Is this a transitional?

[nala]

Here is another trade up I am considering. I would rhodium dip it. It is being sold as
an i1 k tranny 1.25 carat center stone. . Opinions appreciated.

 

[junebug17]

Certainly looks like an old cut to me, either an OEC or a transitional. Not enough of an expert to say for sure which one, I think the differences can be subtle sometimes.

 

[maccers]

Hard to say for sure based on one pic but that culet is on the bigger side and the facets are fat-ish, I would say OEC. Trannies usually have a much smaller culet, for sure.

Check out jewels by grace or love affair diamonds for other examples.

 

[arkieb1]

Certainly looks like an old cut to me, either an OEC or a transitional. Not enough of an expert to say for sure which one, I think the differences can be subtle sometimes.

I agree it could be a tranny or an OEC, I'd have to know the crown height and the depth to say which. I'd guess OEC.

 

[madelise]

The word 'transitional' means just that-- a transition between the traditional "old European" and the current modern round brilliant (or, let's even say the more contemporary precursor to the MRB, the stuff we saw from the 70s-- imperfect attempts at the current day AGS0 MRB). I got a good conversation about this when I was a total diamond-noobie, speaking with Charles Carmona of Guild Labs. Then another lecture to stop clinically labeling things for an era where the romance was IN the imprecision and lack of strict measurements and labels by Claude Morady.

What PSers usually refer to as "trannies" are those that are too precise to be the more organic, less perfect OEC: more precise pattern to the "arrows", smaller or nonexistent culet, more "diameter saving" thus less steep crown heights and larger tables.

If you really enjoy learning about this, I definitely recommend The American Cut by Al Gilbertson http://www.amazon.com/American-Cut-The-First-Years/dp/0873110595.

See, these ongoing "transitions" is what makes it so damned confusing for us to "know" easily what is what. The categorical boxes aren't very clean cut. If you go to any of the JBG or LAD websites, you'll see many different "flavors" of OMCs, OECs, and trannies. They all don't look alike, and sometimes it's unclear which box one stone belongs to.

This particular stone definitely looks much more modern than many OECs (large table, medium-ish culet). But it doesn't look as modern as some transitional (see ROL's new one, or Dreamer's George).


A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[ericad]

Madelise is spot on. Diamond cuts can be looked at almost on an evolutionary timeline - how they evolved and changed over time, as tools and technology and knowledge evolved as well. There are many "transitional" periods - OMC's into OEC's (usually called "early" OEC's), OEC's into Transitionals (usually called "late OEC"), then Transitionals, then early RB's, etc. And to further complicate matters, different dealers use the terms differently, and diamonds were being cut differently in different parts of the world during the same period. So it's very tricky to pinpoint the cut or era with much certainly because the process of these cuts changing over time was so fluid.

That being said, if this were my stone, and based on just this one picture, I'd say that it's probably a later OEC. Small but visible culet, checkerboardy faceting, small to mid-range table size. I could tell more with a good macro of the faceting under the table, but I'd call it an OEC. But I have seen trannies with visible culets, and trannies with no culet, so it could well be a transitional too. Tough to say. And then the next guy will call it something else anyway.