Early modern brilliant or transitional cut?

[Frumasring]

hi all,

So thrilled to be amongst such knowledgeable folks! Maybe someone could help me dicipher which cut my Ering is? My appraisal says “ early modern round” but some jewelers have told me “transitional”. I find this all quite fascinating and think I have enough info to determine. Not that it really matters, I just find it so interesting (and pretty).

Diameter: 8.17 min/width, 8.20 max/length
Depth: 4.71
Weight: 1.94

Table: 5.36mm, 65%
Crown angle: 34 degrees
Girdle minimum: very thin, maximum: thin, average: SI Bearing
Pavilion depth: 48%
Cutlet size: small
Major symmetry: good

Thanks again for playing along. Looking forward to your thoughts. Pic is avatar.

 

[Ally T]

Can you post an up close picture of the diamond, face on, so we can see the faceting?

 

[foxinsox]

Also a profile close up to see crown height?

 

[Frumasring]

Can you post an up close picture of the diamond, face on, so we can see the faceting?

Hi!

 

[Frumasring]

Also a profile close up to see crown height?

 

[Frumasring]

Sorry!! I’m a terrible photographer!

 

[YadaYadaYada]

I think it's transitional but I'm no expert so I'm sure they will confirm or correct if I'm wrong.

 

[foxinsox]

I’m going to guess transitional too - fat arrows, bigger table. Is there a culet? It looks like it’s pointed so I might need to change my guess to early RB.

 

[Frumasring]

I’m going to guess transitional too - fat arrows, bigger table. Is there a culet? It looks like it’s pointed so I might need to change my guess to early RB.

Definitely a point at the tip. Though, sometimes I feel like I see a defined hole in center, and sometimes don’t. This little lady can be a chameleon...I feel like every once and a while I see something new in her

 

[VRBeauty]

The transitional cuts I've seen (including the large-ish one I inherited) the "squares" formed by the facets on top of the table are larger and more prominent than those in your picture appear to be. Based on that, I don't think it's a transitional. But please take that with a grain of salt - I'm hardly an expert!

Here's more food for thought:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/got-early-modern-round-brilliant.180926/

 

[Frumasring]

The transitional cuts I've seen (including the large-ish one I inherited) the "squares" formed by the facets on top of the table are larger and more prominent than those in your picture appear to be. Based on that, I don't think it's a transitional. But please take that with a grain of salt - I'm hardly an expert!

Here's more food for thought:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/got-early-modern-round-brilliant.180926/

So interesting! I’ve seen that thread and wonder if I’ll be coming to the same conclusion... a mix of 2 lovely styles. I inherited this ring from my grandmother who got married in the 1930’s so I’m assuming it was cut sometime around then...

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Transitional or not it's a pretty stone! Something about the old cuts, the slight warmth, the lovely facets and the rainbows they can display, they are just so charming.

 

[Ally T]

It's absolutely beautiful regardless of cut! Personally I'm leaning to an extremely early transitional cut. There are fat arrows & not really the flowery look of an OEC, plus the crown is too low. If your grandmother married in the 1930's then it would fit the time frame better, as diamonds were having an exciting new era around then with regards to transitioning cuts. Again, I'm not an expert, so these are just my thoughts. It maybe completely unique?!

It's absolutely stunning though - you're a lucky lady!

 

[Luce]

This is a very pretty stone. I'm leaning toward transitional too but I am used to seeing a little cutlet.

 

[Frumasring]

Thank you!

 

[Frumasring]

This is a very pretty stone. I'm leaning toward transitional too but I am used to seeing a little cutlet.

So you’ve seen other transitionals with cutlets? I thought that they were more of a feature of early modern round?

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Culets....cutlets are for chicken, culets are for diamonds

 

[Frumasring]

Hehehe!!! Thanks for catching typo

 

[Luce]

So you’ve seen other transitionals with cutlets? I thought that they were more of a feature of early modern round?

Yes, I have attached a photo of the one I have. It has a tiny one.

 

[Luce]

Yes, a culet not a cutlet!!

 

[YadaYadaYada]

That's a pretty ring @Luce, the cut on that stone is fab

 

[Luce]

Thank you StephanieLynn! It was my great aunt's ring.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

@Luce, would you mind a side shot? The shoulders are gorgeous and the setting looks very detailed.

 

[Luce]

Thank you! I am happy to take a couple! It is well worn but you can still see some of the milgrain, etc!

 

[Luce]

Sorry to sidetrack your thread Frumasring!!!

 

[VRBeauty]

Ok, I’m rethinking my original guess after seeing you avatar pic on a larger screen - it’s looking more like a transitional cut to me.

I’m sorry. That wasn’t very helpful, was it?

Anyhow, I think you Mithras find this article interesting: https://www.nationaljeweler.com/diamonds-gems/grading/1070-the-ongoing-debate-over-old-cuts

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Yes sorry @Frumasring, got a little sidetracked, @Luce, thank you for the pics, I love the style and all the detail

 

[Luce]

Thank you SL!!!!!

 

[Frumasring]

Sorry to sidetrack your thread Frumasring!!!

No problem! Loved seeing Luce’s post!!

 

[Frumasring]

Sorry to sidetrack your thread Frumasring!!!

No problem!! Stunning ring, enjoyed seeing it!!!!