Calling All Cut Experts -- Which is Better?

[Demelza]

Another quick question:

Assuming great proportions, would there be any reason to disregard a stone with a 57% table based on table alone? Can one discern any difference between a superideal with a 55% table vs a 57% table?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2006 12:06:29 AM
Author: Demelza
Another quick question:


Assuming great proportions, would there be any reason to disregard a stone with a 57% table based on table alone? Can one discern any difference between a superideal with a 55% table vs a 57% table?

Very few people would notice the difference everything else being equal in a 2ct its a little more noticeable than in a 1ct of course.
Performance wise there is little difference.

 

[Mara]

it depends on the other specs as to if you'd see any sort of difference...

but part of what bugs you about this stone you have now is that you feel like it's not cut in a 'superideal' manner. for me 57% table is not really a superideal number. that's just me.

but i also think that you should stick with more 'typical' numbers, because you are susceptible to 'suggestion' and i can pretty much tell you that in another year you'd be going 'well the 57% table bothers me'. for you a lot of this is mental. so you should be 'honest with yourself' as you told someone else in a thread...and be sure that you do this one right, if you do it at all. don't compromise.

 

[Demelza]

I have too many numbers floating around in my head at this point, but it seems like a fair number of ACAs have 57% tables and I was wondering how, if at all, it would impact performance to have a much smaller table. It seems harder to find 54% tables, esp in larger stones, which I always thought I would like more because it seemed like the stone might be more firey. It seems like most of the superideals out there range between 55-57%. The ACA I talked to Brian about today almost has a 57% table -- just a few tenths of a percent off -- but perhaps the visual difference is too minute to detect??

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/27/2006 2:02:25 AM
Author: Demelza
I have too many numbers floating around in my head at this point, but it seems like a fair number of ACAs have 57% tables and I was wondering how, if at all, it would impact performance to have a much smaller table. It seems harder to find 54% tables, esp in larger stones, which I always thought I would like more because it seemed like the stone might be more firey. It seems like most of the superideals out there range between 55-57%. The ACA I talked to Brian about today almost has a 57% table -- just a few tenths of a percent off -- but perhaps the visual difference is too minute to detect??

Demelza
visual wise NO !! in you mind YES!!

if your heart is set on 54-55% table then, stick to it.

btw; i love smaller table too. smaller table usually come with a tall crown and a deeper cut.

 

[C Smith]

Date: 6/27/2006 2:02:25 AM
Author: Demelza
I have too many numbers floating around in my head at this point, but it seems like a fair number of ACAs have 57% tables and I was wondering how, if at all, it would impact performance to have a much smaller table. It seems harder to find 54% tables, esp in larger stones, which I always thought I would like more because it seemed like the stone might be more firey. It seems like most of the superideals out there range between 55-57%. The ACA I talked to Brian about today almost has a 57% table -- just a few tenths of a percent off -- but perhaps the visual difference is too minute to detect??

You nailed it. A smaller table tends to increase color dispersion. Table size is really a preference thing within reason.Some want brilliance maximized and some want more fire. Get what you want.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/27/2006 3:43:08 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/27/2006 2:02:25 AM

Author: Demelza

I have too many numbers floating around in my head at this point, but it seems like a fair number of ACAs have 57% tables and I was wondering how, if at all, it would impact performance to have a much smaller table. It seems harder to find 54% tables, esp in larger stones, which I always thought I would like more because it seemed like the stone might be more firey. It seems like most of the superideals out there range between 55-57%. The ACA I talked to Brian about today almost has a 57% table -- just a few tenths of a percent off -- but perhaps the visual difference is too minute to detect??

Demelza

visual wise NO !! in you mind YES!!

if your heart is set on 54-55% table then, stick to it.

btw; i love smaller table too. smaller table usually come with a tall crown and a deeper cut.

Well, I don''t necessarily have my mind set on a 54-55% table, I''m just wondering at one point one would start to see a real difference in performance. If the answer is that the differences are too subtle to notice between, say, a 55 and 57% table (I''ve only seen one 54% in my search -- it was an ES stone - but Brian didn''t love that stone for other reasons), then I don''t have any particular allegiance to it. Even though I love OECs which tend to have the super small tables and built up crowns, I don''t really want that for this stone. Then you get the other trade offs of a deeper cut (less diameter).

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider a tall crown and deeper cut for a superideal? Or are you talking about stones that fall outside the ideal cut parameters?

 

[Carlotta]

Wow, Demelza....At this point you seem to be focusing on individual numbers (when you know the combinations of #''s/angles are what count in the overall look...)
When you say that you have some issues with the cut of your current stone is that because of the way it LOOKS or because some of what some of the numbers are??
The reason I ask is because your stone LOOKS gorgeous!!!

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/27/2006 7:55:59 AM
Author: Carlotta
Wow, Demelza....At this point you seem to be focusing on individual numbers (when you know the combinations of #'s/angles are what count in the overall look...)

When you say that you have some issues with the cut of your current stone is that because of the way it LOOKS or because some of what some of the numbers are??

The reason I ask is because your stone LOOKS gorgeous!!!

I'm not wanting to get too bogged down in the size of the table. I was just wanting to know, generally, at what point one could see a difference in how a stone reacted to light based on the table size. And it sounds like, between 55 and 57, the difference is not very important at all. I wouldn't reject a stone with great proportions and a table within the ideal range because of one percentage point.

Re: the cut of my current stone: I'm not sure I can answer that. I'm primarily not happy with the color of my stone and would prefer a cut more like my first stone. I felt like the arrows were crisper, among other things. In trading up my last stone, I made compromises I wish I hadn't to get the size I wanted and I'm hoping to rectify that and be done with it all. Getting a stone that I feel better about OVERALL is what I'm after -- and that does include "better" numbers, among other things.

Thanks. My stone is beautiful indeed, but not quite right for me. Not sure what, if anything, is happening, though. We'll see.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Demelza, I want to tell you that I ordered a stone with a 54 table, which I had never seen before, and I did not like it at all. It seemed too small and just didn''t make the diamond appear to have perfect proportions to me. Therefore, now I won''t look at less than 55. I''d probably prefer 57 over 54 any day. Of course, my current diamond has a very large table, so I am more used to that look than a tiny table. I imagine that I''d like 56 a lot.

When I look at this, I think we all need to be in a diamond OCD therapy group.

 

[He Scores]

As you can see, most people are injecting personal preferences as to which stone they like. If the three stones were physically viewed by experts there would be opinions varying based on similar preferences. These preferences may or may not be indicative of how well the stone is cut.

I was able to run the manufacturer data from the 2.05 through my BrayScore websight and it came out a score of 931. So far, I believe a 935 is the highest, but I haven''t checked that in a while. Also, this is not an official score because the actual data file was not uploaded.

Based on my experience of data analysis, I would say that all three stones would be within a percent or two of being cut equally. All three diamonds are suberbly cut and are at the top of the heap so to speak.

My research has indicated that experts opinions on which stone is cut better vary widely when there is a 6% deviation in score or less!

If the stone ever suffers any damage through negligent wear etc. your bride would still be able to have it fixed and keep her original stone if the weight were over the 2.00. This is not possible with the 2.00, slightly possible with the 2.05 and quite possible with the 2.32.


BrayScores are based on the Tolkowsky model as measurable data targets. The greatest deviations to this stone come from the fact that the girdle is thicker under the halves than under the bezels. This is the "painting" that helps achieve the H&A patterning.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/27/2006 1:39:41 AM
Author: Mara
it depends on the other specs as to if you''d see any sort of difference...

but part of what bugs you about this stone you have now is that you feel like it''s not cut in a ''superideal'' manner. for me 57% table is not really a superideal number. that''s just me.

but i also think that you should stick with more ''typical'' numbers, because you are susceptible to ''suggestion'' and i can pretty much tell you that in another year you''d be going ''well the 57% table bothers me''. for you a lot of this is mental. so you should be ''honest with yourself'' as you told someone else in a thread...and be sure that you do this one right, if you do it at all. don''t compromise.

Honestly, Dem.....this is really getting a bit mental.

Did you know that on the AGA Cut Grade charts, the acceptable range for tables on diamond more than .5 is 53-58%??

If you go 54-57, you''ll be FINE. Seriously.

i

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/27/2006 7:55:59 AM
Author: Carlotta
Wow, Demelza....At this point you seem to be focusing on individual numbers (when you know the combinations of #''s/angles are what count in the overall look...)
When you say that you have some issues with the cut of your current stone is that because of the way it LOOKS or because some of what some of the numbers are??
The reason I ask is because your stone LOOKS gorgeous!!!

In my opinion, it''s totally mental.

This is just my opinion, but when she was contemplating this diamond, someone disparaged the stone because it has a 40.6 pavilion angle. I think that''s still bothering her because in her mind, she wants PERFECTION. And someone has suggested that element is less than perfect.

I love ya, Dem, and I can understand it if you really are bothered by clarity or body color, but obsessing on every little digit is just a recipe for never being happy with any stone. Diamonds aren''t about individual numbers; they are about how all the numbers work together. It''s like cooking....you could take the finest chocolate, the finest cavier, the rarest mushrooms, and the best tabasco sauce available in the world, and the most succulent mangoes.......but if you mix them together, they don''t work well. It''s not about how they work individually, but how they work together.

Diamonds are more than the sum of their numbers. LOOK at the stone, and if it pleases your eye, that''s all that counts.

NO ONE on the street is going to drool over your diamond more because it has a 55 table instead of a 57 table. They won''t even know the difference.

 

[He Scores]

RE: NO ONE on the street is going to drool over your diamond more because it has a 55 table instead of a 57 table. They won''t even know the difference.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Now there is a person who knows what diamonds are all about.

If these three stones were on three different women''s fingers and they all stuck their hands together to compare stones....9 out of 10 times the 2.32 would win due to size.

Especially in America, where we want more, more, more, now, now, now!

What''s the first question most people ask when they see a new engagement ring on someone?????


"How big is it?"


Bill Bray

 

[Mara]

What''s the first question most people ask when they see a new engagement ring on someone?????


''How big is it?''

Dem would be asking, what color is it?!?!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/27/2006 7:38:36 AM
Author: Demelza

Date: 6/27/2006 3:43:08 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/27/2006 2:02:25 AM

Author: Demelza

I have too many numbers floating around in my head at this point, but it seems like a fair number of ACAs have 57% tables and I was wondering how, if at all, it would impact performance to have a much smaller table. It seems harder to find 54% tables, esp in larger stones, which I always thought I would like more because it seemed like the stone might be more firey. It seems like most of the superideals out there range between 55-57%. The ACA I talked to Brian about today almost has a 57% table -- just a few tenths of a percent off -- but perhaps the visual difference is too minute to detect??

Demelza

visual wise NO !! in you mind YES!!

if your heart is set on 54-55% table then, stick to it.

btw; i love smaller table too. smaller table usually come with a tall crown and a deeper cut.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider a tall crown and deeper cut for a superideal? Or are you talking about stones that fall outside the ideal cut parameters?

15.5-16% crown height, up to 61.7% depth. i think these are still inside the AGS ideal box.

btw; both of my wife''s rb has 56% table,15% crown height,60.8% depth and i love it.