table too small for RB? 53.7?
- Thread starter rocknewb
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
It's a bit of a different look. If you have not seen one that small, or close to, in real life, I would suggest going to a jeweler and have them show you various crown/table combinations. I'm not saying it's a bad look, it's not, but different. Some people love them, some don't.
And the specs on that stone look fine, as Lorelei said.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
As a dispersion lover I LOVE LOVE LOVE the little tables. They tend to scream out with dispersion which make these eyes of my happy. Tolkowsky originally called for a 53% table, but you rarely see them that small any more. If it has an AGS 0 cut grade you can rest assured that it is a beautiful diamond. There are definitely differences within the AGS 0 cut grade, but I personally have never seen one that was not "at least" beautiful.
Wink
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
february2003bride
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 3,559
kcoursolle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 10,612
caligirl08
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 38
When my bf first picked out a ring with 53.8% table, i too was worried about it being too small.
However, when I saw it in person, i thought- wow, it''s a small ball of fire! I haven''t looked at enough diamonds to really notice a difference in terms of spread, but trust me, I think it''s unlikely that your gf would look at it and think ''i wish the table was larger.''
Good luck!
However, when I saw it in person, i thought- wow, it''s a small ball of fire! I haven''t looked at enough diamonds to really notice a difference in terms of spread, but trust me, I think it''s unlikely that your gf would look at it and think ''i wish the table was larger.''
Good luck!
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Many people connect a small table and a somewhat higher crown to the stone showing more fire. I wonder if this is entirely correct. Is this not some old way of thinking, which is still in the ancient gemmology-books, but maybe is not correct?
Probably, with the same crown angle but with a higher crown (thus a smaller table) your chance of light rays dispersing when exiting through that crown increases (simply because of the higher surface of the crown area). But how about rays entering the stone? What is the effect there?
And this is only in the case of a comparison between two identical crown angles. many smaller tables generally have a somewhat higher crown angle. Is this still as beneficial for fire as we think?
Just me wondering.
On the other hand, this does not mean that anything is wrong with this specific stone. Absolutely not. I am just wondering whether one can automatically expect increased fire based upon one measurement.
Live long,
Probably, with the same crown angle but with a higher crown (thus a smaller table) your chance of light rays dispersing when exiting through that crown increases (simply because of the higher surface of the crown area). But how about rays entering the stone? What is the effect there?
And this is only in the case of a comparison between two identical crown angles. many smaller tables generally have a somewhat higher crown angle. Is this still as beneficial for fire as we think?
Just me wondering.
On the other hand, this does not mean that anything is wrong with this specific stone. Absolutely not. I am just wondering whether one can automatically expect increased fire based upon one measurement.
Live long,
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 19,177
Firstly Wink, Tolkowsky did not add a girdle, but if he had have, then for a medium girdle using his formulae he would have found a table of about 55% to be optimal.
You can play with that here http://www.folds.net/diamond/software_help.html
But Tolkowsky was not neccesarily bang on.
They have more scintillation and more small flashes of fire. They should also have longer lower girdle facets.
They are more firey beyond doubt. We use them only in rings, as they also have a smaller spread, but they poke out of the setting like Dolly Partons, which can be a waste in earrings and pendants.
You can play with that here http://www.folds.net/diamond/software_help.html
But Tolkowsky was not neccesarily bang on.
Hi Paul, In general the small table does come with a steeper crown angle. When that is combined with a shallow pavilion it neeed not loose very much brilliance. These are the stones I called FIC; firey ideal cut.
They have more scintillation and more small flashes of fire. They should also have longer lower girdle facets.
They are more firey beyond doubt. We use them only in rings, as they also have a smaller spread, but they poke out of the setting like Dolly Partons, which can be a waste in earrings and pendants.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
personal experience looking at a limited number of diamonds with similar c/p angles and lgf% and h&a at 53, 55, 56, 57 tables there was little difference to the eye in most lighting.
While I could see some little differences I don''t think most people would between 53 and 57 given the same c/p angles and minor facets.
Comparing a 34/41/80lgf/56T to a 34.8/40.8/76%lgf/55%t was a far bigger personality but not performance difference with my preference being the 34/41.
Traditional 59/60 and 60/60 were clearly different to the eye in some lighting to all of the above both in performance and personality.
coatimundi_org
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,281
In my diamonds class, I saw several stones with a 52-54% table, and I did not find them to appreciably show more fire than others when I tested them. I was surprised--I expected a lot of fire. I later attributed it to the varying pavilion angles, lower girdle facet lengths and steep crown angles.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Hi DF,
No, we don''t cut round brilliants with 53-54% tables.
In this thread, I think that it is important to also understand the different mind-set (or goals) that Garry and I have. Garry''s goal in general is to influence the industry as a whole to improve the average cut-quality. In that sense, his goal is clearly at a sub-optimal level. My personal goal is to achieve the highest cut-quality attainable within a specific shape. You could call that at an optimal level, if you want.
In this case, I think that, at the optimal level, it is not necessarily true that a smaller table translates into more fire. But at the sub-optimal level, it probably is a rule that is correct.
You can compare it to another ''old-thinking'' of the industry, that a higher depth in a princess translates in a smaller spread. This generally is correct at the sub-optimal level, while it is incorrect at the optimal level.
I hope that this is somewhat clear?
Live long,
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Hi Paul while your basically right about the different goals I also think there are really 3 different things being discussed here.
One would be a:
36/40.5/53%t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/56%t/80%lgf
The second:
34.5/40.8/53t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/56t/80%lgf
the third:
34.5/40.8/53t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/60t/80%lgf
In the first set the first combo would tend towards the fire side fairly strongly vs the second.
In the second set there would be little difference in fire due to the table in my opinion.
the third set the first combo would tend towards the fire side fairly strongly vs the second.
For me the statement:
small table more fire with rounds... the question is always compared to what?
It can not stand on its own in my opinion.
Where it can get confusing is:
With step cuts it is a fact that high crowns and smaller tables tend to having more fire because the pavilion that drives them works in different ways than a brilliant cut.
One would be a:
36/40.5/53%t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/56%t/80%lgf
The second:
34.5/40.8/53t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/56t/80%lgf
the third:
34.5/40.8/53t/80%lgf vs a 34.5/40.8/60t/80%lgf
In the first set the first combo would tend towards the fire side fairly strongly vs the second.
In the second set there would be little difference in fire due to the table in my opinion.
the third set the first combo would tend towards the fire side fairly strongly vs the second.
For me the statement:
small table more fire with rounds... the question is always compared to what?
It can not stand on its own in my opinion.
Where it can get confusing is:
With step cuts it is a fact that high crowns and smaller tables tend to having more fire because the pavilion that drives them works in different ways than a brilliant cut.
- Status
How Are Diamonds Made? Natural vs Lab-Created Explained
How Are Diamonds Made? Natural vs Lab-Created Explained - 08/05
Top Wedding Ring Brands for Every Style and Budget
Top Wedding Ring Brands for Every Style and Budget - 08/05
Where to Buy Lab Grown Diamonds: Best Places Compared
Where to Buy Lab Grown Diamonds: Best Places Compared - 08/05
300x240.png)