Renewed search for an OEC deal

[ForteKitty]

If I look real hard, I see a tiny bit of girdle reflection when the table is facing about 45 degrees to the right and left of center (at me). it doesn't look that noticeable tho, and I was purposely looking for it. It looks like a really pretty stone!!

 

[ariel144]

I'm sure Adam can answer the "fish-eye" question.

 

[ForteKitty]

I don't see any fisheye in that video. Did you put it on hold yet? It looks like a nice diamond and I don't want someone else to snipe it.

 

[ruby59]

Fortekitty, not sure if you are speaking to Kim or me. Kim did say she was not interested. As far as me, that pavilion % is so far off Dave Atlas's chart that it is bothering me. I am still learning so I have to go by the numbers to some degree.

 

[ForteKitty]

Ruby, I was responding to you. Exactly what chart are you looking at? I would never reject an old cut based on numbers if it looked good to my eyes. That's just me though. Ultimately, it has to be mind clean for you.

Eta: is this what you're using? http://datlas.com/AGA_NAJA_Cut_Class_grader/index.php Because I believe that is for modern round brilliant cut diamonds, not old cut...

 

[ruby59]

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/screening_chart_old_european_cut_diamonds

This one.

 

[ForteKitty]

I feel like numbers are a general guideline for old cuts, but I wouldn't personally put numbers before what my eyes see. The video shows a pretty nice looking diamond, but if the numbers are enough to make you doubt it, then pass. That's too much money to be spending on a non-mind-clean diamond.

 

[Kim N]

Ruby, if you do get it, please share more pics! It does look like a really nice diamond. And please feel free to threadjack away!

ForteKitty, I'm learning a lot from this discussion! Aside from the tiny bit of girdle reflection, does this diamond display any other possible red flags? And when I see it head-on in the video, it looks like there's slight table obstruction. Am I seeing that right?

I'm glad this thread has been helpful to others as well. I've learned so much from PS that I'm glad one of my threads is able to help other people too.

 

[ariel144]

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/screening_chart_old_european_cut_diamonds

This one.

Ok, so here are two megascopes ...one is worse (more shallow pavilion) but similar #’s to your pavilion and crown %’s
and the other one comes in the “excellent/VG” range on the chart based on crown and pavilion %’s, BUT BOTH megascopes are
showing VG/EX/VG....soooooo, so much for the numbers. Just an observation.

similar #’s to your 3.15 K
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9428/

Excellent on the chart based on numbers:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9821/

Neither of these two have VG/G polish and symmetry like the 3.15

Hope this helps. I think Adam might laugh at the chart...but just guessing. It is simply a guideline not an exact science.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I feel like numbers are a general guideline for old cuts, but I wouldn't personally put numbers before what my eyes see. The video shows a pretty nice looking diamond, but if the numbers are enough to make you doubt it, then pass. That's too much money to be spending on a non-mind-clean diamond.

Ditto.

In my opinion that is an amazing classic OEC. You cannot use hard and fast rules with old cuts, the combinations of proportions are all over the map and many different combos result in amazing results.

I actually really like the proportions of that stone, it reminds me of Demelzas. ETA: The OWD stone has shorter lower halves than Dem's though, giving that snowflake look under the table rather than an "arrows" look. It also means that the OWD stone, being a more classic OEC in my opinion, will be slightly more prone to obstruction that later cuts with longer lower halves or than earlier cuts with similar short lower halves and smaller tables. But you cannot order up 3ct old cuts to your one's preferred specifications. You must be somewhat flexible and adore the old cuts for their individuality and the fact that they were cut ages ago by hand. They are not perfect. Except min

 

[ariel144]

I was looking at the prices of some of OWD's other stones and this 3.15 K VS1 is an excellent price. Interesting that he listed it as an Old Mine Cut.

Here is another 3.03 K VS1 OEC and it is quite a bit more:

http://oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=1996&SHAPE=EU

You should at least put the 3.15 on hold. It seems really nice and faces up very large.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Ruby, if you do get it, please share more pics! It does look like a really nice diamond. And please feel free to threadjack away!

ForteKitty, I'm learning a lot from this discussion! Aside from the tiny bit of girdle reflection, does this diamond display any other possible red flags? And when I see it head-on in the video, it looks like there's slight table obstruction. Am I seeing that right?

I'm glad this thread has been helpful to others as well. I've learned so much from PS that I'm glad one of my threads is able to help other people too.

Regardng girdle reflectin, in my opinion it is almost unavoidable and would not be noticable in person. Really, put the OCD ideas about cut away. This is not a stone to use terms like "red flag" about. There are many other much worse cuts posted in this thread and out there in the market to use that term about!

All old cuts, all diamonds, show obstruction. That stones seems to show average amounts to me.

 

[ForteKitty]

I want to point out that I was absolutely nitpicking at that diamond and that tiny bit of reflection is the only small thing I can find, and I had to look hard to see it. To me, that's a really nice looking diamond. BUT, I feel it's important that Ruby (or any other buyer) is aware it exists, and decides whether she is okay with it after she sees it in person.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I want to point out that I was absolutely nitpicking at that diamond and that tiny bit of reflection is the only small thing I can find, and I had to look hard to see it. To me, that's a really nice looking diamond. BUT, I feel it's important that Ruby (or any other buyer) is aware it exists, and decides whether she is okay with it after she sees it in person.

I agree!

 

[hippi_pixi]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

 

[ariel144]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

Ok, so do you really believe that Adam would buy a 3.15c stone with nailhead for his inventory??? Just some common sense here.

 

[ruby59]

Ariel, the attached link shows a 1.40 carat diamond.

LOL, how does that happen?

Here's the "new" link:
http://oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=3290&SHAPE=OM

9.3 mm nice stone

Interesting that it is so round and listed as an Old Mine cut.

The diamond is now listed in the Old European Diamond section with the appropriate designation at the bottom of the page. However, the depth was typed in wrong. Not 61. It is 60.8 9.33 X 9.28 X 5.66.

I never really understood the term "mind" clean until now. Yes, it is a pretty nice stone. But some of you are questioning it. For that price and the fact that this will be my "holy grail," I want AMAZING.

 

[hippi_pixi]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

Ok, so do you really believe that Adam would buy a 3.15c stone with nailhead for his inventory??? Just some common sense here.

lol ouch! maybe not horrendous nailhead but adam sent me youtube videos of a few diamonds to consider including the 3.15K and i noticed the 3.15 is a lot darker under the table when viewed straight on than the others were. it goes dark for a second as it faces you straight on and then lightens up again. i thought it might be a reflection of the dark camera but i was also considering the 3.13J and that diamond i thought looked much better face up.

 

[ruby59]

Thanks, Hippi. Now I feel more comfortable with my decision to keep looking.

I was looking back at old threads and did see several posts stating that an overly shallow pavilion can cause head obstruction, causing the diamond to go dark in the center. Also, from what I think I understand, shallow OECs tend to be bright but have less colored light than deeper cut stones.

My diamond engagement ring also seems to be cut more for fire than brilliance which is what I prefer.

 

[hippi_pixi]

i think theres a few of us out there now looking for a very similar thing. must be driving vendors mad with our nitpicking. i wouldn't rule out the 3.15 K on my behalf especially if its possible to see the diamond in person.

 

[ruby59]

Hippi, when you look at the OWD website, on page 2, there are the 4 diamonds listed in the same row.. There is the 3.15K, the 3.13J, and at the end the 3.09K. The 3.09K is like $16,000 more for the same clarity, similar color, and a little smaller in size. But look how much brighter it is. The 3.15K does look dark compared with the other two. However, the 3.13J concerns me that it might be a little deep and look small for its size.

IThe 3.15K is a good price, but imo you get what you pay for.

Yup, there must be several of us on here driving Adam nuts.

 

[hippi_pixi]

yea i hadn't noticed that one because its above my price range but why would the 3.09 be 16k more expensive?? i understand that very well cut stones can be more expensive but 16k more when it has such similar stats?

i can't help but rewatching this video of a cushion i saw on their youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvCnB0Sspww she looks lovely. possibly different lighting conditions from the other videos as the setup looks different. can't see it on the website and the video is from June. so might be sold already

This 3.02J OEC was also suggested to me by adam, looks good face up but seems quite shallow cut on the video
http://www.oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=3086&SHAPE=EU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZZZxMzefQ0&feature=em-share_video_user

 

[ariel144]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

Ok, so do you really believe that Adam would buy a 3.15c stone with nailhead for his inventory??? Just some common sense here.

lol ouch! maybe not horrendous nailhead but adam sent me youtube videos of a few diamonds to consider including the 3.15K and i noticed the 3.15 is a lot darker under the table when viewed straight on than the others were. it goes dark for a second as it faces you straight on and then lightens up again. i thought it might be a reflection of the dark camera but i was also considering the 3.13J and that diamond i thought looked much better face up.

I agree the 3.13 J is really nice but a lot higher price too. Some must stick with a lesser budget but still want a large stone that faces up relatively white....topic is "OEC DEAL"... If the pavilion facets reflect light as they move (on/off) the appearance of it being dark when turning in the video may not be an issue but I would not call it nail head. But it brings up a good question for Adam.

Did you see that 2.77c GIA J SI1 with MED BLUE FL. on ebay? it is really nice too and around 22k/ or best offer... I think. It is not posted under OEC's in the description...but the link is posted back in this thread.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIA-Round-Brilliant-Diamond-J-SI1-Platinum-Ring-/360327385876?pt=US_Fine_Rings&hash=item53e52f9314

The setting is very nice too. This is my favorite of all the larger stones listed in this thread. Just under 9mm.

 

[ruby59]

Ariel. I posted about that 2.77 in another thread. Go on the Pricescope data base. Three other dealers have that same diamond. Same Gia report no. So how could they have it listed as loose diamonds, yet the seller on ebay has it set in a setting? Plus that setting is a repro, not a true antique????

None of the three dealers refer to it as European cut, and on the data base it is listed under Round.

 

[ariel144]

Ariel. I posted about that 2.77 in another thread. Go on the Pricescope data base. Three other dealers have that same diamond. Same Gia report no. So how could they have it listed as loose diamonds, yet the seller on ebay has it set in a setting? Plus that setting is a repro, not a true antique????

None of the three dealers refer to it as European cut, and on the data base it is listed under Round.

Yes, dealers can list diamonds on Polygon.com and others can list the same stone on Ebay or anywhere...they all have access to that very large database of stones. Even if you are not a member you can do a "Quick Search" on Polygon and view a large data base of stones and some of them you can view the Cert. but you cannot see the price. There is one dealer on Ebay that lists many of these stones and has them at a higher price than I see on other sites because they have them listed "Or Best Offer". On usacerted.com you can see a lot of the Polygon data base in their search with their price which are some of the lowest prices on the web.

None of the three dealers refer to it as European cut, and on the data base it is listed under Round.[/quote]

TRUE and that is why most old cuts are sent to EGL to get the correct designation for the OEC or OMB etc.

All that aside...that 2.77 J SI1 is a really nice stone and the fact it is listed by others should not deter you from purchasing it if you like it. I haven't seen it on the USAcerted website though or other sites. I look for Old cuts on Polygon but it would not be listed as an old cut because it was certed as a RB, so it obviously is on there. If you check USAcerted or call GOG, they could get that stone for you at a cheaper price since you might not want that setting.

I did not find it on USAcerted but this guy lists a large database and has some of the best prices too. he has it listed for $21,900, so your best "deal" would probably be through the guy on Ebay. His old price for the ring was $21,500.

http://buydiamonddirect.com/details/detailGIA.asp?ITEM=32250019

You might want to go to Jon at GOG and have him call it in and test it for performance. But the guy on Ebay obviously owns it and put it in that setting.

What was the price of the stone by itself when listed by others?

Hope this helps.

P.S....on a thread a while back someone found a 1c. OEC listed on JA certed as a RB. He called JA and asked is this an OEC? They told him "no"....LOL!

 

[ariel144]

you might want to bid on this auction:

https://www.bukowskis.com/auctions/571/1380-ring-antikslipad-diamant-ca-3-ct-samt-pa-sidorna-mindre-antikslipade-diamanter-tot-0-30-ct-ca-1925

 

[ruby59]

Thank you very much, Ariel. Like you, the one on ebay is still my favorite. I kind of like that it comes with a GIA report because even though it does not show crown and pavilion angles or percentages and is categorized as a Round Brilliant, I do not have to estimate how far off it is in clarity and especially color.

I would have snapped that one up already and sent it to Dave Atlas for analysis if not for the fact that the ebay seller does not accept returns. And even though others may have access to it I do not know if the owner would allow it to be removed from the setting and if it can be properly judged in the setting. Go on the Pricescope data base and put in 2.77 J SI1. Three others are selling it - Eternity Diamonds - $20,109, Solomon Brothers - $20,341, and ID Jewelry - $21,136.

So the prices are very close to that on ebay, except you get the setting. The setting is beautiful, but it is a reproduction. It is a tradeoff. I would get that setting if I bought from ebay, but with the Pricesope sellers, I could return it if I did not like it.

Also, thank you for the last link. I believe that seller may be in Sweden? and I prefer to deal with someone in the US.

 

[Dreamer_D]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

We argued about the notion of a nail head in another thread -- it means a black hole under the table. It is common in very deep old cuts. That video does not show a nail head, and with a ~60% depth, a nail head is basically impossible. There could be leakage from non-complimentary angles and imprecise pavilion cutting, or gidle reflection, but a nail head is not a possibility.

Ariel we do not know if Adam owns this stone or called it in on spec. OWD does not own all the diamonds on their site.

 

[ariel144]

i thought the video of the 3.15 K showed nailhead?

We argued about the notion of a nail head in another thread -- it means a black hole under the table. It is common in very deep old cuts. That video does not show a nail head, and with a ~60% depth, a nail head is basically impossible. There could be leakage from non-complimentary angles and imprecise pavilion cutting, or gidle reflection, but a nail head is not a possibility.

Ariel we do not know if Adam owns this stone or called it in on spec. OWD does not own all the diamonds on their site.

Thanks for the education on nail head. Makes sense. What % of depth would be considered very deep in your opinion?

I just figured if Adam had the picture and did videos on the stones he might be holding it in his inventory. thanks

 

[ariel144]

Thank you very much, Ariel. Like you, the one on ebay is still my favorite. I kind of like that it comes with a GIA report because even though it does not show crown and pavilion angles or percentages and is categorized as a Round Brilliant, I do not have to estimate how far off it is in clarity and especially color.

I would have snapped that one up already and sent it to Dave Atlas for analysis if not for the fact that the ebay seller does not accept returns. And even though others may have access to it I do not know if the owner would allow it to be removed from the setting and if it can be properly judged in the setting. Go on the Pricescope data base and put in 2.77 J SI1. Three others are selling it - Eternity Diamonds - $20,109, Solomon Brothers - $20,341, and ID Jewelry - $21,136.

So the prices are very close to that on ebay, except you get the setting. The setting is beautiful, but it is a reproduction. It is a tradeoff. I would get that setting if I bought from ebay, but with the Pricesope sellers, I could return it if I did not like it.

Also, thank you for the last link. I believe that seller may be in Sweden? and I prefer to deal with someone in the US.

In that case I would get GOG to call it in for you. I think it is a really pretty OEC, and a nice GIA J color which will face up very white. J is my preferred color for an OEC/OMC