Table % too large?

[scnyc82]

I''m currently looking at a rectangular modified brillient princess cut, 2.27ct, VS2, G, which looks really nice and is priced well, but has a 81%table which worries me a bit. Is this a legitimate concern, should I discount it based on this stat? I''ve included additional specs below. I realize this is somewhat objective, but I''m a bit skeptical of committing to something with seriously off spec''s... So I guess i''m wondering whether 81% is just too much, or if other attributes might offset that at all? Would i be better served by dropping to a good SI1 with better measurements, table, symmetry etc. ? Any input would be great.

from GIA:
measurements: 7.73 x 7.26 x 5.00mm
2.27ct
depth 68.9%
table 81%
girdle extremely thin to slightly thick
no culet
polish VG
Sym G
Flur faint
VS1 / G
Pinpoints, internal graining & surface graining not shown

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2010 10:20:05 AM
Author:scnyc82
I'm currently looking at a rectangular modified brillient princess cut, 2.27ct, VS2, G, which looks really nice and is priced well, but has a 81%table which worries me a bit. Is this a legitimate concern, should I discount it based on this stat? I've included additional specs below. I realize this is somewhat objective, but I'm a bit skeptical of committing to something with seriously off spec's... So I guess i'm wondering whether 81% is just too much, or if other attributes might offset that at all? Would i be better served by dropping to a good SI1 with better measurements, table, symmetry etc. ? Any input would be great.

from GIA:
measurements: 7.73 x 7.26 x 5.00mm
2.27ct
depth 68.9%
table 81%
girdle extremely thin to slightly thick
no culet
polish VG
Sym G
Flur faint
VS1 / G
Pinpoints, internal graining & surface graining not shown

Hi Scott and welcome!

Although in some cases a larger table size isn't necessarily a problem, 81% is very large, personally I would keep looking. Because of this large table it is unlikely this diamond is going to be a good performer, also it might suffer from glare with from the table size. It is also possible the extremely thin part of the girdle could be a potential durability issue, not in all cases but its something that definitely needs checking. Do you have any others in mind?

 

[scnyc82]

thanks for the feedback, affirms what I have read and was concerned about...

I am also looking the following...

GIA:
measurements: 7.08 x 7.03 x 5.04mm
2.07ct
depth 71.7%
table 71%
slightly thick to thick
no culet
polish Ex
Sym Ex
Flur none
VS1 / G

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/20/2010 5:09:24 PM
Author: scnyc82
thanks for the feedback, affirms what I have read and was concerned about...

I am also looking the following...

GIA:
measurements: 7.08 x 7.03 x 5.04mm
2.07ct
depth 71.7%
table 71%
slightly thick to thick
no culet
polish Ex
Sym Ex
Flur none
VS1 / G

Hi Scott, glad to help!

Do you have any images for this diamond please or have you seen it in person?

 

[scnyc82]

Sorry no pictures. But I did see it and it looked really nice... then again i also thought the 2.27 looked really nice too.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2010 9:08:54 AM
Author: scnyc82
Sorry no pictures. But I did see it and it looked really nice... then again i also thought the 2.27 looked really nice too.

What you could do with the second diamond if you have the time is to order anASET scope which could help to get a better idea of the cut quality of this diamond and also if you have a Jareds nearby, go and view their AGS0 Peerless Princess to see how this one compares.