Advice on Table Size and Total Depth

[nycm3656]

In your professional opinion, if all things are pretty much equal, which dimensions would "perform" better, by that I mean, allow for the most light, brilliance, sparkle. Does one look more desirable than the other?:

cushion
2.00 carat
8.15 x 7.04 x 4.61
table size: 70%
total depth: 65.5%

cushion
2.13
7.34 x 8.78 x 4.87
table size: 58.8%
total depth: 66.3%

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/2/2009 10:51:49 AM
Author:nycm3656
In your professional opinion, if all things are pretty much equal, which dimensions would ''perform'' better, by that I mean, allow for the most light, brilliance, sparkle. Does one look more desirable than the other?:

cushion
2.00 carat
8.15 x 7.04 x 4.61
table size: 70%
total depth: 65.5%

cushion
2.13
7.34 x 8.78 x 4.87
table size: 58.8%
total depth: 66.3%

No way to tell nycm without images, depth and table will only tell you what those values are, there are other factors which are critical to the beauty and performance of the diamond that we don''t have. Have you seen the diamonds in person?

 

[Laila619]

From what I've read regarding ideal fancies, generally the table size should be smaller than the depth.

 

[FB.]

I'm not a professional, so I can't give a professional opinion

Generally speaking, stones are better with the table % less than the depth %.

Large tables tend to make the stone look like a block of glass, often without much "life" and sparkle. I would stay below 59% table. A larger table also makes inclusions and body colour more visible.

Cushions often look good (to me) when depth is in the mid-high 60's % and table in the mid 50's %.

But the depth and table are only part of the proportions and even stones which seem good according to the numbers can sometimes be not-so-impressive in real life - and the stones with not-so-impressive numbers can sometimes pleasantly surprise.

Therefore, I would probably not consider number 1 because the table is too large and the table is larger than the depth.

Number 2 looks more promising.

But unless you can see the stone in person, there is no absolute guarantee.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/2/2009 12:16:27 PM
Author: Laila619
From what I''ve read regarding ideal fancies, generally the table size should be smaller than the depth.

Its not an absolute rule, just a guideline.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/2/2009 12:48:11 PM
Author: FB.
I''m not a professional, so I can''t give a professional opinion

Generally speaking, stones are better with the table % less than the depth %.

Large tables tend to make the stone look like a block of glass, often without much ''life'' and sparkle. I would stay below 59% table. A larger table also makes inclusions and body colour more visible.

Cushions often look good (to me) when depth is in the mid-high 60''s % and table in the mid 50''s %.

But the depth and table are only part of the proportions and even stones which seem good according to the numbers can sometimes be not-so-impressive in real life - and the stones with not-so-impressive numbers can sometimes pleasantly surprise.

Therefore, I would probably not consider number 1 because the table is too large and the table is larger than the depth.

Number 2 looks more promising.

But unless you can see the stone in person, there is no absolute guarantee.

Its only a good rule for Antique 8 main Cushions or Old Mine Cushions(the chunky faceted ones) ONLY.
Modern cushion brilliants can and do have larger tables (example the 4 main cushion brilliant) and this is by design.

I think you can judge a lot by the numbers with sarin data by looking at crown height and pavillion angles and many other numbers but you must consider the facet design as well so without a photograph you really can''t apply such general rules.

 

[oldminer]

Of the many shapes which I have quantified with the AGA Cut Class tools, I never attempted to publish anything on cushion shapes. In my opinion, the cushion is the most difficult, most variably cut and finally the most difficult to pin down with assurance by "the numbers". The other shapes can pretty well be "screened" by parameters, but I found that cushions proved that numbers are fall from infalliable. They just don''t work well with cushions.

I have seen few cushions cut to even good specs or better than fair to good appearance. GOG has some of the best exceptions to my lack of experience with finely crafted cushion shapes. No doubt, there are several modern variations besdies GOG of cushion cut which do hold up very well compared to even round diamond performance.

The trade tends to cut lumpy cushions saving lots of carat weight with the loss of most other high end features. You have to search diligently for really sparkly and brilliant ones as many are just "fair" at visible or measurable performance.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/2/2009 3:40:27 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 11/2/2009 12:48:11 PM
Author: FB.
I''m not a professional, so I can''t give a professional opinion

Generally speaking, stones are better with the table % less than the depth %.

Large tables tend to make the stone look like a block of glass, often without much ''life'' and sparkle. I would stay below 59% table. A larger table also makes inclusions and body colour more visible.

Cushions often look good (to me) when depth is in the mid-high 60''s % and table in the mid 50''s %.

But the depth and table are only part of the proportions and even stones which seem good according to the numbers can sometimes be not-so-impressive in real life - and the stones with not-so-impressive numbers can sometimes pleasantly surprise.

Therefore, I would probably not consider number 1 because the table is too large and the table is larger than the depth.

Number 2 looks more promising.

But unless you can see the stone in person, there is no absolute guarantee.

Its only a good rule for Antique 8 main Cushions or Old Mine Cushions(the chunky faceted ones) ONLY.
Modern cushion brilliants can and do have larger tables (example the 4 main cushion brilliant) and this is by design.

I think you can judge a lot by the numbers with sarin data by looking at crown height and pavillion angles and many other numbers but you must consider the facet design as well so without a photograph you really can''t apply such general rules.

Judging by your name, you like cushions.
May I ask their table and depth proportions?