probably chose poor wording.

Interesting! I’m not sure exactly what I would have said about the vendor pic if I saw it “cold” without the hand shot, but seeing it now I think the leakage is evident in the vendor picture — the center is quite see through! How disappointing! Affirms my advice not to chase the petals

 

[lulu_ma]

the center looking dark gives me pause. Notice how the two stones next to it have central facets that are lit up? Makes me think it’s cut and not just lighting or a head/camera too close.

This stone is a good example of a trade off I have noticed in old cuts. The table is 50% which could potentially allow for more of the pavilion mains to show and potentially allow for the petals you like. BUT in my experience most old cuts are not proportioned to support a 50% table. Leakage or other undesirable light play often occurs with table larger than 50% in my experience with otherwise classically proportioned old cuts. Sometimes they show leakage (a hazy circle just inside the table) or this type of issue with the light play in the pavilion mains. One of the OECs in my five stone suite has this problem. She’s on the upper left in this picture showing leakage that is visible at tilt, which is 53%. The other stones have a 42% tables and perfect proportions for OEC. But the petals are only visible on the tilt bc otherwise the lower girdle facets aren’t visible under the table. This stone is small and the leakage isn’t super visible in person so I don’t mind.



I don’t see leakage in the stone you just posted but I’m just highlighting that other problems can sometimes occur with larger tables (larger than 45%) in OEC, like over darkness or lazy light play.

This problem is why I personally like very small tables in OECs, 42% for example, even though it means that the full petal shape is not present. Hence my earlier cautioning about focusing on the petals too much.

As I said, you can find examples of OECs that are proportioned to support the larger tables so the lower girdles bisect the pavilion mains under the table. But it’s hard to find! And more common in transitional that have lower crowns, longer lower girdle facets, and pavilion angles to better support the larger table.

I love small tables, but don’t know if a 50%+ equates leakage. I believe it all has to do with how the table size works with the depth.

For instance, this OEC I recently acquired is a performer. Perfect petal. 53% table combined with 62% depth.

I guess what I’m saying OP is that you shouldn’t automatically discount larger tables.

Dreamer has given you some general rules of thumb, but since these stones were primarily hand cut, it’s sometimes more art than science…

ETA: GIA graded this one an OEC so I don’t have any of the angle degrees

 

[Dreamer_D]

I love small tables, but don’t know if a 50%+ equates leakage. I believe it all has to do with how the table size works with the depth.

For instance, this OEC I recently acquired is a performer. Perfect petal. 53% table combined with 62% depth.

I guess what I’m saying OP is that you shouldn’t automatically discount larger tables.

Dreamer has given you some general rules of thumb, but since these stones were primarily hand cut, it’s sometimes more art than science…

ETA: GIA graded this one an OEC so I don’t have any of the angle degrees

That's a gorgeous diamond and I see why you love it. The diamond I mentioned above that has nearly identical proportions per GIA. This is her in a glamourous face-on shot -- she's on the left... perfect petals.



It's only on tilt when you can see the slight leakage around the periphery of the table. Also on the left in this image. You can't see this in the types of images vendors usually post, which tend towards the glamourous face on shots above. But knowing its a 53% tables would make me ask for a video or picture showing the diamond tilted so I could assess leakage.



The stone on the right in both images never shows leakage at any angle. 42% table. But doesn't have the same pretty petals. Trade offs!

And of course everything I'm saying is just rules of thumb. In my experience it is easier to find a nicer cut classically proportioned OEC with a small table than a larger one. In my experience larger tables are prone to leakage around the periphery of the table when the lower halves are too short, especially at tilt angles, but that doesn't mean its impossible to find one. Shallow stones tend to be lazy in the center and less bright under the table, but that doesn't mean its impossible to find a nice shallow stone (my transitional is 54%). Deep diamonds are prone to being over-dark in the center, but you can find nice deep stones too. I would not suggest, for example, restricting my search to particular set of proportions. But when I see a larger table I know to be on the lookout for the ring of leakage and when I see a shallow diamond I know to be on the lookout for lazy/dull central facets etc. All diamonds need to be evaluated on their own unique merits, and knowing the pitfalls of various proportions helps with that evaluation.

 

[Dreamer_D]

And for those playing along at home who may be looking at these pictures and wondering what the heck I am criticizing, I wanted to point out how you can sometimes detect leakage in glamour shots, even if you don't have the more diagnostic pictures.

This is my diamond (top row) and the diamond @Rfisher posted earlier (bottom row). Both have lovely petals. Both have 50%+ tables But on tilt or on the finger (good conditions to diagnose leakage) they show problems. But if you look carefully you can see hints that leakage may be a problem in the glamour shots. On my diamond, you can see areas of fuzziness where the outer edge of the petals meet the encircling star facets on the table (top right, circled in red). You can see a ring of fuzzy/see-through faceting around the periphery of the table (bottom right, circled in red). Those areas of fuzziness should lead us to ask for more diagnostic pictures when we are evaluating these diamonds.



BTW I knew this could be an issue when I bought my diamond but I decided because it is small (5mm) that the leakage would probably not be an issue in person as it would just look like an area that was slightly less bright. But it only shows up on extreme tilt. And the petals are really pretty And I was trying to make a matching suite (good luck!). So I kept it and she's being set into a five stone as we speak. The diamond rfisher rejected on the bottom row has more serious leakage that is visible face on, and its a larger diamond, so it wasn't a compromise she wanted to make. Understandable.

Trade offs!

 

[lulu_ma]

I love small tables, but don’t know if a 50%+ equates leakage. I believe it all has to do with how the table size works with the depth.

For instance, this OEC I recently acquired is a performer. Perfect petal. 53% table combined with 62% depth.

I guess what I’m saying OP is that you shouldn’t automatically discount larger tables.

Dreamer has given you some general rules of thumb, but since these stones were primarily hand cut, it’s sometimes more art than science…

ETA: GIA graded this one an OEC so I don’t have any of the angle degrees

This diamond is the middle one in the clip. Second slide has the video. MM is second from the top-she's got a small table 48% but is deep at 67%. The 2.6 ct center in the three stone has a 45% table and is 62.7%. Love them all, but slightly different flavors!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[lulu_ma]

Still love this chart that @oldminer created (eep) 26 years ago:

 

[Rfisher]

and the diamond @Rfisher posted earlier (bottom row). Both have lovely petals. Both have 50%+ tables

splitting hairs here
But anyways, I was still able to pull that stone’s GIA report. 48% table.
Your point stands tho.

@lulu_ma
I’ve used that chart probably millions of times. It’d be kinda neat for a thread to have that chart filed out next to a diamond we own. I might start that thread, maybe others would join in, might be fun.

Sorry for threadjack OP!!

 

[lulu_ma]

#diamondnerds

 

[bee24]

@lulu_ma
I might start that thread, maybe others would join in, might be fun.

I’d love to see that!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I’ve always been puzzled by that table because we rarely know crown and pavilion angles and my favourite makes are no where near the so-called ideal!

 

[lulu_ma]

I’ve always been puzzled by that table because we rarely know crown and pavilion angles and my favourite makes are no where near the so-called ideal!

Do you prefer the pinwheels to petals? I also adore pinwheels-haha-I love them all

 

[EllieTO]

Wow, I can't keep up with you all!

I’ve been following along and stumbled on this one today … I think it has the pattern you’ve described?

2.08ct OLD EUROPEAN CUT DIAMOND GIA CERTIFIED I VS2 VINTAGE LOOSE NATURAL 2ct

Highlights:- 2.08ct size- Original vintage diamond- Beautiful old European cut. Gorgeous fire!- GIA certified- Nice white face up with I color- Excellent VS2 clarityAdditional Notes:The diamond is being sold loose, but it can be mounted upon request

ivyandrose.com

Dreamer_D, Luluma, some of these ladies are diamond whisperers and I’d trust their judgement based on videos. Not myself, but throwing this out there just in case

It looks nice, but way more than I'm looking to spend.

This is an excellent example of a transitional cut where the proportions support the larger table! Long pavilion mains, large table, visible arrows. I like this cut a lot but it’s not classically OEC. More angular. I love this make as I own one but it’s different than an OEC. Less romantic perhaps? Curious what OP says!

This one is not my favorite, it's more of a checkerboard. But honestly I don't know that the difference would be noticeable in real life. I think I could be happy with a transitional.

And of course everything I'm saying is just rules of thumb. In my experience it is easier to find a nicer cut classically proportioned OEC with a small table than a larger one. In my experience larger tables are prone to leakage around the periphery of the table when the lower halves are too short, especially at tilt angles, but that doesn't mean its impossible to find one. Shallow stones tend to be lazy in the center and less bright under the table, but that doesn't mean its impossible to find a nice shallow stone (my transitional is 54%). Deep diamonds are prone to being over-dark in the center, but you can find nice deep stones too. I would not suggest, for example, restricting my search to particular set of proportions. But when I see a larger table I know to be on the lookout for the ring of leakage and when I see a shallow diamond I know to be on the lookout for lazy/dull central facets etc. All diamonds need to be evaluated on their own unique merits, and knowing the pitfalls of various proportions helps with that evaluation.

This is so helpful! Knowing specifically what to look for with tables and depths at the extreme ends. Added to my notebook.

And for those playing along at home who may be looking at these pictures and wondering what the heck I am criticizing, I wanted to point out how you can sometimes detect leakage in glamour shots, even if you don't have the more diagnostic pictures.

This is my diamond (top row) and the diamond @Rfisher posted earlier (bottom row). Both have lovely petals. Both have 50%+ tables But on tilt or on the finger (good conditions to diagnose leakage) they show problems. But if you look carefully you can see hints that leakage may be a problem in the glamour shots. On my diamond, you can see areas of fuzziness where the outer edge of the petals meet the encircling star facets on the table (top right, circled in red). You can see a ring of fuzzy/see-through faceting around the periphery of the table (bottom right, circled in red). Those areas of fuzziness should lead us to ask for more diagnostic pictures when we are evaluating these diamonds.

These kinds of pictures are sooooo useful!

 

[EllieTO]

Did you see this one?

This is still available. What does everyone think of it? Can it be evaluated based on this glamour shot? I realized he's in LA, I'm waiting to hear back from him.

 

[maryjane04]

This is still available. What does everyone think of it? Can it be evaluated based on this glamour shot? I realized he's in LA, I'm waiting to hear back from him.

I really like it and you can see the petals! It's got kozibe to boot!

The thing I like about this stone is it fits exactly within the parameters you originally set re: size, price, faceting etc. The only disclaimer is sometimes he wants you to make the setting as well so just double check that.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[lulu_ma]

This is still available. What does everyone think of it? Can it be evaluated based on this glamour shot? I realized he's in LA, I'm waiting to hear back from him.

This is a nice price for the specs! Looks like it has a lot of potential.

 

[lavenderdragonfly23]

This was JUST listed… it’s a KSI1. I’m trying to find the GIA, but I don’t see it even listed on their site yet. I just woke up though, so I might be overlooking it, lol. 2.76 is TCW by the way… but it still might be bigger than what you were looking for… it depends on how deep the stone is too.

I am really liking that Sako one too! Tiny table

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Rfisher]

What does everyone think of it? Can it be evaluated based on this glamour shot?

I agree a lot of potential and nice price.

Without knowing your tolerance for inclusion right under the table - I think that’s another you need to see it in person to know if it bugs you or not and how much it’s visible. It may only be visible in certain lighting at a certain angle.
I have a feather creeping to under the table edge and it doesn’t bother me much, but I know others vary. (I chose 2 inclusions vs multiple smaller scattered inclusions making up the clarity grade as the situation in my case it didn’t then muddy up performance)

It’s impeccably round!

The facet pattern/performance it’s another you’ll have to see it on the back of the hand out of direct sunlight to assess. It may have a few petals in tandem - that may bother you/some. Mine does ant times and at this size doesn’t bother me immensely. Again, others vary.

I think he’ll give you that additional picture, if you ask. He’s nice and kind.

He’s not saying up front (in either listing) that the price is dependent on him also doing the setting. - so I think he may ask /offer, but it’s not looking like it’s codependent. Some vendors do do this on occasion.
If you like his style he’s curating on his IG feed - and see something there you want to replicate - it’s a great option.

He’s not set up like a retail establishment (like Collin’s) so it’ll be a different experience. I wouldn’t hesitate at all to buy from him/have him make something, myself again, if I were in the market for it.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This is a nice price for the specs! Looks like it has a lot of potential.

Agree. None of the photos or videos show the “diagnostic” pictures. I’d like to see it in the fingers looking into the table. And tilt in the fingers. I’m not seeing wild red flags though there is some tilt windowing happening — this is inevitable to some degree but you’d need to see it in person to know for sure. Worth looking into! Though with so many good in person options from the start of the thread I’m not sure you need to do the mail order thing…

 

[Dreamer_D]

This was JUST listed… it’s a KSI1. I’m trying to find the GIA, but I don’t see it even listed on their site yet. I just woke up though, so I might be overlooking it, lol. 2.76 is TCW by the way… but it still might be bigger than what you were looking for… it depends on how deep the stone is too.

I am really liking that Sako one too! Tiny table

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

This is my favourite flavour.

 

[lavenderdragonfly23]

This is my favourite flavour.

Mine too! Now that the brightness from my phone isn’t shocking to my half awake eyes, lol… I’ve watched this video a few more times… that center stone is so pretty. I’m dying to see the gia- I’m so curious what her stats are.

 

[lavenderdragonfly23]

I asked for the cert on this one … no wonder I liked her, her numbers are sooo good.

I love her recipe:
*tiny table
*puffy crown
*perfect depth
*perfect color
*a dash of faint brown and faint fluor to pull out any of the warmth she has


She does has an inclusion on the table though… not sure if you would bother you or not.

This one is so pretty… if it were me, I would probably grab the Sako one! This 2.7 is gorgeous… I would worry that inclusion might bug me overtime. Sake’s stone has everything you are looking for!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Dreamer_D]

I asked for the cert on this one … no wonder I liked her, her numbers are sooo good.

I love her recipe:
*tiny table
*puffy crown
*perfect depth
*perfect color
*a dash of faint brown and faint fluor to pull out any of the warmth she has


She does has an inclusion on the table though… not sure if you would bother you or not.

This one is so pretty… if it were me, I would probably grab the Sako one! This 2.7 is gorgeous… I would worry that inclusion might bug me overtime. Sake’s stone has everything you are looking for!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Faint Brown is a love-hate kind of thing. I have a diamond that’s a faint brown. I do love it for what it is, but it’s definitely a different beast then more typical yellow undertone diamonds. It goes quite dark in spotlighting and just generally looks a little bit darker than the other stone, especially in bright light. I think for me I wouldn’t probably choose a faint brown for a large special diamond like this.

 

[maryjane04]

I asked for the cert on this one … no wonder I liked her, her numbers are sooo good.

I love her recipe:
*tiny table
*puffy crown
*perfect depth
*perfect color
*a dash of faint brown and faint fluor to pull out any of the warmth she has


She does has an inclusion on the table though… not sure if you would bother you or not.

This one is so pretty… if it were me, I would probably grab the Sako one! This 2.7 is gorgeous… I would worry that inclusion might bug me overtime. Sake’s stone has everything you are looking for!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Lol did you get the most important thing which is the price? Hahaha

 

[maryjane04]

Faint Brown is a love-hate kind of thing. I have a diamond that’s a faint brown. I do love it for what it is, but it’s definitely a different beast then more typical yellow undertone diamonds. It goes quite dark in spotlighting and just generally looks a little bit darker than the other stone, especially in bright light. I think for me I wouldn’t probably choose a faint brown for a large special diamond like this.

I agree with Dreamer. If there's no other diamonds surrounding it then maybe it's fine (unless it's a halo of colorless for contrast). My pet peeve is a brown undertone with diamonds that aren't i.e. white/yellow undertones. It really stands out when its set against other stones.

 

[lavenderdragonfly23]

Lol did you get the most important thing which is the price? Hahaha

You know me… I’m not shy when it comes to diamonds, of course I asked …. I asked for his best loose stone price, I’ll circle back when I hear back lol

 

[EllieTO]

I saw the Exquisite 2.7 ct too, but it's way larger than I'm looking for. Maybe someone can post it in the someone should buy this thread!

Agree. None of the photos or videos show the “diagnostic” pictures. I’d like to see it in the fingers looking into the table. And tilt in the fingers. I’m not seeing wild red flags though there is some tilt windowing happening — this is inevitable to some degree but you’d need to see it in person to know for sure. Worth looking into! Though with so many good in person options from the start of the thread I’m not sure you need to do the mail order thing…

The Sako stone won't be an online purchase, I'm going to see it in person! Did you see the full instagram post with videos from several angles? But they're all the glamour shot style. I was also wondering about the tilt, I wasn't sure if that's the same as the light leakage you were demonstrating in the photos from yesterday or the day before.


Here's the cert. I'll have to see how I feel about the inclusion on the table in person, but should I be worried about the additional clouds and internal graining?



He will also see if he can pull any other stones for me.

 

[EllieTO]

#17: 2.11 L SI1

https://imgur.com/a/y5HWdOx

GIA: https://www.gia.edu/report-check?locale=en_US&reportno=5222682792
It's the one on the left. I don't know what the other stones are, probably a video taken for another client.
I'm not totally sure about going this large, but it looked pretty in the picture. I think it looks nice in the video too, but should I be concerned about most of the center facets being dark?

I asked for another stone from this vendor, and they put it next to #17 for comparison.
Same link, scroll down for the second video.

https://imgur.com/a/y5HWdOx

I don't think I like #18 (on the right in the second video), it looks quite different from the still photo, so that was helpful for me to see.
Any further thoughts on #17? I don't think I would go for this one since it's not local and I'd have to pay for return shipping/insurance, but I'd like to use it for learning. There are definitely adjacent petals going dark at the same time, but how bad is it?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I saw the Exquisite 2.7 ct too, but it's way larger than I'm looking for. Maybe someone can post it in the someone should buy this thread!



The Sako stone won't be an online purchase, I'm going to see it in person! Did you see the full instagram post with videos from several angles? But they're all the glamour shot style. I was also wondering about the tilt, I wasn't sure if that's the same as the light leakage you were demonstrating in the photos from yesterday or the day before.


Here's the cert. I'll have to see how I feel about the inclusion on the table in person, but should I be worried about the additional clouds and internal graining?



He will also see if he can pull any other stones for me.

Definitely worth seeing in person! I’m not too concerned about SI1 diamonds. Look at it in lots of lighting and especially bright light where graining could theoretically cause haziness (but very low probability). And you are learning well grasshopper lol that area of fogginess in the tilted images is something to examine carefully in person. I’ve found sometimes you can “see into” diamonds when they have larger tables like this one, but it isn’t always a bad thing. It depends on how hazy that area looks, how much you have to tilt to see it, and whether when you “look into” it the facets still look crisp. What you don’t want is for that area to look overly dark or to distract from the faceting as you look at it. Place it between your fingers and check you can’t see though it. Wearing a ring it’s actually really common to see it on tilt so for me it’s important it look good from that angle.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I asked for another stone from this vendor, and they put it next to #17 for comparison.
Same link, scroll down for the second video.

https://imgur.com/a/y5HWdOx

I don't think I like #18 (on the right in the second video), it looks quite different from the still photo, so that was helpful for me to see.
Any further thoughts on #17? I don't think I would go for this one since it's not local and I'd have to pay for return shipping/insurance, but I'd like to use it for learning. There are definitely adjacent petals going dark at the same time, but how bad is it?

I would exclude 18 as the center doesn’t look crisp at all and seems to suffer from leakage.

17 looks better in this video. It may be because they are tilting the stone away from the camera more so the obstruction isn’t showing as much. Or maybe the person wasn’t wearing a black sweater that day! All old cuts will have obstruction to some extent. So it’s really more about how bad it is. The central facets are going “off” 2-3 at a time rather than really independently. Here’s some screen grabs when it was facing right at the camera:





EDIT: The good news is I don’t see any signs of leakage in these videos of this stone.

This stone and these videos are a good point of comparison when you go see stones in person. Look at a few and see how tilt leakage looks, see how obstruction looks in a few stones. See what your tolerances are.