Is 52.6% Table too small?

[astutepastures]

I'm looking at a stone with the following stats

Table 52.6%
Depth 62.2%
Crown Angle 34.6%
Pavilion Angle 40.7%

Star Facets 56
Lower Girdles 78

I was reading that 54-57% is the range for Table so is this diamond have too small of a table?

 

[skypie]

many here prefer tiny tables!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Did GIA classify it as a "Round Brilliant"?

 

[foxinsox]

Is it a modern round brilliant or an older one? I have an old european cut with a 50% table and it’s lovely so this doesn’t sound too small to me. But I know that MRBs are different. Do you have pictures at all?

 

[flyingpig]

In my book, 52.6 TB combined with 78 LG and 40.7 PA is too small for a MRB

 

[Dancing Fire]

Did GIA classify it as a "Round Brilliant"?

I wonder too. I have never heard of a MRB with a 52.6% table.

 

[yssie]

Did GIA classify it as a "Round Brilliant"?

Doesn’t look like numbers from a GIA report - which begs exactly your question: where are those numbers coming from and what shape/make is the stone?

 

[yssie]

I have to add... @astutepastures your handle made me laugh. I can honestly say I’ve never seen those two words in such proximity before.

 

[Karl_K]

To me there is no such thing, I once saw a RB with a 20% table and it rocked.
Those numbers work for a mrb.
Would need more data for the rest of the story.

Also if I recall right ags0 goes down to around 47%....

Im assuming the % signs for crown and pavilion are not really supposed to be there or else it makes no sense :}

Edit: correction AGS0 goes down to 47% table

 

[John P]

Edit: correction AGS0 goes down to 47% table

True, but you need a unicorn, and smaller weights stand a better chance in such an irregular configuration.

 

[Karl_K]

True, but you need a unicorn, and smaller weights stand a better chance in such an irregular configuration.

Actually in my opinion they would play better is large to very large sizes.
It reduces the aircraft carrier deck table look and brings more smaller facets into play.

 

[John P]

You may have misunderstood my post. I feel the same way as you do - in real-world potential - as long as we are talking about fine make.

But you cited AGS 0. The technical AGS guides which are based on fundamental brightness, leakage & contrast don’t play out that way. Extremes like this reveal the limitations of banal metrics IMO.

 

[blueMA]

The table size is out of the Hearts and Arrows specs, but the diamond in question still fits within the AGS ideals proportion.

http://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx
https://agslab.com/docs/pbcg/AGSLProportionCharts.pdf

 

[OoohShiny]

The table size is out of the Hearts and Arrows specs, but the diamond in question still fits within the AGS ideals proportion.

http://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx
https://agslab.com/docs/pbcg/AGSLProportionCharts.pdf

Thank you for that AGS table link! I can never remember where to find it lol