Ideal Table and depth percentage

[alice_ca]

Hello,

I am in the market for a stone, preferably 1ct. I narrowed it to two. I am going for a high color, clarity stone as we believe in our culture that our relation is a reflection of it. I am still confused thought. One stone is 1.08ct and costs about $2.5k more than the 1.01ct stone. All other stats are the same except for table and depth percentage. So I am not sure if it really worth the extra money and if table% really matters. I have read a lot of conflicting content on the net with some recommending that table be between 53-57.5, some saying 59-63 and yet others saying 53-59 is most desirable. I want the stone to be very shiny( Excuse my lack on knowledge in diamonds).


1.08 specs
--------------
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.08
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: IF
Measurements: 6.68 x 6.64 x 4.05 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 60.8%
Table: 59.0%
Girdle: Medium - Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

1.01 specs
-------------
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.01
Cut: Super Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: IF
Measurements: 6.46 x 6.46 x 3.99 mm
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 58.0%
Fluorescence: None

Please advice. Thank you so much for your comments and advice.

best,

Alice

 

[Gypsy]

Table and depth are not enough. FYI. It's all the angles. They all have to be in range and work together. https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-crown-and-pavilion

depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above

note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!


^^^^^^That is a cheat sheet we use. It's is unnecessarily restrictive though but if you are looking for 'ideal' tolkowsky then that's where you are at: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/tolkowsky-ideal-cut-diamond

If you want the shinest diamond out there: Cut is King. No other factor, not color or clarity or anything else impacts how white bright an shiny a stone is.

What you REALLY need though is to work with a vendor that offers you idealscope images. Cause that's what you really need. https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/firescope-idealscope Many of the PS vendors do. It measures light return. And light return is what makes a diamond white bright and shiny.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/holloway-cut-advisor
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-table-size

Also you don't need E IF. Waste of money. You would be better served with G-F VS. Much better served.

You need more knowledge before spending thousands on a diamond. Start at the knowledge tab up at the top of the screen.

 

[Gypsy]

If you want to skip all of that. Stick to AGS 0 stones only for cut. And then pick your color and clarity.
Here are two for you:
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.041-d-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104063263007 If you want the best possible cut (and you do) and also want to waste money on color and clarity you don't really need.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.208-g-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104064813013 If you want a diamond that is white, bright clean and 'right right' on everything in balance. Best possible cut, of course. And it's a 1.2 carat.

Idealscope image, AGS 0 lab report, hearts view and arrows view all posted for you right there. Everything you need.

If you want an F... http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10917/ Here you go.
Here's an E: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11416/

 

[alice_ca]

Thank you so much for your suggestions. I found a few others ones. All 3 have excellent polish and symmetry as per GIA certificate.

1.11 ct
table - 56%
depth - 61.9%
crown - 34.5
pavilion - 41
GIA excellent cut
HCA score - 1.8

1.15ct
table - 58%
depth - 61.9%
crown - 35
pavilion - 41
GIA excellent cut
HCA score - 2.5

1.02ct
table - 57%
depth - 61.8%
crown - 35
pavilion - 40.8
GIA excellent cut
HCA score - 1.7

Out of the two what would you suggest would look best on a setting like this. There may be minor difference in the setting though.
http://www.bluenile.com/engagement-rings/monique-lhuillier/monique-lhuillier-baguette-hexagon-ring-platinum-35404

I read that these specs may make a diamond look dark. Since I am yet to see the stones myself, I want to know your opinions as well.

Again, thank you so much your valuable advice.

regards,

Alice

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hello Alice,

Can you take away my confusion?

Originally, you indicate that color and clarity are very important to you, for cultural reasons, and you ask about E-IF. Gypsy gives you good options as far as Cut goes, but it is unclear to me whether that still fits your parameters of color/clarity, not to mention budget.

If you could clarify that position, I am sure that many regulars here could direct you to alternatives.

Live long,