Well I just bought a pair of OECs

[AV_]

"Too much" is what I'm aiming for!

It is!

I sort of remember that the ring with pears & two marquises adds up to about five carats; truth be told, I have no idea if a version with rounds makes sense.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Well I like where you are headed and BIG and BOLD seems the way to go.

 

[distracts]

Ok I picked up the diamonds today from Southwest Diamond Cutters - the one that was the “problem” one looks SO GOOD! The only way I can tell them apart now is that the one that didn’t get recut is more off-round and has chips, but I can’t tell just by looking at the way they sparkle.

The one that was recut went from 1.21 to 1.17. The other is 1.14. Both around 6.5mm with some variance because they’re not super round.

Unaltered on top, recut below:




I know the differences before were subtle but they would have driven me crazy if they were set together and now I’m entirely pleased with the pair.

 

[distracts]

(For anyone who doesn't want to backread - the bottom stone under the table turned all off or all on - and only rarely the latter - it didn't, like, scintillate. Which it now does.)

ALSO that stuff that I thought was inclusions and everyone else thought was dirt but I could not for the life of me clean off? Gone. It was dirt. It just needed a much, much more serious cleaning than I was giving it.

Also here are the other numbers, for anyone curious, since we don't talk about OEC numbers much (hi @sledge this may be of interest to you!) :

Stone 1 (unaltered):
ct 1.14
Diameter 6.54mm
Depth 65.48%
Crown Height: 18.45%
Pav Depth: 43.89%
Culet size: 4.96%
Table size: 44.1%
Crown angle: 32.83
Pav angle: 43.09
Star length: 42.8%
Lower halves: 55.2%
Girdle Thickness: 2.98%
Girdle min-max: Extremely thin to very thin

Stone 2 (original):
ct 1.21
Diameter 6.6mm
Depth 65.88%
Crown Height: 17.98%
Pav Depth: 43.19%
Culet size: 9.98%
Table size: 48.3%
Crown angle: 35.13
Pav angle: 44.01
Star length: 40.2%
Lower halves: 51.5%
Girdle Thickness: 4.30%
Girdle min-max: Extremely thin to very thin

Stone 2 (post recut):
ct 1.17
Culet size: very large
Table size: 45%
Crown angle: 33
Pav angle: 44
Star length: 40%
Lower halves: 50%
Girdle Thickness: 5.5%

Compare to the stats of the AVR I bought the other week:
ct 0.745
Diameter: 5.7mm
Depth 65.3%
Crown Height: 18%
Pav Depth: 44.1%
Culet: pointed
Table size: 49.2%
Crown angle: 35.3
Pav angle: 41.4
Girdle min-max: thin to slightly thick

It has me interested in the proportions of my other OECs - I suspect they're mostly pretty close to the first one because I definitely have a look I like.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Very nice!

 

[prs]

Also here are the other numbers, for anyone curious, since we don't talk about OEC numbers much (hi @sledge this may be of interest to you!) :

It has me interested in the proportions of my other OECs - I suspect they're mostly pretty close to the first one because I definitely have a look I like.

Great work! I'm thinking the tweak was to lower the crown angle from 35.1° to 33.0° thus decreasing the table from 48.3 to 45%.

It's such a shame that GIA only provides the numbers for table and total depth for the stones they call "Old European Brilliant". I wonder what their criteria are for diamonds to qualify for this cut name? I would think it has to include other numbers, including star and lower girdle lengths. Otherwise there would be no chunky facets; the calling card of a good OEC.

If anyone knows what those criteria are, I would be delighted to learn more.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

 

[prs]

Thank you! I think both @distracts diamonds would meet the GIA criteria for "Old European" and "Circular". It seems strange they include a star length requirement for "Circular" but not for "Old European". Does the star facet length impact how "chunky" the crown facets look?

 

[caf]

They look great!

 

[distracts]

Interesting - by this chart, the AVRs with pointed culets don't meet GIA's definition of OECs.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Interesting - by this chart, the AVRs with pointed culets don't meet GIA's definition of OECs.

That might be part of @Rhino ’s logic in maximizing performance but working collaboratively with GIA to differentiate the proprietary cut of AV from stones cut in olden days. My understanding from watching the lecture video where the issue was discussed, was that each camp was very respectful in considering each other’s perspectives.

 

[Rhino]

That might be part of @Rhino ’s logic in maximizing performance but working collaboratively with GIA to differentiate the proprietary cut of AV from stones cut in olden days. My understanding from watching the lecture video where the issue was discussed, was that each camp was very respectful in considering each other’s perspectives.

Actually there are 2 out of the 4 that would disqualify the AVR from being an Old European cut according to GIA's definition. The crown angles are less than 40 degrees as well as the culet.

 

[prs]

That might be part of @Rhino ’s logic in maximizing performance but working collaboratively with GIA to differentiate the proprietary cut of AV from stones cut in olden days. My understanding from watching the lecture video where the issue was discussed, was that each camp was very respectful in considering each other’s perspectives.

Thank you so much for posting this. I guess the most useful thing I learned from the video is the lower girdle facets are the most important factor in determining an OEC, or an OEC style stone.

This point only came up towards the end, thanks to @Rhino, and there seemed to be unanimous agreement. It sure would be nice to know if the most beautiful OECs tended to have 65%, 60%, or <60% LGFs.

 

[prs]

(For anyone who doesn't want to backread - the bottom stone under the table turned all off or all on - and only rarely the latter - it didn't, like, scintillate. Which it now does.)

ALSO that stuff that I thought was inclusions and everyone else thought was dirt but I could not for the life of me clean off? Gone. It was dirt. It just needed a much, much more serious cleaning than I was giving it.

Also here are the other numbers, for anyone curious, since we don't talk about OEC numbers much (hi @sledge this may be of interest to you!) :

Stone 1 (unaltered):
ct 1.14
Diameter 6.54mm
Depth 65.48%
Crown Height: 18.45%
Pav Depth: 43.89%
Culet size: 4.96%
Table size: 44.1%
Crown angle: 32.83
Pav angle: 43.09
Star length: 42.8%
Lower halves: 55.2%
Girdle Thickness: 2.98%
Girdle min-max: Extremely thin to very thin

Stone 2 (original):
ct 1.21
Diameter 6.6mm
Depth 65.88%
Crown Height: 17.98%
Pav Depth: 43.19%
Culet size: 9.98%
Table size: 48.3%
Crown angle: 35.13
Pav angle: 44.01
Star length: 40.2%
Lower halves: 51.5%
Girdle Thickness: 4.30%
Girdle min-max: Extremely thin to very thin

Stone 2 (post recut):
ct 1.17
Culet size: very large
Table size: 45%
Crown angle: 33
Pav angle: 44
Star length: 40%
Lower halves: 50%
Girdle Thickness: 5.5%

Compare to the stats of the AVR I bought the other week:
ct 0.745
Diameter: 5.7mm
Depth 65.3%
Crown Height: 18%
Pav Depth: 44.1%
Culet: pointed
Table size: 49.2%
Crown angle: 35.3
Pav angle: 41.4
Girdle min-max: thin to slightly thick

It has me interested in the proportions of my other OECs - I suspect they're mostly pretty close to the first one because I definitely have a look I like.

Hi @distracts I don't know why but somehow your beautiful OECs had slipped my mind, and I just realized your recut data gives me three more great data points for my OEC cut chart.

I do have a quick question about Stone 2 (post recut). I can see how a small adjustment to the crown shaved a tad off the table, reducing it from 48.3% to 45.0%, with a corresponding reduction in Crown Angle from 35.13° to 33.0°. This would keep Stone 2 Crown Height at 17.98%, and it would now be a much better match to Stone 1.

What I don't understand is how the girdle depth for Stone 2 actually increased from 4.3% to 5.5% after the recut. I'm thinking they actually reduced the PA from 44% to 43% to match Stone 1. This could explain the girdle increase, so maybe your post recut PA of 44% is a typo, and it should actually read 43%?

Sorry to be a PIA, but inquiring minds wants to know.

 

[distracts]

To update this old thread, these diamonds were finally sent to GIA -

1.14 ct came back as I, SI1
1.17 ct came back as H, VS2

I'm surprised the color was that high - I had bought them as J/K, both the appraiser and the recutter thought they were an I and J, and instead are an H and I! Clarity was right around what everyone said it would be and right what I bought it as.

I don't know if chips affect the clarity grade - the 1.14 didn't get recut so it did still have a lot of little chips and fleabites, but I didn't want to risk messing with it to remove them when I liked how it looked.

They are destined to be sidestones in a gargantuan three-stone with a sapphire center, so they will not be separated as I first wanted to do.

 

[MamaBear]

How exciting!!!

 

[Ionysis]

What a bargain you got with these! They are absolutely beautiful. Can’t wait to see the finished ring.

 

[distracts]

How exciting!!!

I'm SO excited. The sapphire is at GIA too but gemstones take longer so I will have to keep waiting. It's hard to be so patient!

I have been meaning to send these to GIA for literal years.

Idk why I didn't think of linking the reports -

GIA - Report Check

www.gia.edu

GIA - Report Check

www.gia.edu

Very interesting that one of them has an indented natural - I don't often see those.

 

[MamaBear]

Oh well, better late than never!! (On the reports)

 

[Cerulean]

Wow, you hit the jackpot with those OECs! They are gorgeous and that ring is going to be a knockout!