Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Transitional Cut Revisited

D

DinoDesi

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
5
Hello,

I'm new to this website and I just read a wonder post from a couple of years ago called " What is transitional cut". It primarily was writted by member called "strmrdr". He mentions an article that he was thinging of writting on the subject. Was it ever written? The person appears to have not posted in a while.

The reason for my question is that my wife of 20 years has just recently passed away and her wedding ring was "transitional" I think. We were told many years ago that she did not have an "idea/RB" cut. Since her passing I have started reseaching this topic as a mean of remembering our wonderful life together.

Any additional information about transitional cuts would be appreciated as I continue to view diagrams to determine if that is what I have.

Thanks
 
Sorry for your loss.

Strmrdr changed his screen name to KarlK when he joined the industry.

He still posts, lucky for us. :wavey:
 
My condolences on your loss.

Do you have any close up picuture of the stone you can post? PSers may be able to help you out. Trannys are my
favorite old cut. It doesnt seem like we get to see too many of them though.
 
Thanks for the quick responses. Great idea about me posting a picture of my wife's ring. Currently I am out of town and will be home tomorrow. I will take pictures of it and post it then.

I would love to get opinions about the type of cut from all of you.

Thanks again.
 
Transitional cuts can be quite varied- all over the map in terms of proportions.

Some of this is probably in storm's thread but here's some basic info for you:

Very, very generally speaking, they tend to have very large tables, and shallow crowns, like earlier round brilliants- in fact, the tables are frequently a lot larger than RBs are cut today. And shallower crowns than current RBs too.

The lower girdle facets are what makes the biggest difference between a TC and a RB. They're still short and fat like an Old European Cut's, and give the diamond it's characteristic appearance of chunky, large facets.

The symmetry is often somewhat better than older cuts, too, so the patterning can be more regular looking than some OECs. They look kind of checkerboardy in patterning often, as a result.

Usually they have smaller (but still open) culets than OECs too, which may or may not be visible with the naked eye. A GIA "small" open culet you can only see with a loupe, to the naked eye it appears to be a closed culet like modern diamonds have. The depth can be all over the map- but often they're shallow-ish and thus face up pretty big for their weight.

TCs, like OECs and other older cuts, usually have bruted girdles still- they look frosted and opaque, rather than smooth and faceted like modern diamonds are.

I owned a TC that was proportioned like that- classic TC look- and it was a very *bright* stone, tons of white light return- it almost looked lit up from within, it was so bright. But much less fire than an Old European Cut, because of the low crown and large table. Basically they're a mix of OEC and RB characteristics. They can be very pretty stones especially if you prefer white light return. If you like fiery, rainbow dispersion more, an OEC is more likely to be to your taste. So, it isn't necessarily true that if you love OECs you'll also love TCs- personally I much prefer fire over white light return and ended up selling my TC.

Oh, and it's a lot easier to find TCs in higher colors- most Old European Cuts and Old Mine Cuts are lower colors, probably because the whiter ones were refaceted into modern RBs, or because the mines of the time were heavily weighted towards lower colored rough, or both. TCs you can find in colorless and near colorless a lot more often than the older cuts.

Definitely post pics, a head on macro shot showing the facet patterning would be the best to help us ID it for you, for sure. You probably already know this, but use the little flower icon on the camera to get a closeup shot. Get it as close up and straight on as you can make it.

So sorry to hear about your loss.
 
LGK that's very interesting!


Dino - I'm sorry for your loss. I hope you find the information you're looking for.
 
Dino, I am very sorry to hear about your loss. I hope that you'll post photos so that the folks here can give you as much info as possible about your wife's ring.
 
Thank you all for your interest and concern. In addition thank you for your condolences. My wife was a wonderful woman and passed too soon at only the age of 48.

First of all, I didn't realize how difficult it was to make photographs of the ring that looked any good. After numerous tries here is what I was able to do. I hope the quality is good enough to be able to help determine the type of ring it is. All the pictures actually don't do any justice to the ring at all in terms of beauty, etc.

Here is the story of the ring. We purchased it 21 years ago in Los Angeles at an estate sale. We both loved it as soon as we saw it. How good the diamond was in terms of size, color, etc did not have much meaning to us. We just loved the ring. We were told it was about 1 carat. They could not be sure unless they removed the diamond from the setting. It is pretty clear with some very slight yellow tint. It “sparkles” a great amount. They told us it was from the 1940's and was made of platinum. It had no matching wedding band so we had one made in platinum to match the style. We both were very happy with the results.

About 10 years ago we were in La Jolla California and went inside a jewelry store and the owner was interested in examining the ring. He told us that it was from the 1940 because of it characteristics, even though we did not mention to him our prior knowledge from the estate sale. Did he know this because of “transitional cut”, etc?

Based on what I have read in the posts, I initially did not think it had a culet, but after closer review I think it has a very small one. Remember I am a novice at this diamond business.

When looking at the diamond with a magnifying glass I was convinced it was “transitional” based on the diagram and the text in this post. But after looking at the photographs, I’m not so sure.

Thank you all again for you interest.
Dino

a6.jpg

a5.jpg

A3.jpg

a2.jpg
 
I'm sorry someone so special has passed away. It is a beautiful ring. I do think it looks like a transitional or maybe early round brilliant but I'm not an expert. You are right it has a tiny spec of an open culet.
 
The story of how you found it is just lovely. And the ring itself is a beautiful example of a classic 1940s style, IMO. It looks like it's probably a transitional cut, or possibly could be classified as an early round brilliant- it looks like it's right in between, at least in my opinion. For a 1940s ring that's pretty typical; the '40s was really where you start seeing a more typical modern round brilliant look, but still some echoes of older cutting styles.

It does look like it has a small open culet to me, too. The LGFs are a longer than most "typical" transitional cuts, which is why it might be called a round brilliant... that's why it isn't as chunky faceted as some TCs. They're still a bit chunky looking though (at least compared to what was popular from the 1960s through the 1980s), which is why I would lean towards calling it a late transitional; that and the small culet. It looks like it has a bit higher of a crown than some TCs which I suspect makes more fiery (which in my opinion is a very good thing, lol). Looks like a gorgeous stone, I'm sure your wife loved it.

And oh yes, taking clear photos of diamonds can be really irritating! You did a nice job though. ::)

And it's definitely a good example of why it's hard to classify transitionals vs. early round brilliants, for sure. You see some elements of both in lots of diamonds even into the '50s sometimes. (Your wife's ring could actually be as late as the early 1950s- this particular style of setting was really, really popular and stuck around for awhile- but is more likely 1940s era, at least that's what I think.)

ETA: if it wasn't done anytime recently, you may want to get the prongs checked. Decades of wear can make prongs thin and weak, and you can lose a diamond all too easily.

ETA, again, last one I swear! The way the jeweler dated it was the cut, and the style of the setting. Those fishtail prongs it has are very 1940s-early1950s, and the four small side stones are set are a very typical style of the era. That exact style of setting was just incredibly popular at the and you see settings exactly like it fairly frequently; also I think that particular style of setting looks very classic and stood the test of time well- it has an antique look but is simple/classy enough that it probably will never go out of style. This setting also dates before the princess cut (square) diamond was invented- if a girl liked the look of a square stone, this was pretty much the only way to go back then.
 
Fantastic information, but I do have a questions. I’m not sure I understand exactly what LGF’s are. Is there a diagram that can help me understand?

In addition I think I understand “transitional” vs “round brilliant” but still very fuzzy on “early round brilliants” Any additional information or diagrams that can be provided?

Very interesting about the Princess Cut, you are correct, many people who look at the diamond and say what a beautiful Princess Cut. I had no idea that the Princess Cut was so new (1960’s). Great information, thanks for sharing.

"Classy" is a great description of the ring. Both my wife and I felt that way.

Dino
 
Thank you all again for the great information.

Dino
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top