Cushion Cut Depth/Table - need opinions

[love rocks]

Hi everyone - need a little help with a diamond I''m considering buying...I''m concerned about the depth/table percentages

It''s a cushion modified brilliant

1.22 ct
E Color, SI1 clarity

Depth is 65
Table is 72
No fluorescence

UNFORTUNATELY (I''m on this site a lot so I know this much!

- I also know there''s no "ideal" standards for fancy cuts, but I thought I''d give this a try) I don''t have the Crown/Pavillion % values.

My question is this: Do you think the table on this diamond is too big? Or is the diamond too shallow? I''ve seen it in person, and it looks good to me but I''m no expert, and that''s under the bright lights in the big city!

I''ve looked at this rock under the overhead lights of the store, where, of course it looks beautiful, with lots of fire, and I''ve also seen it under the basic, "everyday" fluorescent lights in the store, and it does not have too much fire, and acceptable (to me anyways) looking brilliance under these conditions.

Thanks, I really value and appreciate everyone''s opinions and input on this, I''ll see if I can get the crown/pavillion percentage values soon

Also, for my info, - what IS an acceptable crown/pavillion percentage for a diamond with these d/t proportions? TIA

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/3/2004 12:50:56 AM love rocks wrote:



I also know there's no 'ideal' standards for fancy cuts, but I thought I'd give this a try) I don't have the Crown/Pavillion % values.

----------------

What would those crown and pavilion angles be good for with no "model" (like the HCA) to throw them in? Given how much variation there is in the details of cushion cuts, it is really, really hard to say anythign reasonable about a set of numbers.

One clear cut observation could concern depth though - given that this is a square-ish stone (depth is measured against width, so thin, long stones need some excuse for large depth %), 65% is plenty deep - there is no guarantee that extra depth means extra sparkle, but it is certain that extra depth means smaller size - so this is by no means little. Relating to what ovals' depth should be (by THIS set of standards) this is on the deeper side, btw.

It would definitely help to get some measure of brilliance - other than the impression of this one stone with little direct visual comparison available, that is. This shape is not cut just for light return (as rounds are) and virtually no two cushions are the same (as ideal rounds tend to). You may want to treat your stone with a Ideal Scope view... I would think.

The very large table does not sound very encouraging, but who knows? there are many more details at play that could prove such simple rule of thumb wrong.

 

[love rocks]

But is it weird that the table size % is larger than the depth %?

What effect does that have?

TIA

 

[getmet41]

Hi there,

This is Todd, I just joined this site. I am also purchasing a cushion cut diamond for my (soon to be) fiance. I can tell you that a 72 table is NOT GOOD. Ideal on this stone is Depth...59-69 Table...53-60. Also you don't want a cushion that is greater than 1.30 L/W. Hope this helps. If you want any info about good people to see in Manhattan (I live on the Upper West Side)I can give you a couple of names.

 

[reena]

----------------
On 7/1/2004 11:31:43 AM getmet41 wrote:

Hi there,

This is Todd, I just joined this site. I am also purchasing a cushion cut diamond for my (soon to be) fiance. I can tell you that a 72 table is NOT GOOD. Ideal on this stone is Depth...59-69 Table...53-60. Also you don't want a cushion that is greater than 1.30 L/W. Hope this helps. If you want any info about good people to see in Manhattan (I live on the Upper West Side)I can give you a couple of names.
----------------

I would be interested in good people to see in Manhattan for a cushion cut, if you're still out there . . .