Robin, are you asking about any particular shape?  I THINK you are asking more about table "proportion" as it relates to other aspects of the diamond, rather than  just plain "size." In that vein, you probably klnow that the diamond industry has come up with a set of "ideal" proportions for RB diamonds, but I think most experts agree that the "ideal" stuff is more a marketing tool than anything else.  I'm sure many, many, many diamonds do not hit the mark when it comes to "ideal" proportions, yet, they are equally -- and sometimes MORE -- beautiful than those considered "ideal." Apparently, recognizing these types of "non-ideal" diamonds is what makes someone like David, so good at what he does. Although, reading through some of the DBL diamond descriptions, I see David writes here and there that he does have his own "preferences" when it comes to some of the numbers. (Please forgive me, David, if I'm speaking out of turn here).

It is much harder to determine any sort of "ideal" when dealing with fancy shapes and fancy colors, and quite frankly, probably much less important. I'm sure, if there were an "ideal" for fancys, it would be different for each particular shape diamond.

Anyway, like all the other aspects of "cut," it is my understanding that the size/percentage of the table, and how it relates to the other cut aspects of the diamond, greatly impacts the overall light performance of the diamond. For instance, I think older-style OMC and European cut-style diamonds, generally with smaller tables and steeper crowns, are known more for "fire" than "brilliance."  But, of course, there are other aspects (pavillion depth, number of facets, facet patterns) in these type stones, compared to more modern stones, that contribute to differences in how they handle light as well.

I think that, in the end, it is the overall look and performance that you prefer that really counts, not the numbers.

Oh, David, where are you? 

What does this mean exactly?

Thanks for the explanation David--