But the more a diamond is within super ideal cut proportions the better the light performance will be.
Ideal cut diamond dimensions.
Tolkowsky s standard for ideal cut diamonds called for a total depth of 59 3 with a table diameter of 53 and a crown angle of 34 5 degrees which is offset by a pavilion angle of 40 75 degrees however apparently he never accounted for the girdle edge of the diamond.
In 1919 the mathematician and renowned gemologist marcel tolkowsky published his findings for the perfect diamond proportions in his thesis entitled diamond design a study of the reflection and refraction of light in a diamond all diamonds that were within the parameters of the so called tolkowsky ideal cut were considered to have an excellent light return.
For an oval cut diamond an ideal depth is less than 68 percent.
The tolkowsky ideal cut.
Compared to round cut diamonds the prices of oval diamonds are generally 20 30 lower due to a better yield on rough cutting.
If a diamond is only slightly outside of super ideal cut proportions it will not matter that much.
For example this beautiful 1 01 carat oval cut diamond has a depth of 65 8.
If you can obtain the above super ideal proportions without compromising on the other 3cs it would be an ideal scenario.
For an asscher or emerald cut diamond an ideal depth is between 61 to 68 percent.
Doing a search online for the ideal standards of princess cut diamonds you ll find a lot of controversy and confusion.
However don t compromise overly on the other 3cs in order to get the best proportions.
In tolkowsky s initial publication he stated that the ideal cut diamond should only have a table proportion of 53.
For example see this excellent emerald cut diamond with a 64 6 depth.
While cut is absolutely critical the brilliance of a diamond is about all 4cs not just cut.
If you are looking for a diamond that exhibits superior brilliance and sparkle scroll down to use my proven table of ideal cut diamond proportions instead.
They aren t exact because of the way diamond cutter s cut the stone.
Nobody can agree on a set of numbers that will accommodate every cut and shape of stone.
