What effect does table % have on emerald cut diamonds?

[amytude]

I know what the table is, but would a larger table percentage result in a diamond that looks larger? I really like this diamond (saw it in person) it is an awesome SI1--I gave another jeweler these specs and she said the lower price was b/c of the table percentage. When asked the same question I asked above, she stammered and couldn''t answer the question. Here''s the specs on this (already posted a ? abt. the price):

1.52CT
F
SI1
7.81 X 5.58 X 3.75
depth: 67.2%
table: 73%
polish VG
symmetry G
thin-med girdle, faceted
GIA certed

Asking price is $8790 plus tax. TIA for any advice or help you could give me. It''s hard to find good info on this particular shape!

 

[moosewendy]

A 73 table is quite large for an emerald cut, and is usually associated with a flat crown, which kills emerald cut life. You may get the optical illusion of greater size, but you pay for it with lack of brilliance. The price looks ok for what it is, but remember, you tend to get what you pay for. A well cut stone will probably cost you more.

 

[valeria101]

Heard this lots of time... that big tabke => big stone, but I don''t think this is very candide. The huge table is the more visible part of the deal, but it is the flat crown that goes with it that "saves" material. If the stone is cut deep and/or has a thick girdle the flat face does nothing to make it look bigger - it just kills brilliance more often than not.

The stones are not the largest or anything (less deep cut ones are at least as large), but give the best yield - they are cheaper to produce that is. If the crown would be higher and the pavilion not that deep, the size for weight would not change and the stones would be more brilliant - however, that type of cut wastes material so... why not make the less attractive flat stone if they sell by weight and customers don''t know cut quality anyway ?

Besides, a high crown makes the ring feel substantantial on the hand, IMO. Flat faced diamonds dissapear from sight from the sides, and no one pins rings face up on a wall. Once on hand, there''s more to a diamond than surface. (trying to show below).

If a larger table looks appealing to you regardless, that''s ok, of course. Considering size to be the surface of the stone the notes above do apply. Perhaps better brilliance contributes to some optical illusion of larger size (at least, Garry says this about his idea round brilliants). If big tables do the same, well, it doesn''t work on me so I can''t tell.

Just my 0.2 as usual...

 

[valeria101]

... and the picture that refused to upload previously

A diamond with crown height about 7% would look like the left image on the schetch unless suspended on the prongs for an excuse.

 

[amytude]

Thank you! I am going to look at another stone tomorrow (provided it stops snowing here in OH), but table is still large (71%) depth (66.10%). It is also 1.52 F color, SI1 clarity. This one''s measurements are 8.09 X 5.55 X 3.67.

I appreciate learning about the flat crown with the larger table. I cannot imagine being a gemologist! What attention to detail you must have to possess--then again, maybe you might not like working with children so much, either...

 

[kevinraja]

Having done enough research on Emerald stones, and bought a 1.71 carat SI1 stone, this is what I think.

1. Large tables KILL the life out of Emerald cut stones, there won''t any fire at all, IMO. Ana am I right here?

2. It is recommended to go VS or higher for EC stones. There are exceptions however. My SI1 had almost all of its inclusions off the table, which is very important when shopping for a SI step cut stones.

3. I feel the price is little high for a 1.5 range EC stone with SI1 clarity with LARGE table.

Check out this link. Click on "DIY cut advisor" and choose "Emerald". The table that you see are the only theoretical indicators available for a EC stone.

My advise: Look for a depth% between 59-67% and a table% between 59-68%, if you are on a tight budget.
If money is not a problem, and light return is important, look for depth% 59-65% and table% between 59%-65%

Good luck.

 

[amytude]

Thanks, kevinraja--money is a concern. I''m thinking $10K for the stone alone is the MAX we can afford to spend. If you''d have asked me that 10 years ago when I got my 1st ring, I would have gasped, "$10,000!" Thanks also for that link--it''s not one I have come across and it is helpful.

I''m having a hard time finding a good emerald cut stone with a nice length to width ratio. With the popularity of princess cuts, more and more emerald stones seem to have more square dimensions. That''s NOT what I want. I''m finding it difficult to even find 1.5:1 ratios--again these are just numbers, but I don''t want to look at a square stone (just my personal taste). Thanks again everyone--I really do appreciate all your advice & recs.

Amy

 

[kevinraja]

I had a hard time myself finding good quality EC stones. Do a search on pricescope for the specs that you are looking for, you should be able to find some stones.

As far as length to width ratios, intially I wanted a 1.3-1.4 range, then I wanted a 1.5:1 ratio stone. When I went to local jewellers and looked at a few Emerald stones in person, 1.35-1.4 stones looks more rectangular that you might imagine. 1.6+ ratio stones look more rectangular and more like a baguette. Take a look at a few stones at a local jeweller, you might figure out yourself.

If you search for "kevinraja" on this website, you should be able to find a lot a threads on Emerald cut stone characteristics. I did a quite a bit of research before I settled on one.

 

[windowshopper]

1.51 F VS2 67.3% 59% GIA stk no vg ex no 7.50-5.59-3.76 $6293 $9502 union diamond

might be worth further inquiry........................

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/22/2005 7:19:28 PM
Author: kevinraja

1. Large tables KILL the life out of Emerald cut stones, there won''t any fire at all, IMO. Ana am I right here?

I simply do not know what can be said about optics with table & depth alone at hand. Perhaps a stone with large table would not be as fiery, but brilliance can still be very good so I can''t say that''s dead glass. A crazy cut with a RBC pavilion and no crown can be coaxed to have lots of fire... so, I simply don''t know if generalization is that safe. It would be great f the size of the table guaranteed a certain crown angle and height - but it does not, only the extreme values make a safer bet (say, it can''t be a high crown with 80% table or a flat one with 50% - but it''s everything inbetween that counts and can''t be safely guesses - I think)

I wish I knew these things... guessing like I do is fun to chat, but not a true safe bet. Wish there were more pictures and fewer numbers to talk about

The diamond located by Windowshopper probably is a fiery stone with the small table. If it turns out brilliant as well, it''s a winner as much as I can guess.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/23/2005 2

3:46 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/22/2005 7:19:28 PM
Author: kevinraja

1. Large tables KILL the life out of Emerald cut stones, there won''t any fire at all, IMO. Ana am I right here?

I simply do not know what can be said about optics with table & depth alone at hand. Perhaps a stone with large table would not be as fiery, but brilliance can still be very good so I can''t say that''s dead glass. A crazy cut with a RBC pavilion and no crown can be coaxed to have lots of fire... so, I simply don''t know if generalization is that safe. It would be great f the size of the table guaranteed a certain crown angle and height - but it does not, only the extreme values make a safer bet (say, it can''t be a high crown with 80% table or a flat one with 50% - but it''s everything inbetween that counts and can''t be safely guesses - I think)

I wish I knew these things... guessing like I do is fun to chat, but not a true safe bet. Wish there were more pictures and fewer numbers to talk about

The diamond located by Windowshopper probably is a fiery stone with the small table. If it turns out brilliant as well, it''s a winner as much as I can guess.

still dont have crown etc but the depth to table is more promising plus the finish details of polish and symmetry are nice as well...

 

[kevinraja]

The diamond located by Windowshopper probably is a fiery stone with the small table. If it turns out brilliant as well, it''s a winner as much as I can guess.

Small table doesn''t necessarily translate into a fiery diamond. For example, you can have a table% of 59 and a crown height % of 8 which will make the crown angles shallow, resulting in a less fiery stone. But for the same table% of 59, if the crown height % is 15%, then the stone will be fiery, just like the one WS has.

One needs table%+crown% to really interpret what the table% really mean?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2005 8:50:40 AM
Author: kevinraja

For example, you can have a table% of 59 and a crown height % of 8 which will make the crown angles shallow,

Yeah... but that means crown angle about 20 degrees and relatively large crown facets (with all that space down to the small table) - which is very unlikely to happen. Possible I guess, but never seen anything like that and if the improbable happens, there's always the return policy. The larger the table, the less shallow those angles get for a smaller crown height - so the small crown height gets more likely. At least, this was the reasoning behind considering extreme table % more "relaible"...

The idea is not mine. HRD appears to follow this reasoning for their cut grading (link). For step cuts all that becomes even more probabilistic (hence no attepts to make official cut grades) since the angles and size of the step facets allow more variation than brilliant style faceting does.

Hope one of the cutters could comment. But... regardless, guessing diamond looks by table & depth doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

 

[kevinraja]

The EC that I bought recently has a table% of 61, which should make you think that there is high probability that my stone should be fiery. But unfortunately, the crown% is only 11. Even though 11 is a good number, I would have preferred it to be 13-15. But when you look for well proportioned stones, you are sure to loose out on something.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2005 9:27:52 AM
Author: kevinraja
The EC that I bought recently has a table% of 61, which should make you think that there is high probability that my stone should be fiery.

So... how does it look ? that 11% is pretty high, but then... everything matters.

 

[kevinraja]

My stone has a okay fire, even though I wished it had more fire. Maybe I am happy with my fire, because when I bought my diamond, there was this other J color med Flour stone with a larger crown height, which looked more fiery to me. I don''t know whether the reason is that is has larger crown height or the med flour that made it look more crisp.

 

[amytude]

Here''s one from Union. Price is around $8100 or so. Any thoughts?

Shape > Emerald

Carat > 1.62

Color > G

Clarity > SI1

Measurements > 8.37-5.51-3.65 mm

Depth Percentage > 66.20 %

Table Percentage > 62 %

Girdle > M-TK

Culet > N

Polish > Very Good

Symmetry > Good

Fluorescence > None

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2005 10:37:38 AM
Author: amytude
Here''s one from Union. Price is around $8100 or so. Any thoughts?

Can they inspect the clarity of this one ? If SI1 step cut turns out eye clean that''s quite lucky - not impossible, but not common either. Otherwise, sounds good to me ! Size doesn''t hurt either

 

[kevinraja]

Amy,
I like the stone numbers. And I agree with Ana with regard to the SI1 clarity. See whether you can inspect the stone by yourself, or through an appraiser. Make sure that there is no significat inclusions right underneath the table, which is what you want to look for an eye-clean SI1 emerald. The price looks great as well, but only provided that SI1 is eye-clean or anywhere close to it.

 

[windowshopper]

ditto--looks very nice but si in a step cut stone can be trouble --important to find out the location and type of inclusions...

 

[amytude]

Hi--already emailed them regarding this issue (waiting to hear back). This is the very reaon I''m so hesitant to buy over the internet. How is it that e vendors can show you the stone? Can they magnify it and take a pic and send it to you? Seriously, I am sooooo hesitant to buy online. I''ve seen around 4 SI1''s in person--2 were fine with me and 2 were not. Thank you for all your continued help.

Amy

 

[windowshopper]

if you buy from a pricescope vendor--specifically Dirt Cheap DIamonds, Whiteflash, Union etc--they have solid reputations and reasonable return policies. They can email you the cert which will plot the inclusions so thats a good guide, and they can photograph the stone (or have someone do it) and email you the pictures.............

i bought a 3 carat plus EC stone from DCD and I am very pleased.........they got me the sarin information as well before so I had all information and had it sent to an appraiser before I paid to have it checked out....................

 

[kevinraja]

I fully agree with WS. Don''t worry about buying online with Prisescope vendors. Most of them have 7-10 day (or even more) return policy. Since most of the stones listed are not with the vendors, they will have to ship the stone from the whole sale dealer, which will cost them 25-50 bucks. If you decide to buy the stone ultimately, the vendor will take care of all the shipping charges incurred. If you decide not to buy the stone, all you have to pay them is the shipping charges, which is a fair game.

Yes, most vendors can take pictures of the stones, and measure all the details about the stone. You can even call them and have a detailed conversation about the stone.