Too shallow for this oec?

[Bling_of_Fire]

I'm a newbie to PS and I love old cut stones, but I'm not as knowledgeable as many of you on this forum. I came across this ring and think it's pretty and unique. By the way, is there a particular name for this kind of setting or the "curly qs" on it? It looks really different from lots of other vintage settings I have seen. Anyway, the gia report shows it to be a spready stone. At 1.13 the measurements are 7.06 x 7.13 x 3.70. I plugged the specs into a site that evaluations stones and they say that it is shallow and while it may seem nice that the stone shows bigger than it is, actually it's bad for light and sparkle. But since it is an old cut, I thought that things may be more forgiving in that way. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I can't see the stone in person unfortunately; there is a video that was sent to me and it looks lively. There is a return policy. Thank you!

 

[Karl_K]

Its not that old. 1970s or newer for the setting.
Likely based on condition newer in my opinion

 

[Polyhex]

The setting is Belle Epoque / Edwardian and is either original or a reproduction. It actually looks original to me. Shallow old cuts are very variable and individual in their performance, I had a 55% depth old euro that was a fireball everywhere except under the small table where it was just OK. Small tables also help to eliminate the fish eye effect which can result from shallow stones. Use your eyes to decide and make sure the return policy is excellent because old cuts are best seen in person.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

It's really pretty, but with a still photo I can't determine sparkle. Could we see the video clip?

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

It's really pretty, but with a still photo I can't determine sparkle. Could we see the video clip?

Let me see if I can figure out how to attach.

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

Its not that old. 1970s or newer for the setting.
Likely based on condition newer in my opinion

Is there something about the setting that signals to you that it’s new, and conversely @Polyhex is there something that shows it in fact is original?

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

Let me see if I can figure out how to attach.

It doesn’t work as when I try to do an attachment it only allows me to attach pics not videos.

 

[Karl_K]

When looking at the side view there are signs its a cast repro.
Uniformly soft features with no sharpness/crispness and the open areas are very rough. The original was made in multiple parts.
I have seen a repro before that is identical to that one.
They were made by creating a mold from an original ring causing the very soft features.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

If you can download to vimeo or Youtube, you can then paste into comments.

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

Took me awhile but I Figured it out:

 

[Spring Day]

Took me awhile but I Figured it out:

Just looks like mush under the table. Nothing is going on.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

It's going to be flat under the table. It depends on the price being a real steal if that is worth considering. There are better options out there.

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

It's going to be flat under the table. It depends on the price being a real steal if that is worth considering. There are better options out there.

It was $2800 which I thought was a good price for the stone and setting. But fire is important and if it’s a repro setting vs real that makes a difference too.

 

[monipod]

I would like to think the stone would have given off some pastel bursts here and there in the video but it's pretty flat indeed... I would keep searching.

 

[Polyhex]

It doesn't look promising from that video but the lighting conditions are overall a very flat studio setup, good for photographing detail but not for seeing stone performance. If you are still interested, ask them to take a video in more normal lighting conditions?

The details on the setting that look right to me are the intricacy and attention to milgrain and engraving on every surface. Also the surface wear, the milgrain is sharp in recessed areas but soft and worn in raised ones, and the prongs are "smushed" the way that platinum spreads out as it wears. These aspects don't mean its definitely original, as reproductions can be very nice and also worn for decades.

 

[headlight]

I was surprised to see that the setting was much prettier in the video than in the photo IMO. I agree with @Polyhex that the lighting conditions were flat and not conducive to fully assess. That lighting would just give an idea of contrast and I do think there was some. I wouldn’t give up on this until you can get more videos. I would think that to be a good price based on the gist of an embellished mounting and a 1 ct stone although you didn’t mention color and clarity. Although it didn't look warm to me. But still the price of mounting alone....

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

I was surprised to see that the setting was much prettier in the video than in the photo IMO. I agree with @Polyhex that the lighting conditions were flat and not conducive to fully assess. That lighting would just give an idea of contrast and I do think there was some. I wouldn’t give up on this until you can get more videos. I would think that to be a good price based on the gist of an embellished mounting and a 1 ct stone although you didn’t mention color and clarity. Although it didn't look warm to me. But still the price of mounting alone....

Yes I was surprised at the price being on the lower side with a GIA stone but it is low in clarity at an I1 because of feather. Feather is invisible he said. It is an ebay seller and I actually noticed that the price is now higher on ebay but he said he would honor the original price it was listed at if I wanted it (maybe the first price was an error?). I was thinking the same thing about lighting as it's a real sterile looking environment that wouldn't be condusive to showing off the potential. But I hesitate to ask about more videos, because he wasn't the friendliest sort as I was asking lots of questions at the beginning in particular about the feather. He told me their location and that it's invisible to the eye etc. He seemed a bit exasperated at my detailed questions honestly and said I can always take it to a jeweler to look it over if I was worried about it, and that I can return it within 30 days. I don't think he was annoyed because he was trying to sell the item, but almost the opposite; like it's not worth spending so much time talking about something that is under 3K. A lot of the inventory he has are fancier pieces at much higher price points.

 

[ForteKitty]

Unless it's under $1500, no. Cut is terrible and the mounting is meh, not to mention I1 feather.

 

[LightBright]

Is the setting platinum? I like the setting in the video a lot. New, a setting in platinum, with single cut diamonds in a complicated antique style design would cost over $2k. This setting looks like a real antique to me, although others disagree.

The stone looks mushy in the center and slightly lopsided. It looks like a potential recut after a chip because of the undefined center. However, the diamond has life and sparkle. Undefined cut and I1 feather makes it practically un-sellable loose, IMO.

I like this ring, but I personally like antique settings and I tolerate imperfect diamonds if they are well priced and pretty. I am seeing “mush, coal dust included opaque dirty ice diamonds” being sold in new settings for around the same price as this piece. I think the cost of your piece might be slightly over what I’d feel comfortable paying, which would be for the setting.

If you are motivated to get an affordable antique ring, I’d purchase to see it in person and return if that stone is truly a dog. Maybe you could find another stone for it eventually?

 

[Bling_of_Fire]

Is the setting platinum? I like the setting in the video a lot. New, a setting in platinum, with single cut diamonds in a complicated antique style design would cost over $2k. This setting looks like a real antique to me, although others disagree.

The stone looks mushy in the center and slightly lopsided. It looks like a potential recut after a chip because of the undefined center. However, the diamond has life and sparkle. Undefined cut and I1 feather makes it practically un-sellable loose, IMO.

I like this ring, but I personally like antique settings and I tolerate imperfect diamonds if they are well priced and pretty. I am seeing “mush, coal dust included opaque dirty ice diamonds” being sold in new settings for around the same price as this piece. I think the cost of your piece might be slightly over what I’d feel comfortable paying, which would be for the setting.

If you are motivated to get an affordable antique ring, I’d purchase to see it in person and return if that stone is truly a dog. Maybe you could find another stone for it eventually?

Yes the setting is platinum. I am also fine with imperfect diamonds too if they have good sparkle and from the video, everyone is correct in that it seems to lack that nice flowery look or checkered looked that many oecs and transitionals have. But again the video is bad lighting. It's not as if I am totally obsessing over it - I wouldn't buy the ring with the intent of changing the stone for example! I've got enough future projects in my mind to add another one to the mix! I have been tempted to get it knowing I can return, but it's still a bit hard to think of plunking down that on the cc to then return it; I have done this once in the past and the vendor really pressured me to just to pick something else. I did not, and I got the money back, but I hate that hassle!

 

[caf]

I guess weighing the pros and cons, unless it’s a terrific terrific price - I would not get it. Too much risk, a seller who has already shown you he’s difficult and a stone that doesn’t look great. I’d put the $ towards an OEC you’ll love!