so confused,,,,PSers say cushions need tables <60 and <depth

[azbuyer]

Is having depth > table and tables < 60 a hard fact or rule of thumb? I found a 62.4% depth / 63% table cushion that looks great but the advice on this board is giving me some pause.

anyone know of any pics on here of some cushions with tables greater than depths?

thanks!

 

[pixley]

Mine has a 63% table and 62% depth. I would have loved a smaller table, but I fell in love with the overall shape and character of my cushion and those numbers went out the window. Link to stone unset

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/22/2008 12:52:33 PM
Author:azbuyer
Is having depth > table and tables < 60 a hard fact or rule of thumb? I found a 62.4% depth / 63% table cushion that looks great but the advice on this board is giving me some pause.

anyone know of any pics on here of some cushions with tables greater than depths?

thanks!

Cushions cannot be judged by any numbers, use any given as a guide only, but they are not meant to be used strictly or literally and I hope that the advice on this board isn't causing anyone to believe otherwise. It is a rule of thumb, if you have seen a cushion with a table which is slightly larger than the depth, then that is not a problem - cushions need to be seen to be judged, and if you find one with the above proportions which you love, then that is the main thing!

 

[azbuyer]

Date: 7/22/2008 12:57:25 PM
Author: pixley
Mine has a 63% table and 62% depth. I would have loved a smaller table, but I fell in love with the overall shape and character of my cushion and those numbers went out the window. Link to stone unset

wow, your ring is amazing. Thanks for posting that. Been looking for some examples!!

did you look at any others that had small tables / deeper and how did yours stack up in terms of light performance? You said you would have loved a smaller table and just wondering why? I mean I have been told on this board that smaller table is better but not sure why.

You have such a unique cut and shape (rusian old mine) and so maybe thats why yours looks so good in the light!

 

[Indira-London]

There is similar post where we discussed this question yesterday https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cushion-cut-depth.90682/

As Lorelei says: there is no rulebook re. numbers when it comes to cushion. The analysis of depth is very different for fancy shapes and is explained more in the attached thread. The only rule that you cansafely use is to use your eyes when looking at cushion diamond and choose a diamond that appeals to you!

 

[pixley]

Thanks

I looked at a 4 pavilion main cushion that had a table in the 50s and depth in the 60's and it didn't do it for me - just not enough brightness. I didn't check it for fire because it just wasn't the cut style I wanted. I've noticed that many of the 4 pavilion main cushions that ERD sources have tables in the 60s, so perhaps that style benefits from a larger table.

I also looked at a bunch of Birks Amorique cushions, which are sort of like the modern 8 pavilion main cushion brilliants that we see here, and only one really spoke to me, but I didn't get the depth and table numbers.

Sometimes I think a smaller table can mean more fire (combined with the right depth, angles, etc.), but I also like the brightness of my stone so the table doesn't bother me too much. I guess my point is, just look at everything you can. When you see the right one for you, you will know it.