will small table make diamond look smaller?

[TLS]

Hi - I am going to purchase an ideal cut diamond, but I have been told by some jewelers that the smaller table will make the diamond look smaller....is this true? I don''t understand how this would affect it, because i would assume it is the diamater of the stone that would determine whether it looked bigger or smaller?

should i look at diamonds with tables of 57% instead of 55% or would i not be able to tell the difference?

thanks!

 

[valeria101]

I do not know what this is all about - probably some subtle optical illusion that does not work on me. Sounds like overused sales pitch, really.

However, one thing is sure: a diamond with a large table has a bit more carat weight than another of the same size with a small table. The difference of weight increases with the size of the stones - so it would be some percentage of both weight and price.

If you are after an ideal round, the range of table sizes is not that great after all so any difference it may make would not be allot. This shows in magnified pictures very well, but on two equally brilliant stones ten times smaller than the pic... not, IMO.

 

[elmo]

Definitely a sales pitch but there's a whiff of truth. For the same crown angle and weight, a stone with a smaller table will have a slightly taller crown, at the expense of diameter assuming all other things are equal. But it's a miniscule difference, probably not as much as going from a thin to medium girdle, so it's really a non-issue in terms of "size" going from 57 to 55. I actually prefer a 54-55 table. When you're looking at the stone from the top, you can see the difference in tables when stones with 55 and 57 tables are side by side. But that difference isn't in the diameter where if assuming we're talking about ideals is where any size difference counts.

 

[Mara]

the table is not the only indicator of size, so while some small tables may make diamonds look smaller, others may not. the other numbers are important as well. if you have a diamond with 54 table and 63 depth, chances are that some of the diamond's weight will be in that too-deep-depth as well as probably a thicker girdle, and the smaller table doesn't necessarily make the diamond look smaller, but in conjunction with the other specs, aka depth, the overall diamond will look smaller than it should. but if you have a diamond with 54 table and a corresponding nice depth, aka 60.3, with other angles being good as well, the diamond should not look smaller, but rather will be larger looking than the one with 63 depth most likely.




basically just the table does not make a diamond look smaller, but that table size in conjunction with things such as depth and crown and pav angle will contribute to the overall look of the stone and how it appears when compared to other diamonds. just as with a well-cut stone will not fare well against a steep-deep stone...one will look smaller and one larger, and the well-cut may be smaller in carat weight but appear larger next to the steep-deep stone!




the diameter of the stone is what commands real size in terms of visual, but things such as table, depth, girdle, angles do affect how the stone can appear to the naked eye AND diameter as well. something like a 54/63 1ct stone may be 6.40mm whereas a well-cut 54/60.3 1c stone may be 6.49mm and looks bigger. They may still weigh the same, but the weight is distributed differently, hence the diameter being affected up top by the bad combo of 54/63. just an example.

hope this helps.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A 1.00ct Ideal cut with a 61% table that will probably acheive the new AGS 0 might be 6.55mm and a stone with a 47% table in the new AGS 0 might have a 6.4mm spread.

Comparing the weights - the 1ct 61% table would need the 47% table stone to weigh 1.05ct to have the same weight - "not a sheep station in it" as we say down under.

 

[elmo]

Garry, thanks for the specific numbers. It's exactly what I was trying to say but since I don't have diamcalc or an inventory

I didn't have the good examples like that. The girdle tolerances with the ideal range I expect will have a bigger impact on spread than that for instance as well.

----------------
On 9/19/2004 2:42:36 AM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

A 1.00ct Ideal cut with a 61% table that will probably acheive the new AGS 0 might be 6.55mm and a stone with a 47% table in the new AGS 0 might have a 6.4mm spread.


Comparing the weights - the 1ct 61% table would need the 47% table stone to weigh 1.05ct to have the same weight - 'not a sheep station in it' as we say down under. ----------------