Opinion on Diamond - table size?

[Meeko]

Hello,

The boyfriend and I are looking at this particular diamond and would appreciate any opinions on it. I am a bit unsure as I did some research and they said the ideal table size should fall between 53-57%? The diamond I am looking at has 59%. Thanks.

Measurements: 7.49 - 7.52 x 4.55 mm
Carat Weight: 1.56 carat
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS2
Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:
Depth: 60.6%
Table: 59%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Crown Height: 14.5%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%

Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: None

Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

 

[stone-cold11]

Numbers could work together. Can you ask for an idealscope image?

Table size is a matter or preference as long as the the angles work well together, some just prefer smaller table while others prefer larger table. 59% is, historically, not a large table.

 

[cheyne]

Hi there, if you look at the dimensions of all the Hearts and Arrows diamonds around - Whiteflash, H&A, Good Old Gold, James Allen, etc. you can see once you look at a wide range of them that the table size always falls between 55 and 58. It is never smaller than 55 and it is never larger than 58. But it is often 58 which means that 57 is not the highest you can go and 58 can still produce the best-cut, sparkliest diamond in the world. I have never seen it higher than 58 and if I were you I would bide my time until I found one 55-58. Also, if you look at all the hearts and arrows diamonds the depth is even stricter - never below 60 and never greater than 62.4. For me I really wanted diamond that would sparkle softly all by itself and I didn't want to risk one that looked like a piece of glass. So for me I would just hold out and keep your eyes open for one with a smaller table.

 

[yssie]

Hi there, if you look at the dimensions of all the Hearts and Arrows diamonds around - Whiteflash, H&A, Good Old Gold, James Allen, etc. you can see once you look at a wide range of them that the table size always falls between 55 and 58. It is never smaller than 55 and it is never larger than 58. But it is often 58 which means that 57 is not the highest you can go and 58 can still produce the best-cut, sparkliest diamond in the world. I have never seen it higher than 58 and if I were you I would bide my time until I found one 55-58. Also, if you look at all the hearts and arrows diamonds the depth is even stricter - never below 60 and never greater than 62.4. For me I really wanted diamond that would sparkle softly all by itself and I didn't want to risk one that looked like a piece of glass. So for me I would just hold out and keep your eyes open for one with a smaller table.

I have seen both higher and lower. Table size and depth percent in and of themselves are of little consequence until you get to extremes, and then it is because the other proportions won't "work" together. AGS will assign the coveted 0 grade to a diamond w/ a >60 table given that (like any other stone they evaluate) it has the other required characteristics.

Meeko - as SC said numbers can work but numbers don't tell the full story, can you get photos/images or look at it in-person, or have a trusted professional eye it for you?

 

[Lorelei]

H Meeko and welcome!

As the others have said, various table sizes can work well as long as the rest of the proportions work effectively together, my concern with this diamond is the angle configuration, the 35/41 angle combo can sometimes show light leakage which you don't want, the length of the lower girdles might help but an image is really essential so we can get a better idea. See if you can get an Idealscope image, this will show if light leakage is a problem or not, or how extensive if it is an issue.

 

[Meeko]

Thank you for all your replies. I don't have an image of the diamond as I am not buying it from online. I have only seen the GIA report and have an appointment with the jeweler to see the diamond tomorrow. How can I tell beside the idealscope image that the diamond is leaking light?

 

[stone-cold11]

Place a red cloth beneath the pavilion of the stone. If you can see red through the stone, it is leaky.

 

[Lorelei]

Thank you for all your replies. I don't have an image of the diamond as I am not buying it from online. I have only seen the GIA report and have an appointment with the jeweler to see the diamond tomorrow. How can I tell beside the idealscope image that the diamond is leaking light?

Also study the top of the stone carefully in various different lighting if possible, if the diamond is leaking light you might notice a dark ring around the table and or dark areas on the surface of the stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Meeko,
The "cheat sheet" of table size is nothing more than someone's opinion- personally, I prefer a round diamond with a 60% table- and many people share this preference.
53-57% tables can also look very nice- but table size, in and of itself does not make a really well cut diamond.
The slighly larger tables in GIA EX cut grades- such as the stone you are looking at can be amazing- the sparkle is slightly different- and in many cases a stone with these larger tables can look larger than one with a smaller table.
All diamonds "leak" some light- however if you're looking at a diamond that GIA graded EX cut grade, there is absolutely nothing to worry about regarding light leakage.
I beileve all advice that has been given here with the best intentions- but there is absolutely no reason to believe that diamond you are looking at will be anything other than amazing.
I would trust the GIA EX cut grade and not try to "micro-mange" the technical aspects.

By all means look at as many stones you can, in different lighting environments- and let your eyes guide you

 

[nicolita]

I also have a question related to this topic. As I've been lurking the forums for a while here I've read about table size and depth and how diamonds cut too deep will look smaller than others that are the same carat weight and cut properly. Since we're going to the jeweler today (!!!) I am curious if there is a way for me to make sure that I am getting a great diamond. I've heard that one ought to get the best cut available. Should that take care of the table/depth issue? I also want it to look as big as it can while also being a proper cut and not fragile.

We're in the market for a RB. It won't be too large. Probably anywhere from .45-.75 depending on the deal my jeweler cuts us--he's practically family.

Are there certain table and depth percentages I should use as guidelines? I know a few have been talked about in this very thread. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[oldminer]

The guidelines are right here on Pricescope:

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-grading-chart-round

They are not set in stone and everything is dependent on every other thing. There are many great combinations and occasionally there is an oddball stone which seems to fit the parameters, but is not in the most attractive in spite of what seems to pass as being parametrically well cut. However, I think there is a general agreement that these ranges can give consumers a screening tool by which one can eliminate the many less well cut diamonds and make it somewhat less tedious to find the better cut ones hidden like needles in a haystack.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sorry David, but that chart is wrong- plain and simple.
The chart downgrades proportion sets GIA and AGS classify as EX cut grade, and 0 ( for AGS top cut grade) A 60/60 graded EX cut grade, for example, is not considered an "oddball" stone by any knowledgeable appraiser, or gemologist.
I don't know when it was posted, but that chart really does need to go, as it's misleading.

Here's how it can easily play out- and why I feel it's very important to set the record straight: A consumer may be shopping at a store that really does sell fine goods- and is committed to providing the best cut stones. Many such sellers would not agree with (for example) the 53-58% table as being the best.
A consumer consulting this chart could easily get the mistaken impression that such a seller was trying to pass off less than the best- when that could easily not be the case
I agree that many sellers are not committed to fine stones, and use deceptive methods, such as promoting sub standard lab reports- so vigilance is well advised- but keeping one's eye on the correct ball is vital.
Stick with a stone graded EX cut grade, or AGS0 cut grade, and consumers are assured of getting an extremely well cut diamond.
Look at as many different ones as possible to see which table/depth /PA/CA combo is preferred, if one wants to and can see the fine differences.

 

[oldminer]

What is wrong with the chart is that it was not made for commercial purposes, but made to define the top end of diamonds rather than use a broad brush to call nearly every nicely cut diamond a "best" cut. Even the GIA published this chart and compared brightness, light return, based on it and found it to be just about at the perfect midpoint of GIA and AGS top cut grades. However, the 1A grade is non-commercial and therefore very narrow. Many really superb looking diamonds exist down to the 2B cut, but each one which is not in the 1A category has a justifiable reason for not being there although it may look identical or better to some people than one graded higher.

I did not try to create a beauty chart, but one which had tough standards so the trade could define top quality cutting separately from top appearance and beauty which is infinitely more subjective. No one has a beauty meter. We agree with one another that there is a wide world of great looking and well enough cut diamonds that only searching out AGS000 is not necessary or financially the best course. However, using the AGS000 standard does get consumers to a rather safe place rather rapidly.

What we have now is AGSL with a reasonably broad top grade of AGS000, the GIA with a wider yet, and somewhat less reasonable top grade and my own AGA Cut Class system which is not commercially viable because I got the grading right, but uncomfortably tight, too tight, I suppose. Yet, the AGA system is an excellent shortcut screening tool. Used with common sense, a consumer can buy a diamond which grades anywhere from 1A to 2B and can have a reasonable expectation that nothing will be really wrong with the diamond and that it might perform equal or better than many top GIA and some AGS top grade stones.

The finest cut round diamonds on Pricescope fit the 1A category nearly all the time. The AGS000 Princess cuts rarely score 1A or even 1B because the formula for their design is somewhat special and what amounts to a "brand" which any cutter or dealer can sell.
There are some princess cuts which look superb and grade 1A through 2B and those can be bought without fear by consumers who take the time to make informed judgments. Those who want a fast track can use the AGS000 as an easy path. Its all the same to me and to every seller.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David- I honestly believe that your motivation is pure and good- as is the motivation of the prosumers posting in this thread.
We all want to assist consumers. That is my motivation as well.
I don't know who the seller is that Meeko is shopping with- but I can picture a person walking into a store, armed with inaccurate information- no matter how well intentioned- and hampering their shopping experience. I can see them telling a knowledgeable, well intentioned seller- "I've been told this diamond leaks."
WHAT? It's a GIA EX cut grade.
Well, I've read that the best table size is 53-58%- why are you showing me less than well cut stones?
WHAT? GIA graded this diamond EX cut grade.
On and on.
The result can be a diminution of trust in an honest seller that might be totally committed to providing the best stones.

I disagree that the "top end" of diamonds has tables that exclude 59 and 60%.
I'd be interested to see where GIA used that chart, and published a statement declaring that it is a more accurate arbiter as compared to their own EX cut grade. Same for AGSL
I know of many cutters who would vehemently disagree with the chart as well- and not for commercial reasons. They would disagree because many will prefer the beauty, light return, and performance of a stone with a slightly larger table.
Many will feel it's simply a better cut.
People are yearning for some numerical method of determine the quality of things and the cut of a diamond is a perfect example. So this business of 1A 2A 3B and so on has an attraction- even if it's not based on reality. Which it's not.

The point is, we all agree that it's important to educate shoppers- which is why they come to PS- but giving them the inaccurate information does not help.

 

[oldminer]

http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/Fall_1998_Cut.pdf (See page 164) This is a link to the GIA publication in 1998 in their magazine, Gems & Gemology where the AGA Cut Class system is shown with others in use in the trade. Of course, GIA was just beginning to make a case for their own interpretation of cut grading and the AGS lab was only a few years old at the time. Garry Holloway did a study with Octonus that showed how the AGA 1A scored in light return against the AGS 0 cut and the AGA system was just about a bulls eye center of the AGS system.

The fact is that the AGA Cut Class system is not a fantasy, but a reality that most members of the trade just don't want to face. Also, you are ill-informed that the table parameter cannot go beyond a 1A maximum limit and still score 1A overall. That's why there is an automated system which takes rules of use into account. In fact, the table can be yet 1 more percent wider than the max as long as it is the only exception to the other 1A category parameters. The rules of use have been openly published, but I realize the biggest critics generally have never taken the time to read how the system works. It is not a system which bases the final, overall grade on a single lowest parameter, but is based on an overall configuration and balanced for arriving at a reasonably, albeit rather stringent, conclusion.

The issue that you don't like the system is typical of the trade in general not liking what does not suit them commercially. Everyone reading this can understand why, including me. It works in favor of the consumer who at the time of the creation of this system had virtually no way of getting knowledge or information on cut quality. It was before the Internet period of commerce that I worked on this process.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David- This has absolutely thing to do with my commercial motivation. I don't even offer many round diamonds.
My motivation is informing and teaching consumers what to look for when buying a diamond. How to select a good seller.
Since you wrote that chart, we can easily question your motivation- you want to prove it's correct.

As the chart was included on a 1998 GIA publication, that does indicate GIA knew of it's existence- yet it's clear that 8 years later, in 2006- after extensive research they did not follow that chart.
In fact, in 2005 AGS also amended their top cut grade to include larger tables. We could easily point to this as another example why the chart is inaccurate, and misleading.
If I'm ill-informed on how to use the chart, where is this tolerance factor you mention?
It's not listed with the chart- therefore anyone looking at that page would be similarly mis-informed.
When you refer people to your chart, do you also show them how to use it?

We agree that many in the trade would prefer un-educated consumers.
I am not one of those.
I simply feel that correct, unbiased information is crucial to achieve education.

 

[oldminer]

The tolerance is built into the Do It Yourself grader which is currently on-line on www.gemappraisers.com...
The rules of use are posted there and also along with the charts on www.datlas.com...
I have almost finished remaking this automated grader in a .php form so it can be hosted on Unix servers and put live on www.datlas.com... Andrey has offered to have the auto-grader on Pricescope, too. I think once that happens the charts might well be removed so that no one misinterprets them.
I believe, GIA was motivated to widen the table percentages to widen their marketing ability with their system and to liberalize it compared to the competing AGS system. No doubt, GIA would tell you that it was purely a scientific decision and who would dare say they would tell a fib? It is just convenient to widen the parameters. The more stones at the top, the fewer problematic stones left over.
The GIA would never have followed any lead that I might have given them. They do their best to lead under their own power and they are powerful all by themselves. No point in sharing when you are in the driver's seat.
I believe that I followed the evidence of my own research into what makes a diamond look great and what makes it look large enough and durable at the same time. Those factors led to the system I put together. I did not consider marketing as my goal although I used this system for many years at my lab when I owned AGA. Many thousands of diamonds were graded with this system for the local trade and it was successful and accepted. Of course, Philly is not New York City and had I been born into a NYC jewelry family, maybe I would have made a more convincing success out of it on 47th St. It won't happen now and I'm okay with it as it is.

"I simply feel that correct, unbiased information is crucial to achieve education."

So do I. I think our "disagreements" here serve the consumer very well and they must understand that there are many points of view which have varying degrees of validity.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Funny David- your argument sound like cutters who cry- "GIA called it Si1, but it's really a VS2- what do they know?"

I'll put my eggs in GIA's basket.
Not that they are perfect- but they're the closest to a universally accepted gemological organisation.
I find that they are impartial, and trustworthy.
There's never been any gemological body who can really compete- including AGS- although they are the only ones who are looked upon as just as reliable by the trade. Local labs have no place in this discussion- they simply can't compete. No matter how much you believe in the AGA charts, they are not accepted by the trade at large- in my opinion, because they exclude some of the best cut stones.
I'm sure that you'd advise any client with a report anything other than GIA, or AGSL that these are the only two pieces of paper relied upon to ascertain prices and grades by the trade at large. The same goes for cut grading.
In this thread someone was warned of potential leakage and other cut problems with a GIA triple EX stone.
I honestly believe that such advice is misleading.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I also have a question related to this topic. As I've been lurking the forums for a while here I've read about table size and depth and how diamonds cut too deep will look smaller than others that are the same carat weight and cut properly. Since we're going to the jeweler today (!!!) I am curious if there is a way for me to make sure that I am getting a great diamond. I've heard that one ought to get the best cut available. Should that take care of the table/depth issue? I also want it to look as big as it can while also being a proper cut and not fragile.

We're in the market for a RB. It won't be too large. Probably anywhere from .45-.75 depending on the deal my jeweler cuts us--he's practically family.

Are there certain table and depth percentages I should use as guidelines? I know a few have been talked about in this very thread. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Ask to see GIA EX or AGS0 cut grades then pick with your eyes. That is the simplest method. And no matter how close you are to the jeweler do some comparison shopping.