Transitional or not?

[gromit]

Hello All, new member joining your fabulous forum. What a great site.

Now I recently bought a ring with an approximately 1.5 carat transitional cut diamond according to the seller. Having looked at some of the other pictures though, it doesn''t seem quite right and I would therefore greatly appreciate any other input from those who have seen more of these or perhaps own one. It is a L-M colour, so a bit low, but has great sparkle and fire and clarity. I was also told that the ring was from the 40-50''s but having trouble finding other rings with a similar setting to compare it to. It is set in platinum and hallmarked ''PLAT'' which I think is reasonable authentic for the period.

Sorry for the quality of the picture, took tons but very hard to capture. It is also not as yellow as in the photo (having trouble posting more than one???).

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

[Ellen]

Hi gromit,

The picrure is too small to tell. I would suggest taking it to an independant appraiser (one who doesn''t sell jewelry) and have them take a look. They will be able to tell you for sure what it is.

 

[gromit]

Date: 6/8/2009 9:34:11 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi gromit,

The picrure is too small to tell. I would suggest taking it to an independant appraiser (one who doesn''t sell jewelry) and have them take a look. They will be able to tell you for sure what it is.

Hi Ellen,
Thanks for the quick reply. Sorry was having trouble uploading the photo and re-sized it too small. Will try a better one tonight.

 

[Ellen]

Ok!

 

[chrono]

I''m looking forward to a bigger picture too. I tried squinting (it sometimes works) but still could not make out anything, not even the setting.

 

[ericad]

Ditto the above requests for a larger picture - would love to see this ring up close and personal

 

[gromit]

Sorry for posting such a rubbish picture, hopefully this is better.

 

[gromit]

Here is one which doesn''t show as much colour. Although it is tinted it is definitely not that ''brown''. Found it quite difficult to get a clear photo showing the pattern, always seems to be slightly off. The table is quite large and to me a small crown, which is why I wondered whether it was a transitional or not. Also doesn''t seem as ''chunky'' in the facets as some of the others I have seen. It is generally dull under grey skies, where it also shows more colour, but has beautiful depth and shimmer in a dappled sunlight situation and great sparkle/fire under halogen lights. Difficult to estimate the pavillion depth due to the setting and looks like it has no culet.

Still amazed at how different it looks under different lighting conditions.

Will post one more to show the setting.

 

[gromit]

Photo to show setting. I like how between the prongs it looks like there are hearts.

 

[gromit]

Okay....just one more to show a handshot. I''m about a size 5. BTW the side baguettes are really white, which tends to make the centre stone show more colour. Is this common? I would have thought they would have tried to match them better, which makes me wonder if the stone is original to the setting. I also read somewhere that settings with side stones where quite often made without the center stone, which would be added later. Hence the mismatch.

 

[denverappraiser]

In the photo that table doesn’t look especially large to me. Maybe 63%? That’s bigger than current tastes to be sure but it’s not outside of the expected range for a modern stone. Most ‘transitional’ cuts have relatively tables on the small site and a culet as well as short lower girdle facets. None of this seems to apply to yours but it’s really hard to tell from those pics. Show it to a local appraiser who can see it in person and ask, something you probably should be doing anyway since you just bought it. Did the seller call it a transitional cut?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 6/9/2009 9:00:13 AM
Author: denverappraiser
In the photo that table doesn’t look especially large to me. Maybe 63%? That’s bigger than current tastes to be sure but it’s not outside of the expected range for a modern stone. Most ‘transitional’ cuts have relatively tables on the small site and a culet as well as short lower girdle facets. None of this seems to apply to yours but it’s really hard to tell from those pics. Show it to a local appraiser who can see it in person and ask, something you probably should be doing anyway since you just bought it. Did the seller call it a transitional cut?


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Ditto all of this.
I have to say, at least from these pics, it does look like just a regular RB to me. Perhaps a slightly earlier one - but I would not call it a trans, sorry. Exactly right, it doesn''t appear to show a chunky or flowery facet pattern typical of transitionals..
The setting is pretty, from what I can see - do you plan to keep it?

 

[gromit]

Date: 6/9/2009 9:00:13 AM
Author: denverappraiser
In the photo that table doesn’t look especially large to me. Maybe 63%? That’s bigger than current tastes to be sure but it’s not outside of the expected range for a modern stone. Most ‘transitional’ cuts have relatively tables on the small site and a culet as well as short lower girdle facets. None of this seems to apply to yours but it’s really hard to tell from those pics. Show it to a local appraiser who can see it in person and ask, something you probably should be doing anyway since you just bought it. Did the seller call it a transitional cut?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Thanks for the feedback. The seller did say it was a transitional cut, but I am starting to think about returning it as that is why I bought it and the colour is also slightly warmer than I like. I have darker skin so I feel that a ''whiter'' stone might look better. Do love the size though!