Riddle me this - modern old european cuts

[bulldog5]

Hi forum - Im wondering if I can get your feedback on the following old european cut (re-cut to modern style) diamonds. They appear to score well per the OEC cut grade estimator here:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/screening_chart_old_european_cut_diamonds
The diamonds will be in an mc2 setting. From estimates here, it appears that the settings run $5-8, though they don't disclose the exact amount (which is fine) for an all in price of about $35. Regarding the surface features - having seen both stones in person, they are eye clean (even the SI1) despite the impression the GIA report gives.

Looking forward to your feedback!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

double post

 

[chrono]

If recut into modern rounds, then they should be evaluated as modern rounds. Pictures will be very helpful.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am not sure I understand your question. Are these newly cut stones that are cut into OEC's? I don't understand the "recut to modern style" part. They aren't OEC's if they were recut to modern style. Or are they OEC's that had a little improvement in cutting? I think they should have taken care of that very thin girdle if they did. And you want us to comment on the measurements? I think we'd really need photos of the stones to be able to tell you anything. All I can really tell is that they seem to be okay as a matched pair other than the table sizes are fairly different. Besides pictures, I'd want an ASET image if they can do that so you can see how much light return they have and how much leakage.

I am curious as to what setting would use two stones like this?

 

[bulldog5]

Re: being evaluated as modern rounds. Im not sure about that as the two types of diamonds are completely different and my research here on pricescope backs that up. Again, for folks who are not familliar with the old cuts like OEC or OMC, id rather not read guesses.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They are not modern rounds and cannot be compared to modern rounds. They certainly will not have the light performance of a modern round, but I assume you know that about OEC's.

For one thing, you can see that they have graded them "Good" for cut. And that is common for the better OEC's we see around here. But when someone comes looking for a round brilliant, we tell them to search for GIA Excellent only. So these are not going to compare in cut quality and light return. People buy them for a totally different reason. They consider them romantic coming from another time, and they enjoy the chunky facet patterns which aren't always perfect.

 

[justginger]

Re: being evaluated as modern rounds. Im not sure about that as the two types of diamonds are completely different and my research here on pricescope backs that up. Again, for folks who are not familliar with the old cuts like OEC or OMC, id rather not read guesses.

If you want assistance from any of the experts on this board, I'd suggest dropping the attitude.

You MUST clarify your original poorly worded statement that these have been recut before anyone can tell you anything. Have they retained the faceting pattern of OECs and "neatened up" or have they been recut with modern faceting patterns? That information is basic and affects the responses you receive 100%. You judge OECs with OEC patterning one way, and modern brilliants with modern brilliant faceting patterns another. If they have been recut into modern faceting patterns, it makes no difference whatsoever if they were originally OECs - they must still be judged based on proportions and angles for modern stones.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Are the lab reports showing the stones as they are now?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, if you want to compare them to a newly cut OEC with excellent cut and light performance, look at some of these:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9891/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9890/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10024/

And obviously, you pay more for the cut on these.

 

[bulldog5]

They are not modern rounds and cannot be compared to modern rounds. They certainly will not have the light performance of a modern round, but I assume you know that about OEC's.

For one thing, you can see that they have graded them "Good" for cut. And that is common for the better OEC's we see around here. But when someone comes looking for a round brilliant, we tell them to search for GIA Excellent only. So these are not going to compare in cut quality and light return. People buy them for a totally different reason. They consider them romantic coming from another time, and they enjoy the chunky facet patterns which aren't always perfect.

hi diamondseeker - thanks for your reply. Agreed re: apples to oranges comparison between RB and OECs. I recognize the trade offs here (and you point some out) but as you say, they have the uniqueness and fire that makes them more interesting vs. RB's.

 

[bulldog5]

Are the lab reports showing the stones as they are now?

yes

 

[chrono]

You have not clarified but I presume from your response that they are not cut to modern rounds. Again, you have not posted a single picture. Even old cut stones cannot be evaluated by numbers alone. The pattern must also be lovely.

 

[bulldog5]

You have not clarified but I presume from your response that they are not cut to modern rounds. Again, you have not posted a single picture. Even old cut stones cannot be evaluated by numbers alone. The pattern must also be lovely.

Assume the pattern is lovely; having seen the stones in person, they are near perfect. They are re-cut to modern specs; not to exact RB spec, they will never get there as they are too deep - not sure how many more times I can clarify this as there are literally hundreds of posts on PS discussing this practice.

 

[chrono]

If I am to assume the pattern is lovely, then why did you bother to ask for opinions on the 2 stones? I am well aware of the difference between OECs and modern RBs, having done my own research and own a few of my own. Your tone smacks of arrogance and condescendence which does not sit well with others.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Since you saw them, you are the best judge. But the new OEC's I linked for you have images below the main picture that show the light performance and that they don't have leakage. You can compare the cut measurements on the lab reports. Technically you could evaluate these stones if you are concerned about it. There are a couple of appraisers that people in NYC use that could probably be helpful in that regard.

 

[bulldog5]

If I am to assume the pattern is lovely, then why did you bother to ask for opinions on the 2 stones? I am well aware of the difference between OECs and modern RBs, having done my own research and own a few of my own. Your tone smacks of arrogance and condescendence which does not sit well with others.

apologies for coming across that way, its getting past my bedtime here! Im certainly not going to be a know it all here, Im a newbie for sure.

 

[bulldog5]

Since you saw them, you are the best judge. But the new OEC's I linked for you have images below the main picture that show the light performance and that they don't have leakage. You can compare the cut measurements on the lab reports. Technically you could evaluate these stones if you are concerned about it. There are a couple of appraisers that people in NYC use that could probably be helpful in that regard.

thanks for that - I think getting a third party evaluation is the best way to go as Im not local to the vendor. Its a small drop in the bucket in terms of cost vs the total transaction cost anyways.

 

[bunnycat]

I am also a little confused by the post.

I can't read all the numbers very well, but it seems both stones still have culets, both still have small tables and steeper crowns and I can't quite tell, but the LGF numbers look like mid 60's (it's too blurry on my screen). Please correct me if I have misread.

One thing to keep in mind with GIA reports on old stones is that GIA has a really narrow range of what it will call a Old Mine Brilliant or OEC, anything else that's old and doesn't fall in to that range gets called RB regardless. My OEC is GIA graded and though it is an OEC that dates to the 1920's, it's been labeled by GIA as RB, which it is not. So I am not sure if that is part of your question or not.

With the old cuts, if that's what these are, you'll need to post images for better feedback, I suspect.

 

[yssie]

1. McTeigue & McClelland, correct? I believe most of their settings - especially the more elaborate types that multistone rings often require - will cost considerably more than $5-8k. Have you confirmed (with them) that this will be the price range for the specific setting you're considering?

2. Also, as far as I know they won't work with outside stones. Is this one that they've suggested? Or, if not, have you confirmed (with them) that they'll set it?

3. ETA Ah, I had to read through it twice but I think I see the light... you've found two old stones that just happen to have GIA reports. This doesn't mean that the stones were "recut to modern specs" or anything of the sort, it just means that someone somewhere decided to submit an old cut to GIA. As DS, Ginger, Chrono, and bastet have said, it's an uncommon practice because of GIA's tendency to label them as MRBs and grade cut accordingly - and, of course, old cuts that were cut to different specifications in order to perform well in different types of lights than we commonly see today often fare poorly. They shouldn't be evaluated as RBs, despite GIA's nomenclature, they need to be evaluated on their own merits like any other old cuts. An independent appraisal is a good idea.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Threadjack-
Bastecat, do you know what the parameters are for GIA's OEC/OMC numbers? I submitted my RB even though it's an older cut with chunky facets too and of course it came back RB. But I'd like to be geeky and see how tight those parameters are. I've looked and can't find it anywhere, not even on GIA's website.

 

[bunnycat]

Threadjack-
Bastecat, do you know what the parameters are for GIA's OEC/OMC numbers? I submitted my RB even though it's an older cut with chunky facets too and of course it came back RB. But I'd like to be geeky and see how tight those parameters are. I've looked and can't find it anywhere, not even on GIA's website.

Not a clue! I just remember reading it from time to time. I thought for a while it had to do with the depth, but then I saw this:

http://www.oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=1585&SHAPE=EU

It's not as deep as one of OP's stones and it's labeled European Brilliant. Maybe someone like Denverappraiser would know. I bet he has to deal with this issue a lot.

 

[yssie]

Threadjack-
Bastecat, do you know what the parameters are for GIA's OEC/OMC numbers? I submitted my RB even though it's an older cut with chunky facets too and of course it came back RB. But I'd like to be geeky and see how tight those parameters are. I've looked and can't find it anywhere, not even on GIA's website.

Not a clue! I just remember reading it from time to time. I thought for a while it had to do with the depth, but then I saw this:

http://www.oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=1585&SHAPE=EU

It's not as deep as one of OP's stones and it's labeled European Brilliant. Maybe someone like Denverappraiser would know. I bet he has to deal with this issue a lot.

GIA will (since October 2009) issue reports on diamonds calling them "Old European Brilliant" (if round, and "Old Mine Brilliant" if cushion-shaped) if at least 3 of the 4 following apply:
Table equal to or less than 53%
Culet equal to or larger than slightly large
Average Crown Angles of the Centre Bezels (across the width for cushions) are equal to or greater than 40 degrees
Lower Half Length Equal to or Smaller than 60% (by visual inspection only)


Can't post the source of or validate the above, but it correlates w/ CCL's article on modern & antique cushion nomenclature here: https://www.pricescope.com/journal/new_gia_and_agsl_naming_conventions_cushion_cut_diamonds

 

[backwardsandinheels]

This place is amazing. Thanks for that Yssie.

 

[bunnycat]

This place is amazing. Thanks for that Yssie.

+1! Thanks!

 

[ForteKitty]

Interesting! Looks like my big one might grade as an "Old European Brilliant" by GIA if I ever send her in. The only criteria she doesn't meet is the crown.

 

[bulldog5]

thanks for the info guys and this forum is a wealth of information! Ill post up some pics of the masterpiece (LOL) soon!

 

[yssie]

thanks for the info guys and this forum is a wealth of information! Ill post up some pics of the masterpiece (LOL) soon!

Can you elaborate on my earlier questions re. working with MC2? Are these stones they've selected or did they agree to work with your stones? And, if you are comfortable sharing, what setting are you thinking of, and have you confirmed the pricepoint?

 

[bulldog5]

thanks for the info guys and this forum is a wealth of information! Ill post up some pics of the masterpiece (LOL) soon!

Can you elaborate on my earlier questions re. working with MC2? Are these stones they've selected or did they agree to work with your stones? And, if you are comfortable sharing, what setting are you thinking of, and have you confirmed the pricepoint?

They are fabulous to work with - really top notch. They are proprietary stones, unique to them that are genuine OE's that have been re-cut to their particular specifications as far as I understand it. Pricepoint is more or less what I have posted in my OP and that works out to roughly about a third for the setting and 2/3 for the stone.

 

[bulldog5]

Well, if you want to compare them to a newly cut OEC with excellent cut and light performance, look at some of these:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9891/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9890/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10024/

And obviously, you pay more for the cut on these.

oh man - just ran these through the HCA and does that last one rank low! But I guess, the HCA is really not the tool to be comparing these stones now is it?

Is it true that GIA has tougher grading specs vs. AGS? For example, AGS freely labels this as OEC but GIA is more stringent with that definition (per the discussion of meeting 3/4 criteria above)?

 

[rubybeth]

Well, if you want to compare them to a newly cut OEC with excellent cut and light performance, look at some of these:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9891/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9890/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10024/

And obviously, you pay more for the cut on these.

oh man - just ran these through the HCA and does that last one rank low! But I guess, the HCA is really not the tool to be comparing these stones now is it?

Is it true that GIA has tougher grading specs vs. AGS? For example, AGS freely labels this as OEC but GIA is more stringent with that definition (per the discussion of meeting 3/4 criteria above)?

You cannot use the HCA for Old European Cut stones, regardless of whether they are actual old stones or newly cut to have the older style chunky facets.

I don't think the name has anything to do with the grading re: GIA and AGS. Both are reputable labs for grading clarity and color. AGS has an 'ideal' rating for top quality cut, while GIA calls it 'excellent,' which has wider parameters (which is where the HCA helps to weed through GIA 'excellent' cuts to find the more ideal proportions). I could invent a diamond cut called the American Kittycat Cut, but if it's a round with similar patterning to a round brilliant, both labs would name it as such on their certs.