Is a 59.5% table bad for a cushion?

[azbuyer]

everyone says look for 60+ but just wondering if there is wiggle room.

i know light performance matters above all else but there must be something to that 60% number and having the table within 10% of depth. (table in stone I am looking for is a 58%)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/26/2008 3:23:06 PM
Author:azbuyer
everyone says look for 60+ but just wondering if there is wiggle room.

i know light performance matters above all else but there must be something to that 60% number and having the table within 10% of depth. (table in stone I am looking for is a 58%)

That size is not necessarily too small, performance depends on all the other factors, so there is certainly wiggle room. Ask for detailed photos of the diamond, and an ASET image if you can get it is very useful. Above all use your eyes, as fancy shapes need to be seen to be properly judged and expert vendor input is also a huge help.

Here is ASET info for you - https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-we-prefer-aset-to-ideal-scope-with-fancy-shapes.73949/

 

[kcoursolle]

Are you talking about depth? I prefer tables in cushions that are 55-60, but depths 60+. I also small tables for their crown height and fire.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/26/2008 3:23:06 PM
Author:azbuyer
everyone says look for 60+ but just wondering if there is wiggle room.

i know light performance matters above all else but there must be something to that 60% number and having the table within 10% of depth. (table in stone I am looking for is a 58%)

Who..., is everyone?

I actually prefer tables much smaller than 55% for Cushions..., but the rest of the proportions must work to compliment the "small" table and appearance!

 

[pauly1]

Yeah, who's everyone ? 54% here !

 

[azbuyer]

sorry - i meant 59.5% depth!!! too shallow???

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You have to judge a cushion by looking at it!

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 6/26/2008 8:18:24 PM
Author: azbuyer
sorry - i meant 59.5% depth!!! too shallow???

Borderline, do you have any images? As diamondseeker mentioned you really need to look at cushions rather than looking at numbers alone.

 

[azbuyer]

i did look. the center of the stone didnt have as much "fire" as the some of the deeper ones i saw in the 64-66% depth range. although the shallower one looked much bigger face up. its still a nice stone but for some reason i didnt see as much sparkle as in the other ones and i know my girlfriend values sparkle above all else.

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 6/26/2008 8:49:23 PM
Author: azbuyer
i did look. the center of the stone didnt have as much ''fire'' as the some of the deeper ones i saw in the 64-66% depth range. although the shallower one looked much bigger face up. its still a nice stone but for some reason i didnt see as much sparkle as in the other ones and i know my girlfriend values sparkle above all else.

From your description I would keep looking.