Year of the Small Table?

[rockysalamander]

Would that not mean you are open to liking diamonds in the 54 to 60 range? I mean, if you like 60/60, then it’s quite possible you would like a 58/60, for example ... or 59/61, etc etc. ETA, sorry I mean for MRBs

My opinion is anything in the range 53-60 ... I have seen beautiful 60/60 ... my in real life views are scarce ... so I just assume that there are many combinations that I would find beautiful given no bad light leakage and beautiful ASET. I figure it must be a bunch of different personalities that I sure would like to see in person, lol. I’m glad this tropic came up ... I saw a ton of fire in the 60/60 and a 55.3/60.6 that did not seem to have as much ... often think it was just my eyes ... maybe it was ... *shrug*

I'm never closed to any diamond of CS being beautiful to me or someone else. I think there is a big difference between a "preference" and an absolute "no". Cavities are an absolute no for my personal stones, probably sometimes to my own dis-service. My grandmother had some "funky chickens" in her collection and I loved all their quirkiness.

But, if I'm buying a MRB sight unseen, and under a time crunch, I would stick within my preferences. Then, evaluate it with my eyes. I think the challenge on PS is that we are helping others. We don't know their preferences (and they often don't either). They likely don't have experienced eyes to evaluate a stone in person and often only have a big-box or HOF to go look at in person. We are all trying our best to help them narrow to a set of reasonable options and then help balance the many factors without the ability to sit in the store and actually look at them all.

 

[yssie]

@yssie

Who started this small table, high crown, more fire anyway? I chose my newest CBI because of color, clarity, and mm size (within .01mm of my old stone so I could reuse the mounting). The 54.2 table and 15.7 crown height were not part of the equation.

The philosophies that generally “smaller table” + “higher crown” = “more colour”, and “shorter halves” = “more colour”... well, crude oversimplication but not untrue. My own crude oversimplification for explanation:

More inbound light hitting at critical angle for total internal reflection + that inbound light taking the shortest route possible through the stone before it leaves again through the table/crown = outbound light is higher energy.

Larger virtual facets (either a larger stone or higher optical symmetry - and shorter LGF) = inbound light is dissected into fewer paths = fewer, higher-energy outbound paths that have met with less interference inside the stone.

Smaller table + higher crown = angular difference established between as many crown facets as possible = minimizes potential for interference once dispersions exit the stone, and ups your odds of catching a single wavelength.

And all of this, as Karl points out, is nuance that’s only meaningful in point source lighting environments! So really it’s
A “greater potential for coloured light output across a multitude of lighting environments”.
1. It’s not a guarantee, only a statement of potential,
2. We know that in some lighting environments other flavours will show more coloured light output, and
3. And it says nothing about human resolution of that potential. Serg, Yoram, and Garry, and John have discussed this in depth - here’s a really good article, I had to read it several times and I’m still not confident in all my takeaways:
http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf


My issue is that at some point - I can’t remember when either! - PS zeitgeist determined that this flavour is “best” - but it’s inherently a judgment call. The result is that this crude oversimplification is presented to newcomers via even-cruder “cheat sheet”, sans all context If one jumps back to ~2003-2008 there’s a ton of really interesting conversation here on PS!

 

[cflutist]

Yes, agree with the underlined. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, given the increasing number of stones cut to "game" the GIA XXX grading system, and, more worrisome, the growing numer of diamonds that have issues with transparency due to poor quality rough. My understanding is that ten years ago, the chances of ending up with a sleepy dud from virtual inventory was less likely than it is today because of the influx of poorer quality rough, @Garry H (Cut Nut) and @John Pollard, among others, have commented on this. Today, because of the issues with GIA gaming and the influx of poorer quality rough, I believe it is essential to have a trusted vendor vet a stone for me for visible inclusions, transparency issues and undertone (BGM, which stands for brown, green, milky), and, of course, cut quality. It costs more money to work with vendors who vet their in-house stones, but it's worth it, unless you've seen a lot of diamonds and know what you're looking at and looking for. In addition, one of the best virtual inventory vendors, James Allen, recently changed their business model so that online customers are basically buying blind -- just like customers do in most B&M stores across the country. This is a significant step back for consumers.

I've been loyal to a particular brand for 10 years now, not only because of the brand's excellent customer service and upgrade policies, but because of the brand's consistent cut quality. I've learned that it's the combination of all angles/measurements that make the difference in observed fire and scintillation, not a specific set of angles (e.g., smaller tables). This may not be true for all branded; but it is for the brand I'm loyal to. I've seen many stones of all sizes from this brand -- both in person and at in-store events -- and they are all nearly identical in performance, no matter their specific "specs."

Many other posters here are loyal to one brand or another. Again, I don't think it's a bad thing -- consumers here on PS are fortunate to have access to so many high-quality vendors who own their inventory and who vet their stones -- which eliminates the need for a micro-examination of the stone's "specs."

Just going out on a limb here, but I think the preference for small tables in MRBs is due in part to the increase in popularity of old cuts, which typically have very small tables and "puffy" crowns (edit: I see that @GearGirly beat me to it!) And I agree with @ceg -- the preference for higher crowns and smaller tables relates more to the stone's architecture than it does to performance -- at least in a branded cut.

@John Pollard has responded to my small table question as it relates to CBI with computer generated simulations and graphics in this thread. Thank you John.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...trilogie-with-2-18-e-vs1-center.248820/page-2

 

[CareBear]

My current stone is a 57.4, 34.1, 40.8. I'll take it over a 55 table stone any day because I get an extra 0.1mm for the carat weight. Having owned a 55, 34.5, 40.8 before, whatever extra fire I was getting (if any at all), is not worth giving up the 0.1mm for.

 

[diamondnewbieny]

Hi all, I happened to have a diamond pendant that I think is a 60/60 stone, and want to share some information. Maybe someone will find it helpful.:roll

The center stone on this pendant is .61ct, GIA E vs2 with medium blue fluorescence, table 59 depth 60.9 crown 34 pavilion 41. I am not sure if this diamond is performing well or comparable to super ideal with small table. but I know it’s not horrible compare to many diamond I see from retail stores.

Maybe some of you can tell me if the images below says anything about this diamond?

I used the H and A viewer from WF and put my phone camera on the top of the viewer to take the first two pictures. I can see the arrows well enough and there is no white halo in the middle of the diamond. The halo is red. I am not sure if this represent the same meaning as the Aset, as that the leakage is minimal. The other two pictures I just took with my home lighting.

 

[diamondnewbieny]

Just out of my own curiosity, I took pictures of my other two diamonds.

#1 is GIA 3Ex table 58 depth 62 crown 34.5 pavilion 41.2 . This diamond doesn't have the PS recommended range. The pictures obviously show more white area in the middle and maybe this represent more light leakages?

#2 is WF ACA. Table 55.2 depth 60.8 crown 34.3 pavilion 40.6. Interestingly I think it shows more white area compare to the 60/60. What do you think?

#3 is in the post above 60/60 diamond.

I think it’s intetesting to compare these 3 RB with all different types of numbers with these pictures.

#1



#2

 

[Dancing Fire]

@yssie

Who started this small table, high crown, more fire anyway? I chose my newest CBI because of color, clarity, and mm size (within .01mm of my old stone so I could reuse the mounting). The 54.2 table and 15.7 crown height were not part of the equation.

I'm one of the guilty party. Right or wrong it is my own personal preference.

 

[cflutist]

I'm one of the guilty party. Right or wrong it is my own personal preference.

Then I am glad that I got a CBI that you approve of

 

[Dancing Fire]

Then I am glad that I got a CBI that you approve of

Yup, Now can you please ask Paul to cut me a 2.99ct CBI with the same specs as your 2.18ct?

 

[AdaBeta27]

I notice a lot of preference on PS for small tables on round brilliant super ideal stones. Is this an increasing trend? Is it the aesthetic of the diamond shape with a small table and a high crown that is attractive or the supposed increased fire that smaller tables with complementary angles can produce? For those of you who have stones with 54-56 % tables, do you see a difference in fire and scintillation compared to stones with 57-58 % tables?

The Pricescope "cheat sheet" as I understand it came from Todd Gray of Niceice, and was a shortcut to buying diamonds "by the paper" online. He has it on his website https://niceice.com/diamond-buying-secrets/15-seconds-diamond-buying-success/ Those [arameters were well established by the time I joined Pricescope. Outside of this narrow subset, nobody ever said you got ugly or inferior diamonds. They just said you got into less "uniform" diamonds that could not as readily be bought by the paper, ones that had to be seen or subjected to more in-depth evaluations. The H&A with smaller table and steeper crown came from Japanese diamond cutting in the '80s, if I recall my diamond cut history correctly. (And I may not, lol.)
Quoting Niceice site, bold is mine:

Although there are a myriad of combinations of angles and degrees which will produce optimal light return in a round brilliant ideal cut diamond, you can narrow the field of possibilities and dramatically improve your chances of successfully selecting a gorgeous diamond by keeping the proportions of the diamond within the center range of the spectrum for the ideal cut proportions rating. We consider the center range to be as follows:

Total depth between 59 – 61.8%
Table diameter between 53 – 58%
Crown angle between 34.3 – 34.9 degrees*
Pavilion angle between 40.6 – 40.9 degrees
Lower girdle facets between 75 – 78%**
Star facets between 45 – 50%***
Girdle thickness between thin and slightly thick
Culet: AGS pointed or GIA none

 

[AdaBeta27]

To answer the part about the table size vs. looks, I have a Good Old Gold superideal ISEE2 AGS000 signature H&A from back when Jon was still with Good Old Gold. I think it's a 56% table. Then I also have a recut H&A diamond that was done by Brian Gavin and it is a shallower stone with I believe 58% table. The larger the table, the more table facet glare there is. If you have a larger table, you look down into the calmer table area of the stone. If you have a small table, you see more "crinkly" faceting., more scintillation, more "glitter" and maybe more fire, but as Yessie said, fire and the character of it depends what's been done with LGH and minor faceting.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, I have a shallow diamond that was sold to me as European cit. European, not Old European. It is the flip side of fire. It's as if cutters suddenly tired of all the chunck faceting of Old Euro and Old Mine, and set out to create the exact opposite: A silvery brilliant "streamline" diamond with almost no fire, but many silvery flashed of white light. The table is *huge*. What small amount of fire there is, it out around the rim of the diamond. It doesn't behave anything like my superideal H&A, but it's beautiful in its own right. And Big. It's spready and shallow, and the heliport size table makes it look big.

Then I also have as pawn shop diamond, around .8, huge table like 65% or so, and lots of depth to the pavilion but a very flat and shallow crown. In office lighting, this stone lacks fire but it's very bright. But outside, in the sun, where today's superideal H&As can look "dark," this diamond comes alive with FIRE, tons of it.

I also have a 3 stone ring, all OECS, and you know OECs are supposed to be "candlelight" stones. That ring also blazes with fire outdoors in the sun. Much more than it does in any kind of indoor lighting.

Diamonds are individuals. The "Pricesceop cheat sheet" was and is great for taking a lot of hassle out of buying diamonds sight unseen. But there are many interesting diamonds outside of its range.

 

[yssie]

The Pricescope "cheat sheet" as I understand it came from Todd Gray of Niceice, and was a shortcut to buying diamonds "by the paper" online. He has it on his website https://niceice.com/diamond-buying-secrets/15-seconds-diamond-buying-success/ Those [arameters were well established by the time I joined Pricescope. Outside of this narrow subset, nobody ever said you got ugly or inferior diamonds. They just said you got into less "uniform" diamonds that could not as readily be bought by the paper, ones that had to be seen or subjected to more in-depth evaluations. The H&A with smaller table and steeper crown came from Japanese diamond cutting in the '80s, if I recall my diamond cut history correctly. (And I may not, lol.)
Quoting Niceice site, bold is mine:

Before the days of light reflector technologies and reports with proportions details, simplifications like this were helpful when buying online. In fact, I'd say they made buying online possible, period.

Now there's no dearth of information and no dearth of ways to communicate that information. These oversimplifications that toss a multitude of babies out with their bathwater are long past their days of necessity, and in my opinion are also long past their days of utility.

 

[whitewave]

It seems like the preference emerged from the love of old cuts. Small table high crown. But I sometimes wonder about many of the things discussed here. I see people tell newbies I has too much color for an e-ring and I looks ice white to me lol, so I don’t know this happens with many aspects of a diamond.

You are right that an I is white to me, but the neon white of a D gets me every time. I guess it’s because my first ER happened to be a D, so it’s what I was “trained” on?

 

[AdaBeta27]

Before the days of light reflector technologies and reports with proportions details, simplifications like this were helpful when buying online. In fact, I'd say they made buying online possible, period.

Now there's no dearth of information and no dearth of ways to communicate that information. These oversimplifications that toss a multitude of babies out with their bathwater are long past their days of necessity, and in my opinion are also long past their days of utility.

I've disagreed with your opinions before. It's okay. Really.

 

[yssie]

I've disagreed with your opinions before. It's okay. Really.

Okay.