FCD's: Size or Saturation?

[LD]

Saturation over size UNLESS your budget meant you could only buy a teenie tiny well saturated diamond.

I'm going to be honest and tell you what I see (because FCDs are expensive but there are lots out there to choose from)!

You've photographed the diamond on different colour backgrounds and in some of the photos it looks pretty BUT your skin isn't magenta or orange etc and you really shouldn't have to squint or strain to see a colour. A diamond needs to have some colour to begin with in order for a coloured basket to work it's magic to the best ability. Typically for a closed type basket to work it needs to be a similar colour to the diamond - for example a yellow gold basket for a pale lemon diamond, a rose gold basket for a pale pink diamond. Add a purple basket behind a pale greyish diamond I have no idea what will happen. Before you commit I would put a purple cloth onto your hand (between fingers and then cup it around the diamond and see what happens.

For me (and this is a very personal opinion), I don't see enough blue in that diamond to warrant keeping it. Like others I see a very pale grey.

Whatever you decide, it has to be right for you. You have the diamond in your hand and so if it's ticking all the right boxes for you then go for it.

 

[KR]

Thank you, VapidLapid! You really have an artist's eye for beautiful stones! I will try to train my eyes to see what you are describing

Thank you, I appreciate it, LD. I don't have the stone, those are vendor IRL cell phone photos. The glam shots are glorious, as vendor glam shots always are, but I asked for IRL cell photos because I wanted a better sense of how it looks IRL. And again, I asked for photos of it against various backgrounds because I wanted to see how it interacted with its environment and with different colors, so I can get ideas on how best to set it and bring out it's color. I understand how a like colored cup is used to enhance a stone of like color, that definitely makes sense...but I thought, why not use color theory, specifically complimentary colors, and use simultaneous contrast/context to its advantage and make the stone's color pop? Turquoise is on the diametric opposite side of the color wheel of raspberry, so color theory suggests that those two colors would have the most intense contrast. I plan to set the stone surrounded by color--specifically, a raspberry/purplish halo, purple cup, blackened gold, IVY New York / JAR Paris style, not view it in a box or on my hand. I hope you can understand the vision I have for the stone. I know it's not for everyone, but it excites me.

My only real issue is that it's small, lol. I actually really like the color and my plans for what I want to do with it.

Update on the big very light blue I mentioned earlier in this thread, it's not blue to the eye at all--big disappointment lol. It looks like a steely white diamond with a very light blue GIA color cert. By comparison this one has much more color lol.

I am thinking I may want to try to find another slightly larger fancy light blueish green of the same color of the stone pictured earlier....

 

[ohlala]

since u r disppointed with the light blue diamond, u might skips fancy lights and just get fancy blue or fancy greenish blue. even fancy blue is not that saturated. I have a some fancy colored diamonds and they don't always look that obvious...especially in certain lighting.

 

[ohlala]

and I like your idea about using color theory to find the best setting colors. I was thinking if doing the same thing...perhaps setting my stones in different colors...

 

[AN0NYM0US]

It's all personal preference, but I only really look at fancy and up. I don't find fancy light to be saturated enough to be instantly noticeable. I have also been trying to keep them 4mm and above.This means I have learned to love pears and ovals. Again it's all preference.

 

[kenny]

Hi KR.
Welcome to the fascinating world of FCDs.

I'm a bit of a collector myself and I go for saturation over size.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/update-my-tiny-fancy-colored-diamond-collection.153063/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/update-my-tiny-fancy-colored-diamond-collection.153063/[/URL]

I only deal with fully natural FCDs with GIA reports.
By fully natural I mean both material and color.
The material can mined from the earth or grown in a lab.
The color can be is as it came from the earth or treated in a lab.
Buyer beware, some vendors will describe an FCD as natural that has treated color, because it was mined from the earth … IMHO this in unethical and I'd walk away from such a vendor. Who knows what else they are not telling you?

As others say, what you prefer is all personal, so there is no universally right or wrong.
But what is not personal is what the market decides an FCD will sell for.
For what I paid for my 0.10 carat Fancy Red I could have bought a nice 5+ carat yellow or an even larger brown.

Even when highly skill photographers with fine equipment do their best to take an honest pic it is very difficult to portray FCDs color accurately.
In real life FCDs change their look and color with the environment and the lighting, which begs an unanswerable question, "What is the true color?"
Since price is dramatically affected by the color this is a very important question.

Whether you agree with them or not a color grade from GIA is the gold standard when determining color and hence price.
An FCD with no GIA report has an unknown value.
Since smart sellers want to get as much as possible for each FCD the buyer is at a huge disadvantage buying an FCD with no GIA report.
You are trusting the word of the seller on something that can alter the price by a factor or 10 or 20 or more.

I'd never consider buying an FCD over perhaps $500 without a GIA report.

All my 20 FCD purchases were from Leibish at www.fancydiamonds.net .
I love this vendor.
They are honest, have a huge inventory and most importantly I can testify that their color pics are very accurate for color.
You get a 30 day inspection period.
Eight times I returned FCDs and got a fast refund, no questions asked.

 

[0-0-0]

To be honest I think you are likely to see more blue from well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence than fancy light blues that are generally poorly cut.

 

[kenny]

To be honest I think you are likely to see more blue from well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence than fancy light blues that are generally poorly cut.

Not if the light source you happen to be under has little or no ultraviolet content.
Fluorescence is activated by UV light.

 

[0-0-0]

Certainly, but light sources that don't emit UV are getting increasingly rare, unless you happen to live off candles and campfires.

 

[T L]

Certainly, but light sources that don't emit UV are getting increasingly rare, unless you happen to live off candles and campfires.

And don't forget that big orange ball in the sky.

 

[kenny]

Certainly, but light sources that don't emit UV are getting increasingly rare, unless you happen to live off candles and campfires.

Internal light sources may produce a tiny amount of UV, not enough to cause any of my very florescent diamonds to fluoresce, compared to when I turn on an actual UV light source near the diamonds.

Come on, buying a white diamond that fluoresces is not a substitute for an FCD no matter how sneaky Brian Gavin is at marketing his 'Brian Gavin Blues'.

Around a hundred years ago diamond sellers got busted for deceiving consumers into thinking they were getting blue diamonds, when all they were was white diamonds that fluoresced blue.

 

[kenny]

To be honest I think you are likely to see more blue from well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence than fancy light blues that are generally poorly cut.

Cut quality affects light performance and light return.
Cut has no affect on fluorescence, which is more just how much the material itself glows.

The almost universally agreed to convention for cut quality in FCDs is what cut maximized the color saturation, and weight retention of that particular piece of rough.
Light performance takes a back seat, if it's even in the car.

 

[KR]

Thank you, Kenny!

I have been studying your stunning and intelligently curated collection of FCD's for some time now! You're an FCD celebrity

and I love your photography and fabulous wit

I've been looking at cert'd stones only for sure. I have not been looking at lab created or irradiated. I don't have a problem with either, but they are not for me.

So, buy GIA cert'd, but buy with eyes (since color is hard to display on camera and computers), GIA reports are used for pricing, and it's a deal if eyes like what the eyes see and it's priced well based on the GIA report. Did I get that right?

If so, I'm in

All good advice, thank you so much!

 

[0-0-0]

Kenny, it's not exactly a new phenomenon that colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence were referred to as "blue white" stones. I'm simply suggesting the OP to consider well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence as those look more blue to my eyes than fancy light blues with cut issues.

You are very much correct in pointing out that cut and fluorescence have no impact on each other, but cut and color certainly does. Don't forget that FCDs are graded face up for color and that the cut is maximized for face up color. But what happens at a tilt? More often than not the color in the FCD looks less saturated than its face up color.

 

[KR]

To be honest I think you are likely to see more blue from well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence than fancy light blues that are generally poorly cut.

Cut quality affects light performance and light return.
Cut has no affect on fluorescence, which is more just how much the material itself glows.

The almost universally agreed to convention for cut quality in FCDs is what cut maximized the color saturation, and weight retention of that particular piece of rough.
Light performance takes a back seat, if it's even in the car.

Hehe is that a double entendre? Kenny you naughty boy! LOL!

Interesting point, though, I remember reading a post of yours saying that one should still look for well cut FCD's. That even though it's an FCD and color comes first, it should still sparkle and have scintillation and brilliance like a diamond (I guess otherwise why not just buy a gem if all we were looking for was color). That you returned ones that you felt were poorly cut. I remember after I read that, in my search for a pink pear, I rejected one that I kind of thought looked a bit windowy. The vendor told me not to worry about that, and that color should come first. The clarity is was really what ended up having me pass on the stone. But anyway, in your opinion, what cut standards should we have when it comes to FCD's, beyond weight retention and color saturation? Does light performance not really matter all?

 

[KR]

thbmok,

I get what you are saying. Like I posted earlier, it was certainly a fear of mine that the very light blue I was looking at would just look like a white diamond with SBF (which to me would make buying a very light blue diamond at a premium a waste of money). From what I ended up seeing, I might agree with you that a white diamond with SBF would probably look more blue than that very light blue diamond. The very light blue diamond didn't look blue at all. Sad because it woulda been nice!

I'm not interested in a white diamond with SBF though. Honestly, I'm under weak fluorescent lights with heavily tinted windows in a high rise office that has nasty green walls all day and all diamonds look like crap in here. When I go home, all of my lighting is diffused sunlight in the day or incandescent at night. I have fluorescent light in the kitchen only. Needless to say my antique diamonds look killer at home. At the office, not so much. Ugh I hate how my diamonds look at the office! Frustrating!!! Anyway, I forgot what my point was. Oh yeah now I remember. SBF wouldn't appear very much for me based on the lighting conditions I'm always in. I'm a vampire.

 

[KR]

ohlala ,

Hi there! Have you posted your collection yet??? I want to see!!!!

I'm glad you see what I'm saying about color theory! JAR Paris does it a lot in his work. I'm a JAR fanatic!!! Not that I can afford his stuff but I'm inspired by it, deeply!!!

I want to look at fancies...but I can't afford them at the moment. Maybe I should just wait till I can? Hmmmmm....

 

[KR]

Hi AN0NYM0US!

I love your collection of fancy light bluish greens!!!

Beautiful color!!!!!!!!!

 

[kenny]

Kenny, it's not exactly a new phenomenon that colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence were referred to as "blue white" stones. I'm simply suggesting the OP to consider well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence as those look more blue to my eyes than fancy light blues with cut issues.

You are very much correct in pointing out that cut and fluorescence have no impact on each other, but cut and color certainly does.
Don't forget that FCDs are graded face up for color and that the cut is maximized for face up color. But what happens at a tilt? More often than not the color in the FCD looks less saturated than its face up color.

You wrote, " it's not exactly a new phenomenon that colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence were referred to as "blue white" stones."
True, murder is also not new.
But it's still bad.

No problem, go ahead and suggest a white diamond with strong blue florescence; the OP can make up their mind.
A stongly-fluorescing white diamond is not the same, (cheaper but not the same), as a real fully-natural blue diamond which will look blue in any light source, not just those with some UV content.
Once again, good cut or cut issues has nothing to do with the price of eggs in Ethiopia; I'm not sure why you bring that up in this thread.

But if a buyer is happy to only see some glowing blue in some light sources instead of an ever-present blue that does not glow then that's groovy for them. Neither is superior … but the marketplace has firmly established one is fantastically more-valueable than the other.
So don't suggest they are equal, or buy one thinking it is as valuable as the other one.
Apples and oranges are both delicious but quite different things.
One is a priced perhaps 20 to 50 times what the other is.
If someone wants to delude themselves into thinking they are both equally-valuable or equally-desirable that's their right.
But when he/she tries to sell them the value difference will hit them like a bullet.
I also think the value of a true blue diamond will go up more than the value of a diamond that only gets any blue from its fluorescence.

Beyond pissing off FCD vendors by telling everyone I look for not only good color strength but also for good light performance I also look for FCDs that got their color from exception rough, not from cutting tricks.
This is why I have returned 8 of the FCDs I bought, and one reason I am currently upgrading a few more.
This is a lifelong process, and I'm a patient guy.

You are right, FCD's color is judged in the face-up view only.
BUT … look at the three pics below.
Some cuts like radiant, oval and pear keep the light bouncing around more times so the light picks up more body color before finally exiting out the top.
Rounds, Asschers and Emerald cuts don't so this, which is why they are so rare in FCDs.
Also the color distribution in many cut FCDs is very uneven and blotchy, mostly because the color was not evenly distribute in the rough … still these uneven-looking FCDs can be astronomically expensive.

I have a round Fancy Intense Green, and a Fancy Deep Purplish Pink Emerald cut.
Both are VERY even in color in the top view and still have very strong in color in the side view.
This means they didn't get their color by clever-sneaky cutting.

These are very rare, and very expensive for their specs.
The round and the Emerald cuts do NOT amp up the color like the radiant does.
But notice that even my radiant red has respectable color saturations in the side view.
Most FCDs were cut from rough that was not this good, so most look less saturated in a side view.
Feel free to break the rules and look for not-only FCDs with good light performance but FCDs that are cut from better rough so they don't near cleaver cutting to have good color.

The first 5 are vendor pics and the last pic I took.
Again, this is to demonstrate that if the shopper is picky enough she/he can find FCDs that get most of their color from their high-quality rough, not their clever cutting.

 

[0-0-0]

FWIW Kenny, KR is talking about her concerns with regards to how a fancy light blue diamond may look too similar to a D with SBF, and I'm simply addressing that with what I have seen in person. At no point did I suggest that a colorless diamond with SBF is the same thing as a FCD, only that well cut colorless diamonds look more blue to me than poorly cut fancy light blues as that's what I have seen.

I bring up cut as it has a huge impact on color, again based on what I have seen in person, especially in lightly saturated material.

As you said Kenny, yours is a very very rare collection of well cut saturated stones. I admire your tenacity and assertiveness in building your collection, and have complimented on your diamonds before. But the diamonds KR is referring to aren't such saturated examples. I apologize if you feel that my opinion is somehow invalid, but KR had concerns over the similarity of color between a fancy light blue and a D with SBF, and I'm simply stating my experience in response to that.

 

[kenny]

No problem.
I think we've both expressed ourselves and helped the OP make their own decision.

Additional info is always good. … not only for the OP but also for the many that will read these threads over the years.

 

[VapidLapid]

Kenny, it's not exactly a new phenomenon that colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence were referred to as "blue white" stones. I'm simply suggesting the OP to consider well cut, colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence as those look more blue to my eyes than fancy light blues with cut issues.

You are very much correct in pointing out that cut and fluorescence have no impact on each other, but cut and color certainly does.
Don't forget that FCDs are graded face up for color and that the cut is maximized for face up color. But what happens at a tilt? More often than not the color in the FCD looks less saturated than its face up color.

You wrote, " it's not exactly a new phenomenon that colorless diamonds with strong blue fluorescence were referred to as "blue white" stones."
True, murder is also not new.
But it's still bad.

No problem, go ahead and suggest a white diamond with strong blue florescence; the OP can make up their mind.
A stongly-fluorescing white diamond is not the same, (cheaper but not the same), as a real fully-natural blue diamond which will look blue in any light source, not just those with some UV content.
Once again, good cut or cut issues has nothing to do with the price of eggs in Ethiopia; I'm not sure why you bring that up in this thread.

But if a buyer is happy to only see some glowing blue in some light sources instead of an ever-present blue that does not glow then that's groovy for them. Neither is superior … but the marketplace has firmly established one is fantastically more-valueable than the other.
So don't suggest they are equal, or buy one thinking it is as valuable as the other one.
Apples and oranges are both delicious but quite different things.
One is a priced perhaps 20 to 50 times what the other is.
If someone wants to delude themselves into thinking they are both equally-valuable or equally-desirable that's their right.
But when he/she tries to sell them the value difference will hit them like a bullet.
I also think the value of a true blue diamond will go up more than the value of a diamond that only gets any blue from its fluorescence.

Beyond pissing off FCD vendors by telling everyone I look for not only good color strength but also for good light performance I also look for FCDs that got their color from exception rough, not from cutting tricks.
This is why I have returned 8 of the FCDs I bought, and one reason I am currently upgrading a few more.
This is a lifelong process, and I'm a patient guy.

You are right, FCD's color is judged in the face-up view only.
BUT … look at the three pics below.
Some cuts like radiant, oval and pear keep the light bouncing around more times so the light picks up more body color before finally exiting out the top.
Rounds, Asschers and Emerald cuts don't so this, which is why they are so rare in FCDs.
Also the color distribution in many cut FCDs is very uneven and blotchy, mostly because the color was not evenly distribute in the rough … still these uneven-looking FCDs can be astronomically expensive.

I have a round Fancy Intense Green, and a Fancy Deep Purplish Pink Emerald cut.
Both are VERY even in color in the top view and still have very strong in color in the side view.
This means they didn't get their color by clever-sneaky cutting.

These are very rare, and very expensive for their specs.
The round and the Emerald cuts do NOT amp up the color like the radiant does.
But notice that even my radiant red has respectable color saturations in the side view.
Most FCDs were cut from rough that was not this good, so most look less saturated in a side view.
Feel free to break the rules and look for not-only FCDs with good light performance but FCDs that are cut from better rough so they don't near cleaver cutting to have good color.

The first 5 are vendor pics and the last pic I took.
Again, this is to demonstrate that if the shopper is picky enough she/he can find FCDs that get most of their color from their high-quality rough, not their clever cutting.

This is very true. The photos I showed on the other page were three FIB and one (pair) FB. None of the three look the same, though they are color graded the same. One is certainly less finely colored, though I think it may just be the way the haze in the crystal modifies perception, by which I am leaving it open that in controlled color evaluation techniques it could be right on while not living up to it IRL. Another one is quite lively, but looks paler or perhaps less even. The third looks stronger, but also "flatter" in color. Odd then that the pair of FB, though graded lighter appear somehow more blue. There was an FIB in an emerald cut that I left out of the discussion specifically because of the effect Kenny pointed out. Fewer bounces, shorter light paths make for less apparent saturation. I didn't include the emerald so that that effect would not confuse the issue of fineness of color, but I will add it here. Anyone who wants to look at them side by side can open the other page in another browser window. So to reiterate, this one has the same color grade as the first three I had posted.

 

[kenny]

This is very true. The photos I showed on the other page were three FIB and one (pair) FB. None of the three look the same, though they are color graded the same. One is certainly less finely colored, though I think it may just be the way the haze in the crystal modifies perception, by which I am leaving it open that in controlled color evaluation techniques it could be right on while not living up to it IRL. Another one is quite lively, but looks paler or perhaps less even. The third looks stronger, but also "flatter" in color. Odd then that the pair of FB, though graded lighter appear somehow more blue. There was an FIB in an emerald cut that I left out of the discussion specifically because of the effect Kenny pointed out. Fewer bounces, shorter light paths make for less apparent saturation. I didn't include the emerald so that that effect would not confuse the issue of fineness of color, but I will add it here. Anyone who wants to look at them side by side can open the other page in another browser window. So to reiterate, this one has the same color grade as the first three I had posted.

VL, I'm confused.
Here are all 4 pics of Fancy Intense Blues that you posted, side by side.

Could you elaborate on your comment regarding them?

BTW, I believe GIA is very generous and forgiving in their grading of Blue diamonds.
It seems to me that other hues require more saturation to get a Fancy Intense grade than is required for Blue.
They also allow for lots of gray before giving one a Grayish Blue grade.
IOW, many graded pure blue have plenty of gray in them.
This is very different from how strict GIA is in allowing brown in a diamond they grade pure pink.
I see many Brownish Pinks in which the brown is barely noticeable.

 

[justginger]

This is very true. The photos I showed on the other page were three FIB and one (pair) FB. None of the three look the same, though they are color graded the same. One is certainly less finely colored, though I think it may just be the way the haze in the crystal modifies perception, by which I am leaving it open that in controlled color evaluation techniques it could be right on while not living up to it IRL. Another one is quite lively, but looks paler or perhaps less even. The third looks stronger, but also "flatter" in color. Odd then that the pair of FB, though graded lighter appear somehow more blue. There was an FIB in an emerald cut that I left out of the discussion specifically because of the effect Kenny pointed out. Fewer bounces, shorter light paths make for less apparent saturation. I didn't include the emerald so that that effect would not confuse the issue of fineness of color, but I will add it here. Anyone who wants to look at them side by side can open the other page in another browser window. So to reiterate, this one has the same color grade as the first three I had posted.

VL, I'm confused.
Here are all 4 pics of Fancy Intense Blues that you posted, side by side.

What was your comment on them?

BTW, I believe GIA is very generous and forgiving in their grading of Blue diamonds.
It seems to me that other hues require more saturation to get a Fancy Intense grade than is required for Blue.

I agree - from the blues I've seen, 'intense' seems less intense than other colors, across the board. Additionally, I think GIA tolerates a whole lot of gray before they tack it on as a modifier for blues. I've seen 'brownish pink's that have much less brown (to my eye, sometimes undetectable) than most un-modified blues have gray. I see gray in a lot of unmodified blues.

 

[kenny]

How funny JG.
I just edited my post above to say the exact same thing you just did about Gray in Blues Brown in Pinks … before even seeing your post.

I'm glad someone else noticed it.
I was starting to think my color perception was messed up.

 

[chrono]

Totally agree with Kenny's post above on the forgiveness of the blue hue. A GIA Fancy Intense blue will look far less saturated (much grayer) than a GIA Fancy Intense pink (less brown).

 

[T L]

Kenny probably knows what I'm talking about, but the GIA came out with several pictorial charts. In this one on blues, there can be several ranges of tone and saturation that fall within a grouping, like fancy intense for example. It can be kind of confusing, but I don't think one should ever assume that all fancy [saturation/insert color] diamonds are the same exact face up color.

Here's the chart example for blues. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to grade these diamonds, and then when you add in modifiers, like grey for example, it gets even more complex.

Kenny,
Please correct me if I mispoke, or I didn't make a correct statement. Thanks.

 

[LD]

This is my white diamond with strong blue fluor. You'll see in strong sunlight (photo below) it shows an amazing amount of blue - and this photo is NOT a reflection of the sky. HOWEVER, out of the sunlight, it's purely a regular white diamond - in all other lighting conditions. So unless the OP lives in a very hot sunny climate (and if he does I'm jealous) I wouldn't suggest this route as a substitute.

 

[themac132]

Chrono, where and when did you find a 30% sale? Was this through a vendor on the web?