Question about carat vs table %

[gutzy333]

Hi All

Just a quick (and potentially weird question) - could a 1.6ct RB diamond that has a 61% table look bigger than a 1.7ct RB that has a 54% or 56 % Table?

Thanks so much

 

[honey22]

A well cut stone will look bigger and more sparkly due to it's optimum light return. A poorly cut stone will look like a lump of frozen spit. Don't be fooled by diamonds that appear bigger than their carat weight, they are cut to maximise size at the sacrifice of cut quality and CUT IS KING!!

A 61% table is way too big. If you want to get the best possible light return aim for a AGS 000 - true ideal cuts.

 

[JulieN]

It really depends on the other proportions. Table size alone is not enough.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2008 12:22:37 AM
Author:gutzy333
Hi All

Just a quick (and potentially weird question) - could a 1.6ct RB diamond that has a 61% table look bigger than a 1.7ct RB that has a 54% or 56 % Table?

Thanks so much

It depends, sometimes a larger table can give the illusion that a diamond is larger than it is, but whether it would look bigger than another specific stone very much depends, but table aside no way to tell without more info as to how these diamonds '' spread'' we also need the diameters if these are two specific diamonds you are considering.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Let me try and put this in perspective:

Many professionals (especially older ones) say that a stone with a larger table will look bigger. I think that this is only true when observing the stone with a loupe, and actually not true when observing the stone in real world-conditions. The seasoned professionals of the old school however are used to observing stones with loupe only, and that is probably where this ghost-story stems from.

Live long,

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2008 6:37:23 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Let me try and put this in perspective:

Many professionals (especially older ones) say that a stone with a larger table will look bigger. I think that this is only true when observing the stone with a loupe, and actually not true when observing the stone in real world-conditions. The seasoned professionals of the old school however are used to observing stones with loupe only, and that is probably where this ghost-story stems from.

Live long,

Great info as usual, thanks Paul!

 

[Finally!]

In my opinion, tables on RBs are ugly. The bigger the table, the uglier. Why do I think that? Because I like an RB for the Sparkly Factor, and that shows in the crown facets. The table just reflects plain, boring white. The bigger the table, the bigger the annoying flat white patch in the middle and the smaller the area allotted to the sparkly crown facets. If you prefer a large, flat, reflective surface to sparkle, I'd suggest going with a cut that focuses on that, like an emerald cut or any of several other fancy shapes. They can be really beautiful when done right. An RB is the wrong place to be looking for this, in my opinion.

Also, I've noticed that I'm more likely to notice surface graining on a big table, if present, even from a distance away. This gives me the impression the polish on the stone is poor and diminishes my opinion of the quality of the stone. It's pretty much impossible to notice surface graining on any other facet on an RB without a loupe, from what I've observed. I can also see fingerprints and grime when a big table reflects.