Expert Help Needed is this Stone a Transitional Cut Diamond?

[Cosmetologist]

Hello everyone I need some help on identifying the Cut on this 0.56ct Round "Brilliant"
It's graded by EGL USA *Say no more lol* but on the Cert in the comments it States Hearts & Arrows - When to me it seems quite obvious it's a Vintage Cut, I'm no expert but I see a Small Culet that looks similar to those seen in other Transitional Cuts also it does bear a slight resemblance Facet Pattern Wise to other Trans Cuts but I'm no expert so I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this one?

Stone Stats;
0.56ct
5.48mm - 5.36mm x 3.10mm
VS1
K
Table 65%
Depth 57.2%
Crown Height 10.03%
Crown Angle 31°
Pavilion Depth 43%
Pavilion Angle 41.1°
Girdle; Thin to Med - N/A
Culet; Very Small

 

[LightBright]

Hi your stone seems to be an Early Modern Brilliant, likely cut after 1940. If it’s a Transitional, it would be one of the last iterations of the Transitional cut, when tables were getting very large. Your table is 65% that’s a little large for a Classic Transitional. Yes, I think I see a tiny culet. Again I think this cut is more Early Modern Brilliant.

The two diamonds shown in this thread would both be considered Transitional. One is more “flowery” one is more checkerboard. Look up other posts by Dreamer to see her Classic flowery Transitional cut, named “George”. Look up posts by Demelza to see her Classic checkerboard Transitional.

I’d ask for a video of the stone in question to see how you like it in action. It could be pretty.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...lza-gtg-part-deux-two-oecs-and-an-mrb.178411/

 

[Cosmetologist]

Hi your stone seems to be an Early Modern Brilliant, likely cut after 1940. If it’s a Transitional, it would be one of the last iterations of the Transitional cut, when tables were getting very large. Your table is 65% that’s a little large for a Classic Transitional. Yes, I think I see a tiny culet. Again I think this cut is more Early Modern Brilliant.

The two diamonds shown in this thread would both be considered Transitional. One is more “flowery” one is more checkerboard. Look up other posts by Dreamer to see her Classic flowery Transitional cut, named “George”. Look up posts by Demelza to see her Classic checkerboard Transitional.

I’d ask for a video of the stone in question to see how you like it in action. It could be pretty.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...lza-gtg-part-deux-two-oecs-and-an-mrb.178411/

.

Yes I totally get what you mean now it certainly doesn't have the "Flower Pattern" like other Trans...It's quite hard for novices like me as the Topic of Transitionals throws up so many different variations.

I Hope you don't mind me asking but would you say it's a "Well Cut" Stone?

I understand its hard to judge only looking at one still Image & a bunch of numbers lol but I just wondered as to why the somewhat incompetent EGL USA had annotated it as Hearts & Arrows? Is the Cut that "Good" it fooled them into thinking it was a recently Modern Cut?

I've asked the Vendor for a video & possible ASET Images but if not its only £995, I've ordered of the Vendor before numerous times & his return policy is fair with 14 days no questions asked returns I may just take the plunge as it seems fairly priced if any issues I can return it.

Thank-You for your thoughts & expertise it's greatly appreciated!

 

[lovedogs]

I have no idea how anyone thought it was an H&A stone. that doesn't even make sense. I don't really like it from the picture, because it doesn't have the super nice patterns that make me love transitional cuts in the first place.

 

[Wewechew]

I would consider that more transitional than early modern brilliant, although that table is huge!

 

[Cosmetologist]

I have no idea how anyone thought it was an H&A stone. that doesn't even make sense. I don't really like it from the picture, because it doesn't have the super nice patterns that make me love transitional cuts in the first place.

Yes it is odd how someone looked at it & thought "H & A" lol I'm newbie & even I understand the difference, I know EGL USA aren't the most credible & all this does is confirm it further lol

 

[Cosmetologist]

I would consider that more transitional than early modern brilliant, although that table is huge!

Thank-You for the input Wewechew it's much appreciated as I'm fairly green when it comes to consciously evaluating Antique/Vintage Cut Diamonds, Is the Larger Table a negative in regards to Optics?

I know it's hard to say without seeing the Stone in a Video or ASET Scope, But are the Proportions of this stone best to be avoided?

I know numbers don't always matter with Old Cuts as some defy the Logic & are Beautiful...

Just wanted to add that the Chihuahua in your profile pic is ADORABLE! He/She looks a very pampered happy pooch! Massive dog lover here too, I have a Border Terrier like a Wirey Jack Russell Terrier

 

[Wewechew]

Thank-You for the input Wewechew it's much appreciated as I'm fairly green when it comes to consciously evaluating Antique/Vintage Cut Diamonds, Is the Larger Table a negative in regards to Optics?

I know it's hard to say without seeing the Stone in a Video or ASET Scope, But are the Proportions of this stone best to be avoided?

I know numbers don't always matter with Old Cuts as some defy the Logic & are Beautiful...

Just wanted to add that the Chihuahua in your profile pic is ADORABLE! He/She looks a very pampered happy pooch! Massive dog lover here too, I have a Border Terrier like a Wirey Jack Russell Terrier

It concerns me that the table is so much larger than the depth of the stone. Aside from that, I don't have vast knowledge in OEC and Transitional proportions. Sorry! Have you inquired about a video of the stone?

The Chi in my pic isn't mine, but it was inspired by one of mine. My husband and I have four dogs: two Chis and two Pitbulls. They are our children

 

[Cosmetologist]

It concerns me that the table is so much larger than the depth of the stone. Aside from that, I don't have vast knowledge in OEC and Transitional proportions. Sorry! Have you inquired about a video of the stone?

The Chi in my pic isn't mine, but it was inspired by one of mine. My husband and I have four dogs: two Chis and two Pitbulls. They are our children

Thanks for the quick reply, I've enquired for a Video & he's said he'll do one by tomorrow afternoon, so fingers crossed!

It's certainly strange how the Table is much larger than the total Depth lol the Vendor assures me it has good life in all lighting with no overall visible dark spots... I am inclined to believe him as I've bought quite a few Fancy Shaped Diamonds from him - Including a Marquise which was beautiful even though it was slightly under the recommended total Depth % Diamonds are such funny things as no matter what it says on paper you need to see it in the flesh.

I personally like the Facet Pattern of this stone it intrigues me & it's odd as I've never considered Vintage/Antique Cuts before!

I absolutely love Pitties - We sadly don't get many Pit-Bulls in the UK as there classed as Dangerous Dogs so stupidly banned, We have a similar Breed called Staffordshire Bull Terriers, My family have always had them they are such lovely dogs & make amazing pets very similar to Pitties, I watch Pitbulls & Parolees a lot & drool looking at the gorgeous pooches sometimes it's sad to think how they are mistreated but many get good homes, Luckily in England we rarely see dogs roaming on the street.

Thanks for the input, I'll update you tomorrow hopefully after seeing Video!

 

[Cosmetologist]

* Update! *

After messaging again earlier for a video in response he has sent this additional shot under normal indoor daylight ambient lighting conditions with a message promising he will send a Daylight & Spotlight Video tomorrow.

First of all it looks like a completey different stone!

I'm itching even more now to see the Video of this Dr. Jekyl & Mr. Hyde Diamond lol

 

[elizat]

That looks like a different stone entirely....

 

[Cosmetologist]

That looks like a different stone entirely....

My thoughts exactly! If I were dealing with a new Vendor I'd be highly alarmed & give him the brush off but I've bought quite a few Stones from him over the years mainly Fancy Shaped - He is an honourable Vendor & I've never had any issues with him... But I admit I'll be interested to see the Video of this stone

 

[LightBright]

That’s not really a Transitional in my book. It’s more 1940s cut. I’m not sure what that makes it. I have a .79 cut that’s very similar. It has a large table and a shallow “scooped out” looking area under the table around the culet. Faceting under the table is not “snowflake or checkerboard, it’s more concave looking. So I do think it’s an old cut from the 1940s. But not a Transitional. What are you looking for? If this type of cut is intriguing to you, that’s all you need to know. I personally like a smaller table and more defined central facets. The table on this one makes for a shallower stone with a larger diameter for carat size. Shallower stones hypothetically have less fire, and are whiter but my cut of similar make had a lot of fire. It just didn’t have the distinct Transitional facets and to me lacked visual structure and defined patterning. You’ve got to examine each antique stone with your own eyes to appreciate them.

 

[Cosmetologist]

That’s not really a Transitional in my book. It’s more 1940s cut. I’m not sure what that makes it. I have a .79 cut that’s very similar. It has a large table and a shallow “scooped out” looking area under the table around the culet. Faceting under the table is not “snowflake or checkerboard, it’s more concave looking. So I do think it’s an old cut from the 1940s. But not a Transitional. What are you looking for? If this type of cut is intriguing to you, that’s all you need to know. I personally like a smaller table and more defined central facets. The table on this one makes for a shallower stone with a larger diameter for carat size. Shallower stones hypothetically have less fire, and are whiter but my cut of similar make had a lot of fire. It just didn’t have the distinct Transitional facets and to me lacked visual structure and defined patterning. You’ve got to examine each antique stone with your own eyes to appreciate them.

Thanks for the through explanation it certainly gives me an idea on how to make a conscious decision.

I must admit I am for some reason predisposed to this stone, I like the overall look but it all depends on what it's like in the flesh as the two photos so far are very different lol

It's a mine field like you said I need to view it with my own eyes in different lighting conditions to make a real decision.

Luckily I have the ability to use Pay After Delivery via PayPal so I think I will order this stone & another one which is a more traditional chunky OEC/Trans I'll keep the one I like & return the other that way I can compare the optics of each one together, It will certainly be interesting seeing how this oddly proportioned stone plays the light!

Again many thanks for the input your expertise is greatly appreciated!

 

[Wewechew]

The new photo makes it look more early modern brilliant. Very curious stone.

 

[LightBright]

This stone is cut similarly. From the 1940s. Vendor calls it a Transitional, which may be technically correct since it’s a cut evolving into the modern round brilliant. Note it is very shallow and crown is very low. It will look dimensionally flatter than a “Classic” Transitional or MRB. It will likely throw off a lot of white light.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/524481610/vintage-1940s-14k-transitional-cut

Note these stone cut types are fairly common and often are sold in the original setting. Reason being they were usually small, due to wartime standards, and they cannot really be recut for a profit due to small size and very low crowns. So you see a fair number of intact rings with these types of cuts. If you like this type of cut, I suggest you find one that’s already in a setting, it will not be much more expensive. A custom vintage style setting will literally cost you more than a diamond of this type and size.

Please note an EGL “K” might be actually a GIA “M”. It will be tinted.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Early modern cut. I’ve seen this style of cut in person and it was bright white with not much scintillation or fire. Especially in this small size, I don’t recommend. It will look like a basic MRB.

 

[Cosmetologist]

Thank-You to everyone I dodged a Bullet there lol

Sorry to ask again but what about the specs on this one instead? It's much cheaper too at £695
VS2
L
0.64ct
Width:-5.51mm - 5.57mm
Depth:- 3.28mm
Depth 59.2%

 

[Rfisher]

Ask for a picture farther away.
Total dark center may/may not be there IRL viewing distance.

Edited to add
(Not an expert) but it like how the facet pattern is less broken up, compared to the original one. And I’m assuming what looks ‘foggy’ is just in the picture taking capabilities.

 

[Cosmetologist]

Ask for a picture farther away.
Total dark center may/may not be there IRL viewing distance.

Edited to add
(Not an expert) but it like how the facet pattern is less broken up, compared to the original one. And I’m assuming what looks ‘foggy’ is just in the picture taking capabilities.

Thanks for your thoughts I'm a Layperson really so any input is really appreciated, I prefer the 2nd Stone & I like the Facet Pattern I think if it's out of the two I'd go with the 2nd Stone (Dependant on other Pics)

Again Thanks for your help

 

[Cosmetologist]

*Update*

I opted for the 2nd Stone - The Vendor accepted my offer of £500 it arrived today, I'm surprised by the Life of the Stone & overall Whiteness no Fish-Eye or overly "Dead" centre - I'll post Pics later, Thanks again for everyone who helped!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Your second stone is a much nicer cut. Looks a little like mine!

 

[Cosmetologist]

Thanks @dreamer_dachsie!

As promised here are the Pix - I'm not the best at taking them but I took a few...It faces up pretty White for an L IMO but I'm not really colour sensitive.

Stone Stats;
0.64ct - L - VS2 - 5.57mm x 5.51mm

Top Left is in front of a Window - Top Right is under Dim Spot Lights - Bottom Left is by the Window with Sunlight - Bottom Right is by a Window with no Sunlight.

It may not be the best Transitional in the world but I love it - The Vendor disclosed it was an earlier Transitional due to the larger Culet, Is he right? Either way I don't care I'm just merely curious!

 

[Rfisher]

I think it’s very pretty!
I’m glad you love it!

 

[Cosmetologist]

I think it’s very pretty!
I’m glad you love it!

Thanks, I think this is the start of something new for me Diamond Buying wise - I used to be quite snobby about lower colour bracket Diamonds & I think the general diamond buying public me included has been brainwashed into putting a high emphasis onto Colour rather than Cut which has been pushed to the back - But this stone has proved to me that a good cut can make a lower colour stone look pretty darn white, I'm sure this is very common knowledge to anyone who is a Diamond Buff but the next time I will definitely consider lower colour brackets & I most definitely will be buying Antique/Vintage Cut Diamonds again!

While I love this one I'm already thinking of buying another Antique Cut Diamond, One is not enough

I'd love an Old Miners Cut but I can imagine it's very hard to find a decent one.

 

[Dreamer_D]

It is a beautiful cut! I would call it an Early Ideal cut, otherwise called an American Cut. It is the same make as my own old cut diamond. This make has a smaller table and shorter lower halves (fatter arrows) than modern rounds, but it has crown and pavilion angles and depths similar to modern rounds. These are very hard to find. You have a lovely treasure here!

 

[Cosmetologist]

It is a beautiful cut! I would call it an Early Ideal cut, otherwise called an American Cut. It is the same make as my own old cut diamond. This make has a smaller table and shorter lower halves (fatter arrows) than modern rounds, but it has crown and pavilion angles and depths similar to modern rounds. These are very hard to find. You have a lovely treasure here!

Thank-You Dreamer, I will treasure it - I got lucky I think but having everyone chime in & offer their opinions really helped me make the best decision!

It's a confusing topic that's why I've just ordered the book "American Cut: The First 100 Years" hopefully that will take me from Diamond Dud to a Diamond Buff, At least on Early American Cuts anyways lol

 

[LightBright]

I like it. It is very pretty! And yes, it looks like an “American Cut” (oftentimes called a Transitional) similar to Dreamer’s. You can look up her threads to see beautiful close up photos.

Regarding your culet question, maybe the Al Gilbertson (American Cut) book will discuss this. Can you post a photo of the profile? Does it have a high crown? I’ve never seen a historical discussion on why cutters chose smaller or larger culet size, and I wonder myself why they phased out the culet eventually. I think your stone does have a very slightly larger culet than the ones I posted in the link above owned by Dreamer and Demelza, which could indicate it’s older, or it could just indicate it was cut in a different city or continent. The American Cut book has a chart showing cuts from that time period that were cut in the US versus Antwerp, vs a couple other European cities, and each style is similar but slightly different. Interesting!

 

[Cosmetologist]

I like it. It is very pretty! And yes, it looks like an “American Cut” (oftentimes called a Transitional) similar to Dreamer’s. You can look up her threads to see beautiful close up photos.

Regarding your culet question, maybe the Al Gilbertson (American Cut) book will discuss this. Can you post a photo of the profile? Does it have a high crown? I’ve never seen a historical discussion on why cutters chose smaller or larger culet size, and I wonder myself why they phased out the culet eventually. I think your stone does have a very slightly larger culet than the ones I posted in the link above owned by Dreamer and Demelza, which could indicate it’s older, or it could just indicate it was cut in a different city or continent. The American Cut book has a chart showing cuts from that time period that were cut in the US versus Antwerp, vs a couple other European cities, and each style is similar but slightly different. Interesting!

Wow yes I've just checked Pix of @dreamer_dachsie Stone what a stunner, I can see some resemblance too I feel even more lucky to of found mine now! I'm still quite new to using PS so unsure on how to view previous threads but I'll get the hang of it!

I did take some Profile shots but there not the best I will take some more tomorrow in daylight so you can see the Crown clearly, but if you can make it out from these shots I'd love to know your thoughts!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Definitely an early ideal cut/American cut IMO. The crown and depth and paviolion are all very similar to an MRB, but the lower halves are very short and the table a little smaller, plus the bruted/frosted girdle and the small/medium culet. When I was starting my three-stone reset, I was looking for diamonds of this make -- the same make as my 1.89ct -- for side stones. I could not locate any and was told it was a needle in a haystack situation. So again, a very rare make. Color looks more tinted than an L, but that could just be the lighting. It doesn't much matter, though. With these smaller old cuts, cut is King, and it sounds like you bought on the secondary market anyway.

Some would also call this make a European cut. *shrug* it doesn't matter what you call it though.

Here are a bunch of PS diamonds on this make:


Nice find! What will you do with it?