A final word on larger tables?

[kong]

It seems the more I read on the subject the harder it gets to understand why the larger table gets a bad rap. From my understanding, there''s nothing inherently wrong with a large table. It just puts more pressure on the pavillion and crown angles to be precise. But if those angles are good (say 41/33) with a respectable depth (say, 60), are you objectively losing anything with a 61% table? I know you''re giving up a little of scintilation/fire for more brilliance and greater spread, but that''s a personal choice of give and take. And the charts and diamond calcs don''t seem to mind the larger table. So... I''m just trying to get to the bottom of why a mid fifties table seems to be spoken of as more desireable than a low 60''s table with all other factors being ideal?

Thanks

Song Konger

 

[Ellen]

60/60''s can be very pretty in their own right. Most people just want the whole shabang, meaning a nice, fairly even mix of fire, brilliance and scintillation.

In the end, it is about personal preference.

 

[chrono]

Date: 7/26/2007 11:17:15 AM
Author: Ellen
60/60''s can be very pretty in their own right. Most people just want the whole shabang, meaning a nice, fairly even mix of fire, brilliance and scintillation.

In the end, it is about personal preference.

Well said Ellen. There''s nothing ugly about a 60/60 diamond. Many were cut that way in the not too distant past. Today''s tastes have changed favouring a smaller table for its look.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks Chrono.

 

[sugarplum]

Date: 7/26/2007 11:29:34 AM
Author: Chrono

Date: 7/26/2007 11:17:15 AM
Author: Ellen
60/60''s can be very pretty in their own right. Most people just want the whole shabang, meaning a nice, fairly even mix of fire, brilliance and scintillation.

In the end, it is about personal preference.

Well said Ellen. There''s nothing ugly about a 60/60 diamond. Many were cut that way in the not too distant past. Today''s tastes have changed favouring a smaller table for its look.

Ditto Ellen and Chrono. It''s really a personal preference thing. I''ve compared mid-50% table stones with 60% table stones in person and I personally like the look and performance of the mid-50s over 60/60s.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/26/2007 11:01:21 AM
Author:kong
It seems the more I read on the subject the harder it gets to understand why the larger table gets a bad rap. From my understanding, there''s nothing inherently wrong with a large table. It just puts more pressure on the pavillion and crown angles to be precise. But if those angles are good (say 41/33) with a respectable depth (say, 60), are you objectively losing anything with a 61% table? I know you''re giving up a little of scintilation/fire for more brilliance and greater spread, but that''s a personal choice of give and take. And the charts and diamond calcs don''t seem to mind the larger table. So... I''m just trying to get to the bottom of why a mid fifties table seems to be spoken of as more desireable than a low 60''s table with all other factors being ideal?

Thanks

Song Konger

You know, I''m a huge fan of small tables (UNDER 55) but I definitely can appreciate the large tabled stone. It really does depend on what cut it is. For a round I can see the benefits either way, Just yesterday for a particular cushion I was saying I thought a larger table would be a good idea. I think the size of the stone plays a part as well. For my antique style cushion I cannot imagine a bigger table (53) because part of the look of that cut is a big crown and I love the big crown look with really visible kite facets. Big tables mean less room for crown facets

 

[somethingshiny]

Sara,

i''ve been looking at cushions and wondering what table I prefer. I usually like a longer stone. But, I don''t know what you mean by kite facets and crown facets (sorry, I''m NEW! ) Is there some pic available that would show what you''re talking about?

Thanks!

 

[kcoursolle]

Some people prefer the look of a large table and there is nothing wrong with that. A larger table can also help spread.

However, I tend to be unimpressed with stones in person with larger tables. I usually see too much glare that is distracting and a lack of fire. My radiant stone has a huge table and is bothers me all the time how much table glare there is.