Help a brother out, stone selection?

[Evilsports]

Good morning and Merry Christmas.

I hope y'all are having a great holiday.

As per another thread I had posted, I've been sourcing an e-ring for my wife. She has her setting selected and I've been looking at diamonds for the last couple of weeks.

These are the search parameters (+/-) that I've been using.

http://www.pricescope.com/diamond-s...0&vln_l_ct=180&search_key=sk_session_3066&f=3

My question is with regards to a specific stone. It has a very small (as near as I can tell) table %. I've done a fair bit of searching and reading on this and have found that the general response to questions about table size seem to have a few themes:

- A smaller table can create more fire and scintillation, on the flip side it can also provide slightly less overall light return.
- A larger table can create a diamond that faces up larger, while a smaller table can sometimes show it's face a bit smaller.

I get that these are not hard and fast rules, rather potentials.

Having said that, I don't know where to draw the line as far as table size goes. I mean the diamond I'm speaking of has a 53% table. It's not as though it's a half percent or so lower than the average stone. It seems to be somewhat anomalous in this respect.

The ASET and IS pictures seem to my untrained eye to be exceptional. Am I out to lunch in thinking this?







The HCA is great @ 1.0. I ran it through the AGA grading system for a 1A rating.

Here are the measurements:

Depth % 61.9
Table % 53.2
Crown Angle 33.9
Star 51.0
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Crown % 15.7
Lower Girdle % 76.0
Measurements 7.67x7.73x4.76
Culet Pointed
Fluorescence Negligible
Girdle Thin to Medium Faceted

I suppose my question is this:

Is the 53% table size something that would steer any of you away from a stone? I'm only a few weeks into diamond shopping and I'd hate to look back at a purchase and kick myself for ignoring a potentially obvious warning sign. Is the table size indicative of any other attributes that I'm not able to recognize, with my limited knowledge?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Kevin.

 

[WinkHPD]

Personally, I love small tables. When I went through GIA in 1975 we were taught that table parameters were 53-57% for ideal cut diamonds.

Assuming that the other parameters are in balance this will generally lead to more dispersion, which I tend to (strongly) love.

Only one way to know for sure though, that is to bring it in for a look. You will know instantly when you remove it from the paper whether or not your eyes like the look.

Wink

 

[Evilsports]

Personally, I love small tables. When I went through GIA in 1975 we were taught that table parameters were 53-57% for ideal cut diamonds.

Assuming that the other parameters are in balance this will generally lead to more dispersion, which I tend to (strongly) love.

Only one way to know for sure though, that is to bring it in for a look. You will know instantly when you remove it from the paper whether or not your eyes like the look.

Wink

Thanks, Wink.

My wife is of the same mindset, in that she feels as though dispersion and scintillation would weigh more favorably to her tastes than brilliance and/or appearance of size. The 1.7cw is actually a bit more than she was hoping for so if the table size downplays the overall appearance of size, it may not be such a "bad" thing?

I'm just making sure that in my rush to educate myself with a rudimentary set of consumer parameters, I'm not missing an elephant in the back seat.

 

[tyty333]

This looks like a nice stone. 53 table would not bother me.

 

[Evilsports]

This looks like a nice stone. 53 table would not bother me.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Gypsy]

Love small tables here too. Would not give me pause.

 

[Evilsports]

Love small tables here too. Would not give me pause.

Thank you.

 

[ariel144]

looks great ...love the smaller tables which usually produce an higher crown..but your crown is 15.7..which is slightly high for a MRB..I've seen many that are 15% crown height. Old cuts have smaller tables which produce some very high crowns 17-21% which are loved as well.

Would not have any concern with a 53% table on your MRB.

Hope it's the one...looks lovely.

 

[Evilsports]

looks great ...love the smaller tables which usually produce an higher crown..but your crown is 15.7..which is slightly high for a MRB..I've seen many that are 15% crown height. Old cuts have smaller tables which produce some very high crowns 17-21% which are loved as well.

Would not have any concern with a 53% table on your MRB.

Hope it's the one...looks lovely.

I hope so too, I sent the payment this morning!

It'll be a long five week wait to find out for sure.

 

[04diamond<3]

It looks like perfection!!!!! Can't wait for you to get it! Please post pics ASAP!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Very happy to hear that you got the stone! The diamond in my avatar picture has a table of 45 (antique style cut) and it is plenty bright! So no worries on the 53...you'll just see more of the beautiful crown facets!

5 weeks...to have ring made or for anniversary or something else?

 

[Evilsports]

Five weeks for the ring to be made. She settled on a Verragio setting and apparently they're making it to her finger and stone.






It's been pretty interesting, from my perspective, sitting back and watching her choice in settings evolve. She began with a baguette side stone, moved to a tapered shank pave, and ended up with the cathedral setting. She's settled on this one for sure now. She was actually able to try it on at a local jeweler, so she knows it's "the one".

 

[Alias]

Granted I am still deciding on what I should get my GF...wanted to chime in here and say that looks pretty nice!!

 

[Daisyoz]

Five weeks for the ring to be made. She settled on a Verragio setting and apparently they're making it to her finger and stone.

Might take shorter. My FI thought it was going to take 4 wks for my Vatche ring to be made but it took barely 2 weeks. Cant wait to see the photos Becca will take for your ring and your wife's handshot . That setting looks beautiful!

 

[Evilsports]

Five weeks for the ring to be made. She settled on a Verragio setting and apparently they're making it to her finger and stone.






It's been pretty interesting, from my perspective, sitting back and watching her choice in settings evolve. She began with a baguette side stone, moved to a tapered shank pave, and ended up with the cathedral setting. She's settled on this one for sure now. She was actually able to try it on at a local jeweler, so she knows it's "the one".

What's your take on possibly seeing if this setting can be slightly changed to have claw prongs?

Would that look silly?

Also, with WF sending the stone to Verragio, is that something that could be done?

Thanks,
Kevin.

 

[Evilsports]

Ten more days until WF gets the ring from Verragio. My wife is getting excited...

 

[AprilBaby]

It looks like a beauty! Can't wait to see it!!!!

 

[LLJsmom]

IMHO, I think claws would beautiful.

 

[Evilsports]

I just received an email from WF, they ave the finished ring in their possession now and will be forwarding me pictures later today. The wait is almost over, I haven't told my wife the good news yet (the ring is complete. I'll surprise her with pictures later tonight...

 

[tyty333]

When do we ger to see pictures???

 

[Evilsports]

Right Now.

I just got the pictures emailed to me from WF. Ships out today, at our place by Wednesday, barring any shipping delays.