Cut Experts-Would you call this 5.65 MRB a Transitional Cut?

[lulu_ma]

This past weekend, I did some "research" and I saw this gorgeous 5.6 ct. I was able to see the cert and the stone is categorized as a Modern Round Brilliant by GIA. I know that the GIA Circular Brilliant parameters are specific. I am just curious as to what the cut experts have to say about this.

The 5.65 next to my OEC.

 

[Mreader]

That does not look like an MRB to me at all so I find it really strange that the report said that and not circular brilliant.

 

[missy]

Interesting...I think it's a 60 60 stone. It doesn't look like an MRB from that one photo.

Strictly super ideal numbers vs 60/60...

Hi, gang. My understanding of what constitutes a 60/60 diamond might be fuzzy, so I wanted to get some opinions on a set of numbers and ask if these would be considered traditional super ideal numbers or do they veer more toward 60/60 numbers? Or are all RBC stones that are graded as AGS 000...

www.pricescope.com

 

[maryjane04]

Maybe because it's got such a large table? Those are mrb proportions. Okay just read the table that I attached lol it has to meet all 3 criteria to be a tranny.

Okay re read the table and the gia cert you posted lol the star length is 60% and should be under 50 for a circular brilliant.

 

[lulu_ma]

Maybe because it's got such a large table? Those are mrb proportions. Okay just read the table that I attached lol it has to meet all 3 criteria to be a tranny.

Okay re read the table and the gia cert you posted lol the star length is 60% and should be under 50 for a circular brilliant.

Bingo. It's bc of the table. Irl this stone is SO pretty.

 

[lulu_ma]

That does not look like an MRB to me at all so I find it really strange that the report said that and not circular brilliant.

@Mreader It's bc of the table. But I guess this is a case of a stone that is stuck between GIA designations?

Interesting...I think it's a 60 60 stone. It doesn't look like an MRB from that one photo.

Strictly super ideal numbers vs 60/60...

Hi, gang. My understanding of what constitutes a 60/60 diamond might be fuzzy, so I wanted to get some opinions on a set of numbers and ask if these would be considered traditional super ideal numbers or do they veer more toward 60/60 numbers? Or are all RBC stones that are graded as AGS 000...

www.pricescope.com

@missy The numbers of really surprising to me! It doesn't perform like an MRB at all...

https://www.instagram.com/p/CblFt9VjYOx/

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Whail, I'm no judge, but it sure looks like a nice checkerboard tranny to me.
I really love the symmetry.

 

[Mreader]

More pics!!! Lol

 

[SparklieBug]

@Mreader It's bc of the table. But I guess this is a case of a stone that is stuck between GIA designations?

I have what was called a transitional cut when I purchased it. However, when I had it appraised (not sent into GIA) for insurance, the appraiser called it an early round brilliant. The table on my diamond is also quite large, and it. is. a. firecracker.! In all lighting! It's M, VVS, and I still adore it. I would choose this particular cut over anything else I've seen. I also have some OECs, and other diamonds that were also called transitionals—but that look like they are.

Are you considering this diamond to join your sparklie family? It's gorgeous!

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I have what was called a transitional cut when I purchased it. However, when I had it appraised (not sent into GIA) for insurance, the appraiser called it an early round brilliant. The table on my diamond is also quite large, and it. is. a. firecracker.! In all lighting! It's M, VVS, and I still adore it. I would choose this particular cut over anything else I've seen. I also have some OECs, and other diamonds that were also called transitionals—but that look like they are.

Are you considering this diamond to join your sparklie family? It's gorgeous!

Pics of this one too!

 

[oldminer]

I have a feeling that this diamond was once an OEC which was 'modernized" by closing the culet to some extent and by opening up the table to 60% from a smaller table. A crown angle of 38 degrees is quite steep especially for a transitional cut. Many transitional to modern cuts have a rather shallow crown angle and rarely a steep angle. The diamond looks lively. If it was moderately recut, it likely looks far better than how it looked before without ruining the old cut style and eye-appeal.

There is nothing particularly special about most transitional cuts. This diamond just looks very good in the photos and does not exactly follow the cut pattern of a transitional cut. I don't see that as any kind of problem or anything to be concerned about.

 

[lulu_ma]

I have a feeling that this diamond was once an OEC which was 'modernized" by closing the culet to some extent and by opening up the table to 60% from a smaller table. A crown angle of 38 degrees is quite steep especially for a transitional cut. Many transitional to modern cuts have a rather shallow crown angle and rarely a steep angle. The diamond looks lively. If it was moderately recut, it likely looks far better than how it looked before without ruining the old cut style and eye-appeal.

There is nothing particularly special about most transitional cuts. This diamond just looks very good in the photos and does not exactly follow the cut pattern of a transitional cut. I don't see that as any kind of problem or anything to be concerned about.

@oldminer thanks for this analysis! I am looking to learn more about these older cuts and this particular diamond perplexed me.

 

[lulu_ma]

I have what was called a transitional cut when I purchased it. However, when I had it appraised (not sent into GIA) for insurance, the appraiser called it an early round brilliant. The table on my diamond is also quite large, and it. is. a. firecracker.! In all lighting! It's M, VVS, and I still adore it. I would choose this particular cut over anything else I've seen. I also have some OECs, and other diamonds that were also called transitionals—but that look like they are.

Are you considering this diamond to join your sparklie family? It's gorgeous!

@SparklieBug umm pics please!

While I would LOVE this diamond, my DH is of the immortal Highlander's opinion-'There can only be One.' The 5.6 ct is beautiful, but I'm not sure I love the pattern more than the OEC petal.

 

[Mreader]

More pics!!! Lol

Duh I just now noticed you posted the Insta link!

 

[LightBright]

The Diamond you are referring to looks like a Transitional Cut diamond to me, in the “checkerboard style” (not a real term, just describes the boxy facets). I love it!!

My Transitional Cut diamond is categorized by GIA as a “Round Brilliant”, versus my Antique Cushion which is categorized as “Old European Briliant”. My “Transitional“ throws stunning fire and is an amazing performer, but it is flatter than an OEC, and the table is larger.

My Transitional Cut “Round Brilliant” GIA Specs:
57% Table
35.5 Crown
41.4 Pavilion
60% Depth
15% Crown
42.5% Pavilion
65% Arrow Width (I’m forgetting the term for this - it reflects the width of the pavilion facets)

 

[LightBright]

@oldminer thanks for this analysis! I am looking to learn more about these older cuts and this particular diamond perplexed me.

I looked at your video on Insta of the three huge diamonds and - IMO your current diamond really holds its own. You are lucky to have it!!!

 

[Lookinagain]

Interesting. My stone has these proportions and is called a round brilliant

but if I look at this, it seems to fit into Circular Brilliant (unless I'm missing something).

 

[lulu_ma]

The Diamond you are referring to looks like a Transitional Cut diamond to me, in the “checkerboard style” (not a real term, just describes the boxy facets). I love it!!

My Transitional Cut diamond is categorized by GIA as a “Round Brilliant”, versus my Antique Cushion which is categorized as “Old European Briliant”. My “Transitional“ throws stunning fire and is an amazing performer, but it is flatter than an OEC, and the table is larger.

My Transitional Cut “Round Brilliant” GIA Specs:
57% Table
35.5 Crown
41.4 Pavilion
60% Depth
15% Crown
42.5% Pavilion
65% Arrow Width (I’m forgetting the term for this - it reflects the width of the pavilion facets)

@LightBright is there a thread on your transitional cut? I would love to see it!

 

[lulu_ma]

Interesting. My stone has these proportions and is called a round brilliant

but if I look at this, it seems to fit into Circular Brilliant (unless I'm missing something).

@Lookinagain what year was your stone certed? I can't find a specific start date but I think GIA created the Circular Brilliant designation around 2013?

 

[Lookinagain]

It's dated August 2, 2013. Wonder if that's the answer? Here's a photo

 

[SparklieBug]

@SparklieBug umm pics please!

Here is one from when it first arrived to my happy li'l paw:



Side view:


It does the crazy Kozibe thing:



It had the most lovely old tab prongs which look large in the photos, but IRL were barely visible. Regrettably, I changed them out for a bezel, as I was worried about damaging the diamond. I'd inadvertently smacked my ring a couple times on the car door (and my mom had just had one of her diamond get a big chip), so had the head modified. I noticed right away that the "inner glow" of the diamond had changed. It's still fiery, but different. I've been going back n' forth ever since, about a re-set back to prongs. (I am famously indecisive when it come to a re-set.)

With a Cartier trinity, one Christmas:


And a hand shot w/ an antique sapphire eternity, and a diamond Frenchie eternity:



Thread-jack over!

 

[lulu_ma]

Here is one from when it first arrived to my happy li'l paw:



Side view:


It does the crazy Kozibe thing:



It had the most lovely old tab prongs which look large in the photos, but IRL were barely visible. Regrettably, I changed them out for a bezel, as I was worried about damaging the diamond. I'd inadvertently smacked my ring a couple times on the car door (and my mom had just had one of her diamond get a big chip), so had the head modified. I noticed right away that the "inner glow" of the diamond had changed. It's still fiery, but different. I've been going back n' forth ever since, about a re-set back to prongs. (I am famously indecisive when it come to a re-set.)

With a Cartier trinity, one Christmas:


And a hand shot w/ an antique sapphire eternity, and a diamond Frenchie eternity:



Thread-jack over!

@SparklieBug Love her! I feel like we need a SMTB tranny thread...

 

[lulu_ma]

It's dated August 2, 2013. Wonder if that's the answer? Here's a photo

So pretty!

 

[Mreader]

@SparklieBug Love her! I feel like we need a SMTB tranny thread...

This is an EXCELLENT idea.

 

[LightBright]

@LightBright is there a thread on your transitional cut? I would love to see it!

Hi lulu_ma, here are some photos of my Transitional Cut diamond in a early 20th century Tiffany style setting. It’s platinum, the outer engraving is deep and the prongs mount the diamond up high. The melee looks like little baby Transitionals to me. You can see some of the lacy engraving on the inside of the shank - and a date of ‘13. The look of the diamond is similar to a well cut MRB with fatter arrows (mine is not a checkerboard look). It is a GIA K, the gold color of the walls make the stone look more gold than it can be.

 

[lulu_ma]

Thanks for sharing @LightBright she's stunning! And the workmanship on that antique setting-wow!

 

[Mreader]

I love all of these!

 

[caolsen]

I have a feeling that this diamond was once an OEC which was 'modernized" by closing the culet to some extent and by opening up the table to 60% from a smaller table. A crown angle of 38 degrees is quite steep especially for a transitional cut. Many transitional to modern cuts have a rather shallow crown angle and rarely a steep angle. The diamond looks lively. If it was moderately recut, it likely looks far better than how it looked before without ruining the old cut style and eye-appeal.

There is nothing particularly special about most transitional cuts. This diamond just looks very good in the photos and does not exactly follow the cut pattern of a transitional cut. I don't see that as any kind of problem or anything to be concerned about.

Great insight on how OECs were retouched. Thank you.