When to go up in size/down in clarity or down in size/up in clarity?

[Joane]

Hi, folks,
I''m a relative newcomer here. Last spring I turned to Pricescope for research on a small (.25) Canadian diamond and found not only a treasure-trove of information here, but posts which have engaged my interest long after the diamond was purchased. Love this site--and my appreciation of diamonds is growing by leaps and bounds! Thanks!

My question has to do with these instances: One purchaser had $10,000 and intended to buy a perfect D/IF 1ct diamond. Another had a budget of $2,000 and intended to buy a small D/IF diamond within that budget. In the first case, the general advice was to buy a larger stone with lower clarity. In the second case, the idea of a small "perfect" diamond was generally supported.

Is there a cutoff point in size/budget above which it''s a better deal to go up in size and down in clarity, and below which the main characteristic of the stone should be quality over size?

Hope that question is clear. If not, I''ll try to say it better.

 

[decodelighted]

IMO -- there can''t be any set rule about this, it''s a purely personal decision based on the specific tastes/desires/priorities of the couple involved. Posters can certainly base responses on:
1) what the best overall value scenario would be in their opinion
2) what they''d choose based on as much info as provided about the couple
3) what they''d choose themselves based on their own situation.
I''ve noticed that people come at the "puzzle" with different preconceptions ... often involving the 1 ct. mark. I have a friend that swears in her neighborhood she''s heard the mantra "Under two won''t do" practically since birth. As is the case with other potential status symbols: cars, houses, neighborhoods, college degrees (or a particular Quality of college), graduate degrees, job titles ... engagement rings can be very, very important to someones sense of self -- or not at all, depending on their value system. You can see, it''s a pretty complicated and sometimes inflammatory subject on the "P-scope."

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/15/2005 12:55:24 PM
Author:Joane
Hi, folks,
I''m a relative newcomer here. Last spring I turned to Pricescope for research on a small (.25) Canadian diamond and found not only a treasure-trove of information here, but posts which have engaged my interest long after the diamond was purchased. Love this site--and my appreciation of diamonds is growing by leaps and bounds! Thanks!

My question has to do with these instances: One purchaser had $10,000 and intended to buy a perfect D/IF 1ct diamond. Another had a budget of $2,000 and intended to buy a small D/IF diamond within that budget. In the first case, the general advice was to buy a larger stone with lower clarity. In the second case, the idea of a small ''perfect'' diamond was generally supported.

Is there a cutoff point in size/budget above which it''s a better deal to go up in size and down in clarity, and below which the main characteristic of the stone should be quality over size?

Hope that question is clear. If not, I''ll try to say it better.

I personally think EVERYONE should buy lower color and clarity. But it''s not for everyone, I understand that.

For 2k I would buy a .75 J SI2 diamond.
For 10k I would buy a 1.8c J SI2 diamond, assuming I could find one!

 

[decodelighted]

Something else just occured to me about the two scenarios you mentioned. I think the popular opinions on those particular examples might have had to do with "THE STORY YOU''LL TELL YOURSELF & OTHERS ABOUT THE RING".

10K scenario ... people seemed to be saying "she''ll hate to find out that you spend 10K and only got a 1ct ...because she could have had 1.5 ... who wouldn''t want bigger". The story people wanted for the girl was "I got a 1.5 ct rock!!!" ... Not "My rock is 1ct but it''s flawless"

2K scenario ... people seemd to be saying "ok ... it''s going to be small no matter what ... let''s be creative!" Stories they thought up for her were " Isn''t it beautiful ... it perfect (D IF)" ... or "It''s an eternity ring - like Marilyn Monroe & Renee Zellwegger''s"

 

[belle]

in either case, i would not pay for what i can''t see. that doesn''t change the fact that to some, the idea of having a flawless and completely colorless diamond correlates with perfection. perhaps the support of the smaller d/if relates to the fact that if you can''t have the biggest you may as well at least have the best.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/15/2005 12:55:24 PM
Author:Joane

My question has to do with these instances: One purchaser had $10,000 and intended to buy a perfect D/IF 1ct diamond. Another had a budget of $2,000 and intended to buy a small D/IF diamond within that budget. In the first case, the general advice was to buy a larger stone with lower clarity. In the second case, the idea of a small ''perfect'' diamond was generally supported.

I think this happens because in the first case, the purchaser wants a 1 ct, D, IF. Since those run 20K and his budget is 10K, something has to give. It''s most logical to make adjustment where it won''t be seen. The purchaser can get a D, VS1 for that 10K without any visual sacrifice, so it makes sense that general advise would suggest so.

In the second scenario, the idea of a small "perfect" diamond is likely supported because there hasn''t been *any* expectation set for size.....just "small". Also, most folks probably assume it''s readily do-able....it''s not, by the way. Can''t find a single D, IF stone under .50 anywhere here. However, a .39 D, VVS2 can be had for about $1500-1600.

There is no point in suggesting alternatives to someone''s absolute desire until you identify that their heart''s desire cannot be had within their budget.

 

[carrot]

There is no point in paying for something that can't be seen in a diamond, unless you have some personal reason for doing so.

Once clarity reaches the "eye clean" level (VS2 or perhaps SI1, depending on the stone), further increases in clarity will be invisible to the naked eye, but they will run the price up. A diamond is eye clean when inclusions cannot be seen with the naked eye upon close inspection by a person with good vision.

As you may already know, cut quality is the most important place to put your money because a well cut diamond will sparkle (have better light return overall) far better than one that is cut for maximum size (the typical case).

My opinion is that color is much more important than size (assuming that you can see the difference a colorless stone makes). Size is the last place to put your money, unless you want your diamond to look like everyone else's on the street. (Think about it, when was the last time you saw a dazzling diamond on someone's finger? They are few and far between.)

 

[Madam Bijoux]

I pretty much agree with Carrot. For me, clarity is the least important thing. I'm very color sensitive (I wouldn't buy anything for myself below a 'G'), so cut and color are of equal importance to me. That said, I've seen some sleepy 'D' stones and some dazzling stones rated 'H' and below. Bottom line: Go for the best cut.

 

[Joane]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies! I''m gathering that there is no real cut and dried formula about this, but it''s truly a personal preference and the important fixed issue is to have a good cut. I like the "story" scenarios, deco--trying out how you feel best representing your diamond! Personally I think I''d give myself a range within which I''d feel happy with the quality and then pick the best individual stone and deal among that range.

 

[Lynn B]

CUT rules... and that will always be my first and foremost criterion.

Now, being that that's a "given", I will tell you that I had a gorgeous 1.53 G/VS2, bought when I was a newbie. I chose that color and clarity because I was nervous and it was a "safe zone".

Well, I kept on learning about diamonds... and recently upgraded to a fantastic - and I mean FANTASTIC - 2.36 J/SI2 that is very white, totally eyeclean... and SO much bigger.

Not everyone may agree, perhaps -- but to me, the "sacrifice" in color and clarity were well worth the significant increase in size. I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Lynn

 

[sjz]

My honest answer for you is that people are going to advise others to follow in their own footsteps. People who value size over everything else will naturally advise others to compromise clarity and color to get the maximum size for the money. Those who claim to be "color sensitive" will advise others to go smaller and sacrifice clarity to get that "whiter" stone. And the people like me...

...who are slightly OCD and NEED to know that their diamond is impeccably clean will tell others to go for the highest clarity they can afford.

The ONE factor that almost everyone on PS WILL agree on is cut...pretty much everyone here will tell you to go for the best quality cut you can afford, regardless of the other 3 C's. Because if you get a stone that is poorly cut, the other factors won't make as much difference to the beauty of the diamond.

 

[valeria101]

I suspect that those cutoffs depend on what looks each has in mind for their ring and how familiar they are with the actual look of those grades.


For example, talking about that D-IF for 2k:

Size or no size, the top grades are definitely hard if not impossible to tell apart. Perhaps someone could tell D from F, but IF is only philosophically different from VS1 by all accounts - it is simply not feasible to tell them apart without (allot of)magnification.

If the grades matter as a symbol, than that's that - no room for comment. If the stone is just expected to look 'perfect' than D-IF and E-VS1 would do just as well under most careful scrutiny. There is no compromise there - and in theend the only 'trace' left from the expense is the stone itself.

Then, color shows lessin smaller stones - that is also something to keep in mind. And something similar goes for clarity although there is more room for variation there. For clarity, large stones get some 'slack' from the labs (I have GIA in mind) too.

So, even aside personal preferences, ambition and taste there are still sufficient factors to be considered as far as I can tell.

Just a thought...'

 

[Daniela]

Date: 8/15/2005 9:16:48 PM
Author: sjz
My honest answer for you is that people are going to advise others to follow in their own footsteps. People who value size over everything else will naturally advise others to compromise clarity and color to get the maximum size for the money. Those who claim to be ''color sensitive'' will advise others to go smaller and sacrifice clarity to get that ''whiter'' stone. And the people like me...

...who are slightly OCD and NEED to know that their diamond is impeccably clean will tell others to go for the highest clarity they can afford.

Suzi has hit the nail on the head. The real problem arises, of course, when you follow the advice of others based on what worked for them, and it doesn''t work for you.

As for the two specific instances that you have cited, it seems to have depended on how much money was at stake. It could also be related to which Pricescopers responded to the thread.

 

[fire&ice]

You really have to tough this one out on your own. It boils down to what you can live with.

I have the perfect little stone. I have the large not so perfect stone. Personally, hands down, I prefer the larger stone. I see little to no difference except for what''s written on paper & the size.

 

[IrishEyes]

Date: 8/15/2005 1:28:53 PM
Author: decodelighted
Something else just occured to me about the two scenarios you mentioned. I think the popular opinions on those particular examples might have had to do with ''THE STORY YOU''LL TELL YOURSELF & OTHERS ABOUT THE RING''.

10K scenario ... people seemed to be saying ''she''ll hate to find out that you spend 10K and only got a 1ct ...because she could have had 1.5 ... who wouldn''t want bigger''. The story people wanted for the girl was ''I got a 1.5 ct rock!!!'' ... Not ''My rock is 1ct but it''s flawless''

2K scenario ... people seemd to be saying ''ok ... it''s going to be small no matter what ... let''s be creative!'' Stories they thought up for her were '' Isn''t it beautiful ... it perfect (D IF)'' ... or ''It''s an eternity ring - like Marilyn Monroe & Renee Zellwegger''s''

Couldn''t have said it better myself!

Deco is right here,IMO. whatever you decide to go with, it is just that - YOURS. Go with whatever you feel comfortable with, there are no hard and steady "rules" for diamond purchasing, except that cut is the most important factor and should never ever be disregarded! I used to believe ( way way back before I knew anything about diamonds!) that big, D/IF stones were the best and people who said "oh, it''s an SI2" were crazy for buying a "flawed" diamond

Now of course, I know better! Personally, and this is just me maybe, I hate it when I see girls in a store telling the salesperson " I ONLY want a D flawless, I won''t settle for anything less!" Maybe for a smaller stone, ok I guess, but a 1.5 carat D/Flawless diamond? Why? But everyone is different and like I said, there are really no rules.....

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Many thougtful replies--my comments are not so dissimilar. Ana makes a good point about seeing each stone for itself--for they are all telling in their own way that paper can/may not elucidate. Hence, each stone has its own merits and foibles and must be viewed in each own context. Fun isn''t it!!!!

cheers--Sharon

 

[Joane]

Date: 8/16/2005 10:41:37 AM
Author: canuk-gal

Fun isn''t it!!!!

cheers--Sharon

Absolutely, yes!!!

 

[kenny]

I think quality is what the owner notices.
Size is what others notice.

I buy a diamond for me, not for others.
Here is how my priorities are ordered:
1. Cut
2. Clarity
3. Color
4. Size

I go for the E-F, VVS2-VS1 range and superior cut.
To me the least important parameter is size.

 

[sxn675]

Kenny, what does your girlfriend think???? LOL

 

[kenny]

No girlfriend.
I buy for myself.

 

[sxn675]

Oh, in that case then it doesn''t matter what others think - you just have to please yourself

 

[kenny]

So a question for women who have men who buy diamonds for them.
Are diamonds about you, or about others?
A serious question, I'm not baiting.

Why is size so important that you will go down in color and clarity?
Is the stone for you, or, is it for others?
Is it a competition thing?
Is it a "Look what MY man can afford" thing?
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you can tell the truth about it.

Personally, I like knowing that my diamond has qualities of rarity color and clarity, even if only I appreciate them.

 

[decodelighted]

Hi Kenny,
Think I mentioned this to you in another thread, but I''ll say it again -- size is important to me because I have a large hand and large fingers. What a 1ct would look like on most ladies, a 1.5 ct would look like on me. I''m interested in keeping a ring propotional to my hand in the same way that, say, I pick a handbag proportional to my body. I once said you should never own a dog smaller than your ass, because it''s a living, breathing punch line when you walk it down the street. But wouldnja know, I now own a 7 lb. papillion - so I guess, the moral is ... as much as you plan what you like & what you think is "right" - when you fall in love, you fall in love ....

 

[kenny]

Why compare yourself to others?
The diamond is for you, not them.



Actually I am about to get a dog, actually two dogs, smaller than my ass.

He he he he

 

[decodelighted]

I''m not really selecting a size based on how it will look compared to others rings at all ... there''s s certain amount of real estate on your ring finger before you get to the knuckle, because my real estate there is large, delicate stones & delicate settings & small mm items look DINKY to ME. Just to ME. It makes my finger look squisher and bigger than it really is, and bigger than it looks WITHOUT a ring at all. Slightly larger rings that are within my budget just look better on my finger - again I''ll say it ... wait for it ... TO ME. I fear you might have some preconceptions about women being greedy or golddiggers or something that leaks out in your posts & polls. I hope you realize that we''re all individuals with individual tastes & desires & situations that lead us to our decisions.

That being said - I am concious if I think a small purse makes my ass look bigger (than it really is, not than other people''s asses are). But I''ll proudly walk with my tiny angel dog ...ass bedamned ... most folks just look at her anyhoo!

Good luck on the dog search. There''s no joy like dog joy! (I like them better than diamonds -- GASP!)

 

[kenny]

Goodness
Sorry
Didn't mean to offend.

We all have preconcieved stuff if we have been alive one day.

But I respect your feelings.
If you feel your fingers are XYZ then your fingers are XYZ. (To you)
So be it.


If your feel diamond A makes your fingers look the way you want them to look then it is true.

We all create our own reality.

We're just here to talk.
Peace.

 

[sjz]

I just hope that it never starts being trendy to have a diamond bigger than your ass, or I''m in trouble!

 

[decodelighted]

Sjx .... LOL!!!!! I spit out my Diet Coke all over my keyboard. I think you might have to downgrade to, say, Topaz for that one! (Or at least I would!) Tiger''s Eye anyone?

Kenny ... my reply probably came out harsher than I meant it. I''m fine with open discussions, just a bit sensitive on the size debate because my budget is limited & I feel hemmed in to a certain range by my giganto man-flippers. I commented on your artist thread so lets make up!

 

[kenny]

LMAO

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/16/2005 11:06:37 PM
Author: kenny
No girlfriend.
I buy for myself.

Kenny

your the man. i like your style.