Transitional or Early round brillant cut?

[Roselina]

Hello
I’m happy to have found this forum! Could you help me with my stone? It’s certainly not a classic brilliant cut, but not sure if early RB or transitional? The jeweller that reset it said it’s similar to a brilliant cut, but still different and not common.
Thank you for your help!

 

[EC8]

It looks like early modern to me.

 

[junebug17]

I would say round brilliant. Reminds me of my mother's diamond, she was married in '49. Pretty ring!

 

[Roselina]

I would say round brilliant. Reminds me of my mother's diamond, she was married in '49. Pretty ring!

Thank you! I like it too. It’s very special to me. I like special stones with a history, little imperfections.

 

[Roselina]

I tried to capture it better. In this picture I see a very small culet, the table is quite big. In the middle you see some sort of beams - like a star - which looks different from a modern round brilliant cut. Otherwise the girdle is unpolished (however, I have a modern RB which has that too) and the crown not very high.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This looks like a common modern round to me. It just has a very large table and very long lower halves.

 

[Roselina]

This looks like a common modern round to me. It just has a very large table and very long lower halves.

Thank you. The jeweller that reset it mentioned, that it was no classical round brilliant. That’s why I had the ide to research it. The stone always looked different to me. However, they don’t work with antique jewellery, so they didn‘t know what exactly it was. One could say a badly cut RB, but it‘s facets are so well proportioned, so probably not. It certainly does look quite different from the modern RB I have, they all lack those beams that come from the centre. The original setting is hard to date. Younger than 1900 but also not older than 1940,50 I‘d say.