Advice sought

[beaumoni]

I would greatly appreciate some help. I have been looking at (rather than surfing for) loose diamonds in the 1.75ct range and have found a nice one but it has a 65% table. Having read all the boards on sites like this this is not "ideal" but the stone looks great (studied through a loupe) when compared to many other diamonds of more "ideal" cut. I am an amateur but have looked at a number of comparable stones with smaller tables so feel I have a reasonable feel for what I should be looking for. All the other "C's" about this stone stack up - would apprecaite some feedback. Can this sort of cut look as good as I perceive??
thanks
Ian

Details are:
Size: 1.74
Shape: round
Color: E
Clarity: VVS2
Fluorescence: none
Culet: None
Table %: 65
Depth %: 56.2
Girdle: thin to medium
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Measurements:
First #: 8.02
Second #: 8.11
Third #: 4.53
Certificate: GIA

 

[pricescope]

Hi Beaumoni,

Yes, you are right - according to today's American standards, 65% table is far from ideal. On the other hand, Europeans prefer bigger tables.

Garry Holloway (Cut Nut), believes that table size is not as important as crown and pavilion angles. So if we would know crown and pavilion angles for this stone it'd be easier to tell something more specific.

scores when crown and pavilion angles are unknown.

It appears that despite of the large table this stone can score from 2 to 3 HCA, which is very good. The reason is that the stone is not deep and will not leak too much light.

if the pavilion is too shallow. It can show fish-eye also if diamond tilted just a few degrees from the face-up position. So you better watch out for it. Fish-eye might look as an inclusion visible with the naked eye, which would be a shame in VVS2 diamond.

Otherwise, theoretically this diamond has very good chances to be "almost" ideal It is remarkable that you were able to select it from all the others.
[/u][/u]

 

[lawmax]

How round does that diamond look?

 

[pricescope]

Hi Lawmax

I also had this question. However, it is within +/- 1% of diameter - which is pretty standard.