is this a problem??

I suppose it depends on what you mean be a large table.

Many people prefer the look of a larger table (say close to 60%) over a more classically ideal table (somewhere around 55%). Some think a larger table makes the stone look larger (better "spread").

In a cut geek sense, the crown and pavillion angles are the keys to light being reflected out of the diamond and back to the viewer. It's what makes a diamond lively. Simple trigonometry dictates that the size of the table combined with the total depth yields a certain range of crown and pavillion angles. Generally speaking, really large tables mean that the cutter sacrificed better proportions (i.e. maximum light return) for better yield (more weight means more $$). Cutters are constantly trying to get the most lively stones while yielding the most carat weight. Each piece of rough is different, so the cutters must balance what the market is willing to pay against what the rough is willing to yield. It seems like larger stones (>3ct) often have tables in the 62% range. I presume that this is because of the high $$ per carat large stones bring and keeping the weight on is paramount.

Tables larger than "ideal" can still have great crown and pavillion angles, so don't necessarily pass up a stone just because the table is >57%. The converse is also true - just because the table is small doesn't mean that the angles are optimal (though the chances are better).

How's that?

R/A

It could be the difference between a diamond and a dog