Jump to content

Advice needed on a large table diamond


Recommended Posts


I need some advice on a diamond. I am looking at this one currently. The depth looks perfect, pavilion angle perfect, no culet, medium facet, colour/clarity/carat are perfect to me. It ticks all the boxes except one, it has a large table. 61%, I know this is way outside the 'ideal' range and should hurt the fire/scintilation.

Does this really matter?

The HCA score is still low, I've seen it in person and it is eye clean and to me its quite sparkly, but the brilliance of the diamond is particularly important to my girlfriend and I am worried that the large table will hurt. The upside is that the thing does look huge, next to a 1.35 it looked bigger!

I have about a day to decide before the jeweler sends it back. Help!




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  For me, this does not qualify as an ideal cut and I would expect the stone to be rather dull.  The stone faces like a larger stone because it is shallow and has shallow crown angles.  In a way, the table size is the least of its issues.  Having said that, I will repeat that this is personal.  You have seen the stone and if you like it, that is the most important test.  I would caution you to see the stone in a variety of light settings as the lighting inside jewelry stores is notoriously flattering to any diamond.  just look up at the ceiling and you will probably see dozens or hundreds of spotlights.  This will make even the worst cut look great.


What is the attraction to this stone?  If it's the price, then be aware there is always a reason for a stone to be an outlier.  Compare the price to prices on the Diamond Finder on this forum.  It will give you a good idea of how this stone stands.  If it substantially cheaper than other similar stones, then you have your answer.

Edited by LaurentGeorge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on what you meant by "shallow crown angles". This one is certainly not dramatically, irredeemably low, but it does contribute to the overall "spready" proportions of the stone.

Several people I know would prefer this stone's proportions to one with a higher crown and narrower table; they are not wrong. Neither are Laurent and I to prefer a different set of proportions.

I think the key issue here is: what does your girlfriend prefer? If she (like me, for example) loves large flashes of fire, high crowns and small tables, then this is a no go. If she prefers the look of a "large" stone, then this may be a winner. Brilliance - as in total amount of light reflected - can be high for both types of stones, but simply looking at numbers won't tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIA doesn't use the term ideal at all, much less ideal range. The reason is that there is a wide range of beautiful stones and beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Like Davide above, I rather like tall crowns and small tables, but the tradeoff is that they look smaller when you do that. Nearly everyone likes BIG, and they don't mean weight.  In any case, AGS-0 (which is what most people mean by ideal) can have as high as a 62% table and still fit their definition of Idealness. HCA goes as high as 62 as well although the window for the other parameters gets pretty narrow.  

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...