Transitional stone? Vintage setting?

[Special1]

Hello, friendly and knowledgeable PSers!

I am looking at a diamond that the vendor is calling a Transitional cut (circa 1940), and I was hoping if anyone could support or refute this claim. (No detailed info on depth, table, crown, pavilion, but they have offered to remove the stone from the setting to get these measurements.)

Also, they say that this is a vintage estate piece, but I feel like the setting looks more contemporary. I would appreciate any input.

I was considering putting this center stone in another ring, and setting a different stone in this one. My concern is that there may be characteristics/flaws in this diamond that the setting is hiding that may compromise this plan. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Special1]

setting

 

[Upgradable]

The stone looks like a true transitional cut to me. You can tell by the chunkier, but symmetrical faceting and the very small culet in the center.

You are right that you cannot truly assess the stone in the mounting, and the mounting looks like a modern reproduction piece, not an original vintage. If you do have the stone removed it would look beautiful with a sapphire remounted in it.

 

[HVVS]

"estate" can be anything secondhand, used, traded in, shop-worn, or otherwise. "vintage" is tossed around as a style descriptor. So, vintage estate does not mean that it''s old, lol.

 

[Special1]

Thank you both, Upgradable and HVVS, for your time and input!