What diamond shape has the biggest "table"
- Thread starter momo
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
You could also consider getting a round spread-cut diamond. From the profile view they are not as deep and have a wider top.
- From http://www.diamonddoctor.com/cms/online_diamond_education__cut_grading.asp
- From http://www.diamonddoctor.com/cms/online_diamond_education__cut_grading.asp
this might help:
largest cut
size vs. cut - round, princess, square radiant, asscher
I always thought ovals, marquise, and pear cuts looked the biggest
largest cut
size vs. cut - round, princess, square radiant, asscher
I always thought ovals, marquise, and pear cuts looked the biggest
Last edited:
Girls, you are a wealth of information! It's not just about the 4 c's that the jewelry industry tells the consumer to look for but depth of cut seems to make a huge difference. Thank you for the links, I've got lots of research to do now. I'm still leaning towards the oval, even though they are beautiful I'm not feeling the square cuts (asher, radiant, princess or emerald).
when speaking of well-cut stones, marquise will look biggest for the weight.
In fact, its surprising how large a marquise can be for its weight. They are cut kind of flat usually, which is the reason.
I believe pear and oval are next most sizeable in appearance.
asscher absolutely looks the smallest for the weight (because of the depth) and cushions (but not always) look small for what they weigh too. Princess will look a little smaller than a comparable weight round.
However, round is the sparkliest. A lot of marquise and ovals don't sparkle much at all--you really have to be careful to get them well-cut.
In fact, its surprising how large a marquise can be for its weight. They are cut kind of flat usually, which is the reason.
I believe pear and oval are next most sizeable in appearance.
asscher absolutely looks the smallest for the weight (because of the depth) and cushions (but not always) look small for what they weigh too. Princess will look a little smaller than a comparable weight round.
However, round is the sparkliest. A lot of marquise and ovals don't sparkle much at all--you really have to be careful to get them well-cut.
This is very true. My marquise stone is 1.33 carats and it looks a lot bigger than that. However, DH didn't learn about diamonds before buying it so the cut and clarity aren't too good (color is great though.) So for our anniversary, he is upgrading my stone to something a little bit bigger and a lot better quality (the main reason for the upgrade.) My current stone has hardly any sparkle since the cut is only rated fair. Am going to go to an excellent cut and VVS2 in the hopes that it will sparkle. I have heard that the same applies to ovals. So make sure you get a good cut (most important) and clarity. Even though I know they are not popular or the in-shaped stone right now, I am getting another marquise. I have always been drawn to marquise rings. So also get what makes your heart sing. You'll know when you put it on 
I never really thought about the cut but the stone I'm interested in is a 'very good-cut' so I'm in good shape there. Thanks for the input, really good to know. Yes I do like the fancy shapes and they do present a good value and sometimes stone presence. I'll have a look at cushions Swanky, I love your round but my budget can't even touch that. Bri-- Marquise are beautiful too!
emerald maybe.
for table sizes, no matter what shapes, they usually are in range that reflects compromise between weight retention and optical beauty — somewhere between 50-66% of its average girdle diameter. That of a round brilliant is perfectly 57%.
for table sizes, no matter what shapes, they usually are in range that reflects compromise between weight retention and optical beauty — somewhere between 50-66% of its average girdle diameter. That of a round brilliant is perfectly 57%.