okay - does ANYONE have a cushion with larger table than depth?? pics please!!

[smiley12345]

i recently wrote a about a stone i looked at that was 65% table and 62% depth (2.23 carats, beautiful in person) - seems the concensus on here is smaller table then depth is "ideal", but then i also read that as long as table and depth were within 10% of each other it was okay?? i''ve also read larger table means lower crown height - is this the case even in larger carat stones?

Surely people on here have purchased a cushion with larger table the depth - can you post pics please? would love to see, thanks!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/19/2009 9:39:04 AM
Author:smiley12345
i recently wrote a about a stone i looked at that was 65% table and 62% depth (2.23 carats, beautiful in person) - seems the concensus on here is smaller table then depth is 'ideal', but then i also read that as long as table and depth were within 10% of each other it was okay?? i've also read larger table means lower crown height - is this the case even in larger carat stones?

Surely people on here have purchased a cushion with larger table the depth - can you post pics please? would love to see, thanks!!

Hi smiley,

As explained earlier usually a table which is smaller than the depth is preferred but it needn't be a deal breaker if you like the stone. A larger table can sometimes mean a shallower crown height yes, also this can apply to larger diamonds as the proportions and angles stay the same even if the actual diamond is larger.

You could order anASET scope as you have seen the stone in person and use it, these scopes are simple to use and the results straightforward to interpret ( see here), that would give you a better idea of the stone's cut quality, but the main thing is if you love it and have looked at others to be sure of what you want.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Smiley,
I do not buy cushions "by the numbers"- nor would I use an ASET to judge a stone- although many here do.

After looking at many thousands of cushions, what I''ve found is the there are no "patterns" where one could relate desirability to ratios.

For example- the stone in the photo has a depth of 57.3%, and a table of 70%.
Both these numbers won;t score well on "cut charts"- thankfully the diamond can''t read the charts to get it''s feeling hurt...heheh

This is a fancy colored diamond, but it''s still good to use as an example of how gorgeous a diamond can be, while having numbers outside what the charts call for as "Ideal"

 

[Karl_K]

65% table is a reasonably sane table and it is entirely possible to have complimentary angles at 62% depth.

I don''t care for the depth larger than table rule, while it rules out some diamonds with huge tables that are likely not that great(some exceptions) it also weeds out some shallower diamonds that can be extremely excellent diamonds.