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
Look at this beautiful pear. It's 2 cts but shows like a 3. A little higher on the color scale but I love the warm tones plus ct weight you can get. A beautiful setting but not the oval I'm looking for.
http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/halo_diamond_ring_pear_shape
http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/halo_diamond_ring_pear_shape
I love the things on this site. I first saw it when I was on Pricescope and always liked going there.
I was thinking that emerald cut has the largest table too...which was the question of this thread. but if you're asking which cut looks the biggest (which is a completely different subject), then I have to agree with the others that with a round you get the most "bang" for your buck. it looks its size (larger if the cut is very good), & it's the least expensive cut for the size (wastes the least amount of rough stone).
Is it so??? In wikipedia, it is said, "The princess cut is also popular amongst diamond cutters: of all the cuts, it wastes the least of the original crystal." Also, I think I've read somewhere that per carat price of the RB is highest among various shapes because you should waste most of the raw stone.... but, I am not sure....
is this what you read in wikipedia?
Most gem-quality diamond crystals are octahedra in their rough state (see material properties of diamond). These crystals are usually cut into round brilliants because it is possible to cut two such stones out of one octahedron with minimal loss of weight. If the crystal is malformed or twinned, or if inclusions are present at inopportune locations, the diamond is more likely to receive a fancy cut (a cut other than a round brilliant). This is especially true in the case of macle, which are flattened twin octahedron crystals. Round brilliants have certain requisite proportions which would result in high weight loss, whereas fancy cuts are typically much more flexible in this regard. Sometimes the cutters compromise and accept lesser proportions and symmetry in order to avoid inclusions or to preserve carat weight, since the per-carat price of diamond is much higher when the stone is over one carat (200 mg).
when I read that, I understood it to say that round brilliants are cut from MOST of the gem-quality diamond rough stones due to their crystal formation. fancy shapes are cut from roughs with malformations or inclusions to minimize loss. round brilliants would waste more rough in those stones, but these crystal shapes are less common.
I am not a GIA-certified gemologist, but I am involved in the industry. I have always heard that a round cut was the best cut for the price in a diamond, & an oval for a colored gemstone. however, I am happy to learn something new if this is not accurate.
I have to agree with swanky...be careful what you read from wikipedia. anyone can contribute information, & there is no guarantee that the contributor is skilled at writing. seems to me that the confusion in interpreting this wiki info is due to some awkward writing.
This pdf (you can click on it) tells the actual size of a well cut diamond of each shape in mm, and also shows a line drawing.
As you can see, a well-cut round will be larger than a well-cut princess of the same weight, 6.5 mm as opposed to 5.5 mm for one carat. You can also see that marquise trumps every other shape for size for the weight by quite a lot. This is why they were popular in the 80's when diamonds were much more expensive than now. Bang for the buck.
You can see that they are much larger than emerald cuts of the same weight,too.
If the question is, what shape diamond looks the biggest for the weight out of ALL kinds of shapes, marquise wins. If the question is, does round look bigger than princess and asscher, then round winds. If it is (which it seems it is not), which diamond has the biggest table, then, as someone pointed out above, emerald cut wins. However, emerald cuts, though arguably the most beautiful cut and certainly often the most expensive (you HAVE to get a good quality emerald, since the cut hides nothing, so you pay) do not actually look large for their weight.
In fact, this is the reason why many very wealthy people buy emerald cut diamonds--a certain sort of rich person only wants to show off to those 'in the know', not the rest of us and will get an emerald cut BECAUSE they are not large for the weight and not super sparkly, and thus not ostentatious i the larger sizes, and only those who have some knowledge will know what they spent, which is exactly how they like it.
As you can see, a well-cut round will be larger than a well-cut princess of the same weight, 6.5 mm as opposed to 5.5 mm for one carat. You can also see that marquise trumps every other shape for size for the weight by quite a lot. This is why they were popular in the 80's when diamonds were much more expensive than now. Bang for the buck.
You can see that they are much larger than emerald cuts of the same weight,too.
If the question is, what shape diamond looks the biggest for the weight out of ALL kinds of shapes, marquise wins. If the question is, does round look bigger than princess and asscher, then round winds. If it is (which it seems it is not), which diamond has the biggest table, then, as someone pointed out above, emerald cut wins. However, emerald cuts, though arguably the most beautiful cut and certainly often the most expensive (you HAVE to get a good quality emerald, since the cut hides nothing, so you pay) do not actually look large for their weight.
In fact, this is the reason why many very wealthy people buy emerald cut diamonds--a certain sort of rich person only wants to show off to those 'in the know', not the rest of us and will get an emerald cut BECAUSE they are not large for the weight and not super sparkly, and thus not ostentatious i the larger sizes, and only those who have some knowledge will know what they spent, which is exactly how they like it.
Hi, frick-frack! Thank you for your careful explanation.
I understand. The cost performance of RBs tend to be highest because their demand & output of appropriate roughts is strongest. I am happy to know that because I love round-shaped stones more than squre-shaped ones!
Not only due to awkward writing, but also my awkward comprehension of English. LOL. I will be careful about Wiki! (also thank you, Swanky!!!!)
oh i think it's the opposite. my original e-ring is an emerald cut diamond and i just feel like they look so much smaller than the carat weight. i was always told that emerald cuts are hard because of the few facets there are, you really have to get one without any flaws or it really shows up to the naked eye.
it's gorgeous, momo!!! i love it. you definitely made an excellent decision.
