table larger than depth, can this ever be a good thing?

[cushioncut]

I know it''s best to have a table smaller than the depth, but what is the result when a table is larger than its depth? Does this mean it''s a poorly cut stone? Or, can it still be well cut and have this quality?

The stone I am talking about looks very pretty in person -- it''s a cushion 2.12 SI1 H, 59.7 depth, 66 table, Med culet, VG polish, good sym, ft flor, 8.7 x 7.54 x 4.5.

More rectangular than I''ve been looking at, but still very pretty. But, I am concerned that it''s poorly cut because of its large table.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

 

[reena]

i think you should definitely see it in person. all bets are off with cushion cuts, so it could very well be nice!

 

[mdancel]

Date: 10/25/2004 12:33:14 PM
Author:cushioncut
I know it's best to have a table smaller than the depth, but what is the result when a table is larger than its depth? Does this mean it's a poorly cut stone? Or, can it still be well cut and have this quality?

I too have this same question. Can a round still be well cut and have the table larger than it's depth?

I'm looking at this stone. Any thoughts on it's quality.

EGL Cert
Total Depth 59.7%
Table Width 61%
Crown Height 13%
Pavillion Depth 42%
Girdle - Slightly Thick, Faceted
Polish - Good,
Symmetry - Good

 

[cushioncut]

Thanks for bumbing this. I''m still wondering about it too...

When the table is larger than the depth, what are the potential problems? Bow tie? Fish eye? or just less brilliance?

Is there ever any set of proportions where this could actually be a good thing?

People say it doesn''t matter with cushions -- is this the truth?

Thanks for any info!

 

[valeria101]

This "table /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/31.gif[/img]

If you dig deep enough on PS, you may find out that the word of wisedom started as an innocent comment about princess cuts, than expanded out of controll. Not that it is hard to see why: there is not much to talk about on a GIA cert than table and depth.

About princess cut, the idea was that within some tight range of proportions (say, first two AGA classes), table slightly smaller than depth is a good place to start to obtain better scintillation (=glitter). Not that the rule holds, but if all you have is Sarin, than why not. An old post by Jonathan contains this, I guess...

Otherwise, this makes no sense:

How about the examples below:

Table b]
(1) table = 73% ; depth = 75%
(2) table = 55%; depth = 75%
(3) table =57%; depth = 58%

Table > depth:
(4) table = 62%; depth =61%
(5) table = 70%; depth = 55%

Your choice ?

Whatever this rule of thumb means, it is not sufficient to guess brilliance or any optic effect at all, to the best of my knowledge.

There are not 100 receipes to judge fancies around here, but you may find one post by David Atlas useful (LINK) Even if this may not make things too easy (as in rule of thumb based on GIA stats) - at least it makes sense.

Just my 0.2, of course.

 

[nicstn]

I have a princess cut e/ring with not ideal ratio for table / depth which = a low crown. but it is a beautiful stone. It is full of brillance but not alot of fire hence the large table. the only downside to my stone is that if you are looking for fire a large table would not be for you. the upside is that it is very brillant almost glows, sparkly, and faces up very white. also stone looks easily like 2 carats because of the large table. The large table worked well for me because i got a much larger looking carat size in trade for fire i could live w/ that. just thought i would let u know on my experience sometimes w/ fancy cuts you don't really know until you see them and make a personal choice.

EGL USA Certificate
1.41ct
Rect. Mod. Brilliant
H
VS2
6.57 6.16 4.46
Depth 72.4
Table 83.0
Crown 5.7
Pavilion 63.3
Girdle thin to thick
Polish Good
Symmetry Good
Florescence none
Cutlet none
Ratio 1.7