4 C''''s: Which is most important to you?

[diamondfan]

I would take the largest.''
My stone is VS1 and it is a G and it looks pretty white to me. I had an E and while it was a slight bit whiter it is not a huge difference.

 

[diamondfan]

I also would want eye clean for sure...but assuming they all are, the bigger one of course!

I think cut is really important, and I have seen large but none too pretty stones which are not nice.

But some people want BIG and do not care what the diamond looks like to get it. That is not for me though.

 

[pocahontas]

Date: 8/7/2008 7:03:37 PM
Author: diamondfan
But some people want BIG and do not care what the diamond looks like to get it. That is not for me though.

Yep - so true! I remember years ago that a colleague of mine and I were talking about e-rings. I remember her telling me that when she was getting engaged all she cared about was getting a "2 carat rock." She even told me she didn''t care about anything else other than the size. Even though I hadn''t yet discovered PS, I knew enough by looking at it that it was pretty poor quality. It was very "milky" looking and didn''t really sparkle. I guess to each his/her own *shrugs*

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
My point is, I did my research on diamonds, value, the grading scale, what people want in a diamond, even the history of diamonds and the 'diamond invention.' So instead of ripping me to shreds, maybe the blame for my faulty thinking was taught to me by these experts! I have faith, though, that they would not publish lies for the lay-reader to embrace!

Terry, to be thorough, I went back through this thread before posting. The highlighted part is quite untrue. No one has even come close to "ripping you to shreds".

 

[RxTechRN2b]

Trillionair and Circe, thankyou -- and two people in another thread have pointed out this questionable Fred Cueller. I did a search on google as instructed, and most links led me back here and to another diamond forum hosted by trusted internet vendors. Needless to say, "the Diamond Guy" is not well liked! I've got to get to a real computer so I can do some better research as my blackberry can only "see" so much. I paid 17 dollars for what looks credible -- the front cover lists credentials such as MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc. And the facts inside the book I had read similar in other places, so nothing jumped out and screamed "lies!" It just makes me really mad if I helped financially support a crook who is no better than the jewelers he warns people of in the book. Why would is this guy on the 6th printing and this book the #1 selling on the subject when he has a felony as a theif jeweler? Isn't there any way to get the book pulled from the shelves? And why would President Bush and Oprah, etc., buy from and support this crook? Oh well, it's been a very unpleasant day all around for me and this is just the icening on the cake.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/7/2008 7:56:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
My point is, I did my research on diamonds, value, the grading scale, what people want in a diamond, even the history of diamonds and the ''diamond invention.'' So instead of ripping me to shreds, maybe the blame for my faulty thinking was taught to me by these experts! I have faith, though, that they would not publish lies for the lay-reader to embrace!

Terry, to be thorough, I went back through this thread before posting. The highlighted part is quite untrue. No one has even come close to ''ripping you to shreds''.

I''ve followed the entire thread, and I honestly do not believe that anyone has attacked Rx here.

Everyone here is very respectful of each other''s right to have their own personal preferences (tolerances?) in terms of diamond colour and clarity - and no-one would criticise another for their individual taste.

What was being criticised was a sentence regarding diamonds of G colour and SI clarity (and below), which stated that these stones were not of gem quality and would not be used by the likes of T&co, Cartier & Harry Winston. Other PSers felt that this statement was misinformed and incorrect, and took issue with it.

It was that particular statement which was being disputed, that is all.

It seems Rx has now discredited the source material - which I guess puts an end to the dispute anyway.

I''m still wanting the 2ct I colour SI1 though...

x x x

PS. To the poster that mentioned the O colour IF diamond on GOG.. OMG.. and YUM!!!!!!

 

[diamondfan]

Date: 8/7/2008 7:55:02 PM
Author: pocahontas

Date: 8/7/2008 7:03:37 PM

Author: diamondfan

But some people want BIG and do not care what the diamond looks like to get it. That is not for me though.

Yep - so true! I remember years ago that a colleague of mine and I were talking about e-rings. I remember her telling me that when she was getting engaged all she cared about was getting a ''2 carat rock.'' She even told me she didn''t care about anything else other than the size. Even though I hadn''t yet discovered PS, I knew enough by looking at it that it was pretty poor quality. It was very ''milky'' looking and didn''t really sparkle. I guess to each his/her own *shrugs*

See? I would really not want that and I would go smaller to get something prettier. Big is nice but milky or frozen spit is not!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/7/2008 9:18:09 PM
Author: Cleo

Date: 8/7/2008 7:56:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
My point is, I did my research on diamonds, value, the grading scale, what people want in a diamond, even the history of diamonds and the ''diamond invention.'' So instead of ripping me to shreds, maybe the blame for my faulty thinking was taught to me by these experts! I have faith, though, that they would not publish lies for the lay-reader to embrace!

Terry, to be thorough, I went back through this thread before posting. The highlighted part is quite untrue. No one has even come close to ''ripping you to shreds''.

I''ve followed the entire thread, and I honestly do not believe that anyone has attacked Rx here.

Everyone here is very respectful of each other''s right to have their own personal preferences (tolerances?) in terms of diamond colour and clarity - and no-one would criticise another for their individual taste.

What was being criticised was a sentence regarding diamonds of G colour and SI clarity (and below), which stated that these stones were not of gem quality and would not be used by the likes of T&co, Cartier & Harry Winston. Other PSers felt that this statement was misinformed and incorrect, and took issue with it.

It was that particular statement which was being disputed, that is all.

It seems Rx has now discredited the source material - which I guess puts an end to the dispute anyway.

I''m still wanting the 2ct I colour SI1 though...

x x x

PS. To the poster that mentioned the O colour IF diamond on GOG.. OMG.. and YUM!!!!!!

ditto Cleo''s whole post.

Now, can we can please get back to admiring each others sparklies of ALL colours, clarity and sizes!

 

[UCLABelle]

I love a balance. The "G" "SI1" if graded by GIA or AGS should be nice.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/7/2008 9:45:47 PM
Author: diamondfan

See? I would really not want that and I would go smaller to get something prettier. Big is nice but milky or frozen spit is not!

Ewww.

Big is great - but it would have to be eyeclean (or almost eyeclean) for me.

I add almost in there because I did meet a lady with a 5ct Asscher (cut by Joseph Asscher himself!) that had a small black nclusion in one corner which I could see with the naked eye... but I reckon I could live with that for an amazing diamond like hers!!

Actually, this is probably a good time to mention that PS has been so valuable in educating my own personal tastes. My e-ring stone is an F, because I am colour sensitive.

What I''ve learned since I''ve been here is that although I am colour sensitive, I actually do still like the warmer coloured stones... I didn''t appreciate them before, but now I do.

When my upgrade day comes, I will certainly be looking at I stones - and I didn''t think that would *ever* happen. I have seen so many stunning I, J, and K (and lower) diamonds on here that I know I can enjoy a whopping I colour diamond on my hand.

Oh, and my pretty little 0.33ct J colour pear diamond (£60 ebay bargain) helped too!

Lorelei - the time has come for you to post photos of the K-colour monster. Miss Cleo (and the rest of the PS ladies) have waited long enough... we need pictures!!!!!!!

x x x

 

[marcy]

I''d vote for the .75 VVS1 color D.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 5:45:13 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM

Rx, as the OP, I apologize that you are being attacked

for an opinion that was solicited, that was certainly not my intention with this thread.

Trill, again no one was attacking rx in any way, or ripping her to shreds, just disagreeing with some of her post, that is all.

Miss Cleo, my diamond is lower than a K

Did you ever get that sweet pear set???

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:53:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Miss Cleo, my diamond is lower than a K

Did you ever get that sweet pear set???

Miss Lorelei, I don't really mind what colour that baby is, I just want to SEE it!!!!

Purrrrrrleeeeeeese?

My little pear is still homeless for now - I'm concentrating on my ering first. Posted over in hangout to say I got a job today (woo!), and I'm speaking to Lesley at Whiteflash about having a whole lovely new YG ring made for my diamond. Watch this space!

Photos please Lorelei....

x x x

*ETA* I just looked up our old threads and realised it's an L...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:07:35 AM
Author: Cleo

Date: 8/8/2008 3:53:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Miss Cleo, my diamond is lower than a K

Did you ever get that sweet pear set???

Miss Lorelei, I don''t really mind what colour that baby is, I just want to SEE it!!!!

Purrrrrrleeeeeeese?

My little pear is still homeless for now - I''m concentrating on my ering first. Posted over in hangout to say I got a job today (woo!), and I''m speaking to Lesley at Whiteflash about having a whole lovely new YG ring made for my diamond. Watch this space!

Photos please Lorelei....

x x x

Oh I am so delighted for you with the job!!!!!!!! And the e-ring - yippee!!!!!!! I will see about the ring!

 

[trillionaire]

The poll numbers disappeared!

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:53:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/7/2008 5:45:13 PM

Author: trillionaire

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM

Rx, as the OP, I apologize that you are being attacked

for an opinion that was solicited, that was certainly not my intention with this thread.

Trill, again no one was attacking rx in any way, or ripping her to shreds, just disagreeing with some of her post, that is all.


Miss Cleo, my diamond is lower than a K

Did you ever get that sweet pear set???

Lorelei,

I was responding to the fact that RX felt attacked. Some people are more sensitive than others. If I were RX, I would have felt a bit ganged up on as well, so I was just trying to help diffuse that feeling. I would do the same for you, any day

 

[Bliss]

Ditto Miss Cleo''s diplimatic and excellent points!

Hey, did you guys ever have the fortune teller informercials with Miss Cleo? =D I loved those!

I echo that Rx wasn''t being attacked, but I am sorry if she feels that way. I really enjoy Rx''s posts and am glad she decided to stick around in the PS soup! Plus, I would have missed that avatar. Yum.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Regarding the stones being offered in the poll, assuming the cut quality is the same in all of them, I would pick the 1 carat D color. I'm very color sensitive. Clarity and size are not that important to me.

 

[RxTechRN2b]

One source that was pointed out as "written by a convicted felon" is not well liked on this forum or any forum sponsored by internet vendors.

For those who took their valuable time to say they read this whole thread carefully to make sure I was not being attacked (which I felt I was for sharing my reasons behind my choice and then had to spend the time looking through my diamond books to back up my personal and subjective opinion on a diamond I don''t even own compared to the other choices on the survey that are not anyones diamonds!!!), did you overlook the other sources I am using? I used at least two others -- is there something you can find to discredit them as well?

The one book I know many people on here have read, and that is the one that states SI and I grades are not quality. Again, feel free to get offended at the writer of that book -- Penny Proddow/Marion Fasel of "with this ring" page 124. That page also says that the stones with a V in the clarity grade are the good ones you should look for in an engagement ring. You can agree or you can not agree, that''s your choice. But those thoughts are not mine alone and I quote directly from someone else. Another source uses the terms "rare quality" for stones with a V in the clarity grade, and "less rare quality" for SI and I grades on page 60 in the chapter about how clarity affects value. Her name is Antoinette Matlins and her book is simply called "diamonds." She says on the same page and page 61 that SI stones are still highly desirable to allow people to have higher color or larger size when working with a limited budget. Is that less offensive?

This survey was set up to force you to choose smaller stones of higher clarity, or larger stones of lower clarity, with the choice of two different color grades (colorless perfect, or near colorless) allowing for slightly larger in the small category or the large category. The question was, which is your choice and why? If you prefer the largest stone IN THIS SURVEY you will be sacrificing both clarity and color. Why did YOU chose that? Is your finger big, or do you like the way a big stone looks, or do you want something similar or bigger than your friends, etc.? Whatever your reason is perfectly legitimate and personal and should not be offensive to anyone choosing a different stone for a different reason. If anyone finds your reason offensive, I hope you have a variety of sources to back you up -- don''t rely on one because it might not be legitimate and you will have to discredit yourself!

The one source in question is a GIA graduate, and whether or not he is a felon has nothing to do with providing accurate information on the GIA grading system. He might be questionable in his assessment of internet vendors, and might do his best to get people to buy diamonds from him, but I did not see anything different in his grading of clarity and color compared to the other books I quoted from.

I stand by what I said -- some stones are investment quality, anything not qualifying as investment is commercial, except for the I2-I3 frozen spit which is industrial. I don''t see anything offensive in those terms whatsoever -- I wear commercial quality but would prefer to have investment quality for all my pieces! What is wrong with that?

I feel good about having extra-special quality -- other people feel good about having extra-big size compared to what is normal -- and some people are doubly lucky if they have the funds for large AND investment quality. Other people with the funds might not want investment quality because they think its stupid to pay for what you can''t see. Other people want mind-clean and will pay extra for what you can''t see. Some people have big fingers and need a big stone for balance, while others have slender fingers and can pull off a delicate look with a small stone.

Why not stop all this bickering and quibbling over me and my personal opinion, and give your own opinion on why you would chose one over the other?

 

[stone_seeker]

My opinion is that G and H color stones are "investment" quality as well despite the opinion of some author of some book who may or may not have an agenda.

What I do know as fact is that I did own a D/IF 2ct round once and it did not appreciate over time beyond the rate of inflation. When I tried to sell it I did not get offered more than 50-60% what it would cost to buy the same stone. So that leads me to believe diamonds are not great investments (as has been pointed out here countless times) so calling certain stones "investment" quality is a bit of a misnomer by the author of those books. I wonder if one of those sources would agree today to buy back my stone for double what I pay for one in 10 years. If its such an investment, they should have no problem with that but I think they would just laugh at me.

Which is why I will select a D/E/F only if it suits me and I have no other choice, not because I think it will retain or appreciate in value in 10 years beyond the inflation rate.

If I want an investment, I will buy stocks or real estate (even though those arent so great these days either!).

Again, these are only my opinions and I make them in opposition to those expressed by the author/sources you reference - not you personally.

 

[Circe]

Date: 8/8/2008 1:33:47 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
Why not stop all this bickering and quibbling over me and my personal opinion, and give your own opinion on why you would chose one over the other?

Okay, I'll bite.

My personal reasoning for choosing the 1.25 G SI1 in the poll was, simply, that I love a little warmth in a stone - purely aesthetic, here - and I think the size difference between the SI1 stone and the only other G stone is big enough to make a difference. Since, personally, speaking, I don't really *like* the look of a D, both of those were out at the start ... and I don't see the point of paying for VVS1 clarity, because my mind-clean line is at the VS category. If the poll had had an option for a G, or J, or M (etc., etc.) with VS2 clarity, I would have had a much harder time deciding: as it was, this was the one stone that was likeliest to please my hypothetical eye once one balanced out the C's, because, yes, an extra 2 mm do make a difference to me, visually.

Why do those 2 mm make a difference to me, and to the women who prompted Trillionaire to post the poll in the first place? Good question. A great many people say things like, "Why pay for what you can't see?" regarding both color and clarity: I think the "you" is interesting, there. I don't think it's an implied collective "you," a la, "People will just see a big stone and think you have more money than you do! You will have pulled one over on the masses!" I think it's the individual "you": you can get something more (not disparaging smaller stones, here - I mean, literally more stone, as in more mass) for the same price. So, for one thing, there's a practical component: you're getting more bang for your buck. That being the case, why not go for a G, SI1 at .85, getting a great deal and saving some money? Why do we always want more? [looks around at SUV's, super-sized meals, McMansions, etc.] It seems to be a part of our culture. As a people, we really seem to like extravagance. I'm not saying there's anything good or bad about it: it's just ... there. And, since we're all products of our environments ... the majority of people will react by going with the tide, and some will react, just as vociferously, by going against it. Why each person responds as they do is completely and wholly subjective ....

P.S. - Terry, since the issues behind prestige purchases seem to interest you, might I recommend a book? It's not related to diamonds, but it's really well-written and researched, and addresses a lot of the same issues; Deluxe: How Luxury Lost its Lustor, by Dana Thomas.

 

[SilverLily]

Why not stop all this bickering and quibbling over me and my personal opinion, and give your own opinion on why you would chose one over the other?

Well, I think the bickering and quibbling was dying down until this post of yours which brought it up again.

I don''t think the terms "investment", "commercial" and "industrial" is what offended people. You said that G colored stones are not "gem-quality". Don''t tell that to Tiffany and other high-end jewelers that sell down to an I color. Most people perceive the terms "not gem-quality" to mean heavily included diamonds that are not even cut and placed in jewelry.

You seem upset that people don''t feel you were attacked. Well, it goes both ways...you don''t seem to recognize that you offended people.

Oh, and to give my opinion...if all are equally well cut I would take the larger G SI!!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I voted for the D color as well (a few days ago) because I am color sensitive. I feel that I can very occasionally see a tinge of color in my F, though I am not convinced that it''s not all in my head.

When it comes to color, I find myself being very subjective. I was walking by a vintage jeweler the other day and there was a beautiful ring in the window and it had some obvious warmth. I found myself really liking it despite the warmth. I sort of like warmth in vintage rings...it has a genuine quality to it.

On the other hand, I have seen several women who have large solitaires and obviously went for size over quality and for me, the warmth there just doesn''t do it for me. I don''t know why, I just find something ironic about a large diamond with a lot of tint worn by somebody who is trying SO hard to make a statement about herself.

 

[Bliss]

((((love))))

Speaking of these yummilicious larger stones that are warmer, I thought it would also be an interesting point to note that the phrase "higher value" can be misleading when comparing a smaller higher color/clarity stone to one larger of lower color/clarity.

Often, the larger stone is a lot more expensive. So saying "higher value" and putting that into a dollar context, is not actually correct. It's the entire package that makes a diamond and that includes size, color, cut, clarity and etc. To just say higher value based on color and clarity are true, but size then makes that exponentially more or less. I love 'em all...

But since we're on the subject...

True a D IF .50 carat is going to be a lot more expensive than a 1 carat G SI1, but on the other hand, a 3 carat G SI1 is going to be a lot more expensive than a 1 carat D SI1 and the combinations are endless. You just can't blanket all stones based on color and clarity. Size make the price go BOOOIIIIIIING!!!!!

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/8/2008 1:33:47 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b

This survey was set up to force you to choose smaller stones of higher clarity, or larger stones of lower clarity, with the choice of two different color grades (colorless perfect, or near colorless) allowing for slightly larger in the small category or the large category. The question was, which is your choice and why? If you prefer the largest stone IN THIS SURVEY you will be sacrificing both clarity and color. Why did YOU chose that? Is your finger big, or do you like the way a big stone looks, or do you want something similar or bigger than your friends, etc.? Whatever your reason is perfectly legitimate and personal and should not be offensive to anyone choosing a different stone for a different reason. If anyone finds your reason offensive, I hope you have a variety of sources to back you up -- don''t rely on one because it might not be legitimate and you will have to discredit yourself!

I find it a little bizarre that you feel obliged or required in some way to back up your personal preference with written sources. A personal choice is exactly that, and requires no justification from either the person doing the choosing, or from any external source (written or otherwise) to validate it.

Your preference is what it is. Everyone accepts it and noone is offended by it.

Yes, people did dispute your statement of G/SI diamonds not being of gem quality and some were offended. Yes, you may wish to quote sources to back this up... but the reality is that the likes of T&Co, Harry Winston & Cartier clearly disagree, at least in terms of the diamond colour grades which they use.

Why not stop all this bickering and quibbling over me and my personal opinion, and give your own opinion on why you would chose one over the other?

As someone already mentioned, the bickering finished quite some time before you posted. Again, noone was attacking your personal opinion, just a statement you made regarding which colours & clarities qualify as ''gem quality'' diamonds.

x x x

 

[coatimundi_org]

TerryRx--you keep referring to diamonds as investment or commercial quality. The diamonds most folks in this thread are referring to are gem quality. G color/eye clean SI is neither commercial nor investment--it is gem quality. Gem quality is definitely a category, as it is how diamond rough is sorted. Gem, near gem, etc.

Small or average sized diamonds are not investments, plain and simple. D VVS stones are not uncommon within the realm of gem rarity.

Stones that I would consider investments are untreated large emeralds, rubies, A-grade jade, etc. of good clarity and ideal color. A very large D FL stone would be an investment. A .75 D VVS1 is not an investment. Gemstones are investments simply because of their rarity.(not talking about emotional investments--just monetary)

Diamonds(with the exception of very large diamonds of high color and clarity) are not rare. That is why you see them in multitudes in every jewelry store. Diamonds are costly because of 1)the cost of extraction and 2)a tightly controlled supply that is manipulated to suit demand.

 

[dbsdiamonds]

1.25ct G SI1. No brainer. G is white, SI1 will be eyeclean. The "c''s" that can be seen are size, color and quality of cut. Clarity is basically a no factor in beauty (unless of course heavily included to mess with brilliance or actually be eye visible).

Better yet, ask 100 women, take the poll. 95 will tell you 1.25ct. Ok, maybe 93. 91? More than half for sure, debate over! (of course there is another agenda besides consensus!)

Marty
CEO/Pres
Diamond Brokerage Service, Inc
www.diamondsatcost.com

 

[trillionaire]

Does anyone know why the poll results disappeared???

 

[Lynn B]

Aye yi yi yi yi!!!!

Now, to answer the original question -- assuming all are equally well cut and eye-clean, definitely the BIGGEST one, babeeeee!

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 8/8/2008 9:33:10 PM
Author: Lynn B
Aye yi yi yi yi!!!!

Now, to answer the original question -- assuming all are equally well cut and eye-clean, definitely the BIGGEST one, babeeeee!

haha I agree w/you.

Trillionaire are you still considering a Trillion/Trilliant ering?