Which of these blue diamonds would make the best ring ?

[jbourbaki]

Hi PS-ers,

I have been reading a bunch of the threads here and I am quite impressed with all the knowledgeable people and useful information here. I think everyone should be required to read some of the PriceScope information before buying their first diamond!

In my case, I am working on an e-ring for my lovely girl -- who wants me to surprise her with a beautiful ring that she did not come up with herself. I am pretty sure that I want to get her a man-made HPHT diamond in the Fancy Blue - Fancy Intense Blue range (I don't want it to turn too dark in the sunlight). Periwinklegirl's ring shown in a different thread did help convince me about just how lovely such a ring could be!

I am thinking of a three stone setting with a raised middle stone and two white sidestones (all stones round brilliant) and a single row of pavé or channel set white diamonds in a thin white-metal band like one of these two a bit like this one:
http://www.allurez.com/design_your_...ng_w_sidestones_palladium_0.45ct/bpid/4066/64

I am looking at getting the stone from D.NEA. So here are a few questions:

1) If the setting lets light into the pavilion how (if it all) does this affect performance and color?
2) How much "sparkle" does a colored diamond have relative to a white diamond. I want as much scintillation and dispersion as possible without compromising too much on the color. How much weight should I put on getting traditional "ideal" cut dimensions? I understand that these cuts maximize white light performance but cause the stone to seem less colored. Isn't it better to keep the good cut but just get a darker stone in this case?
3) If I have a stone with a low clarity grade (say eye-clean from 10 in, but can see inclusions at 5 in) how much will this affect overall optical performance when I'm not looking for the inclusions?
4) How much do "polish" and "symmetry" affect the casual optical performance of these stones? If "EGL USA" (not EGL International) rates a stone as "Very good" vs "good" on these am I likely to see the difference?

The three stones that I am comparing right now are:
(1) http://d.neadiamonds.com/lab-created-diamonds/BB410
(2) http://d.neadiamonds.com/lab-created-diamonds/BB413
(3) http://d.neadiamonds.com/lab-created-diamonds/BB415

(1) is the largest (0.85 ct). I think I should really like this combination of Fancy Intense Blue with a cut that is very close to the Class1A cut as per the AGA cut system on PS. It does not have a good "hearts and arrows" type pattern and the clarity is pretty poor -- under magnification the flaws are easy to see. My biggest worry is the clarity (EGL USA rates it SI2, but I am trying to judge it more from the photo). There is one inclusion or flaw that I expect I will be able to see with my eye in the crown (at the 3 o'clock position in the photo) but I am working to convince myself this is OK. Also, at about 7-8 o' clock there are some small inclusions very near the girdle. Might these cause structural instabilities?

(2) is slightly smaller, and has better clarity (I only see one flaw in the magnified photo, and it seems less jarring than the the inclusions in the previous stone). The cut is mostly good except for the large table (64%) and combined with the color I am afraid this might make it too flat and "sapphire like" rather than "sparkly"

(3) Is a lighter blue (which I may prefer, not sure yet) is at 0.76 ct and while only SI2 looks much clearer in the photo than (1). There seems to be a large dark inclusion, but it is positioned such that it isn't as noticeable. The cut seems to be a definite step down though. How bad do you think this would be?

So any thoughts about other things I should be including in my comparison? I don't want the "best" stone, but I want one within my budget that has the overall most pleasing (yes, this is hopeless subjective) optical properties (including color, brilliance, dispersion, etc) both from 5 ft and when she shows others the ring at 10 in.

Any advice is appreciated!

-JBourbaki

 

[periwinklegirl]

Hello,
Congratulations on your upcoming engagement and kudos for your choice of an HPHT! And a blue one to boot! Thank you for your kind words about my ring.
I'm glad you found my thread helpful. I often think that blue diamonds are so rare, I should offer that any PS'ers visiting the Pacfic NorthWest are welcome to come and see mine in person!
Let me also say that I have very limited knowledge and experience of blue diamonds. I have only seen a few, besides mine. So I'm not going to try and give you advice about the cuts of the diamonds you linked. I can say that DNEA is very clear about the quality of their cuts and even though cut wasn't a big factor in my choice of stone, I was pleased to see the hearts and arrows in my photos.
I will also say that I trust Eric implicitly, and I know that he stands behind his products. And I'm a satisfied enough customer to have made multiple purchases from him!

However, since I have, shall we say, first hand experience with at least one blue diamond, I will comment on the colour/clarity aspects of your selections.

First off, I would rule out Number 3. It's only a Fancy Blue, and that's a very wide colour category. While it is of course "blue enough" to see that it's not white, IMO, it's not very blue. I would personally stay with Fancy Intense or Fancy Vivid. My Fancy Intense is powder blue in plain daylight (not sunshine). I wouldn't want a blue lighter than that. I'm assuming from your choice of colour that you want it to really look blue, otherwise you'd be going for white with strong blue fluorescence.
There is a photo of another blue that I think is the closest I've yet seen to real life. It's here (the double halo):

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/show-off-your-colored-diamonds-t153727-120.html

On the subject of clarity, FCDs are not entirely like white stones.
Mine is an SI3, and in the pics I posted in my thread, you can see that it has one big inclusion, right in the table, in fact, right on the surface. But you can't see it at all from ten inches away. And I know my inclusion is there, I'm looking for it. I can see it within 6 inches, but that's all.
This means that only you and she will ever know there are any inclusions (and possibly only you if she is not a loupe-using PS addict like some of us!). That is not to say that you shouldn't go for the higher clarity, only that it's less of a factor than with white stones. Does it affect light performance? Yes. Is it a big deal? Not nearly as much as I expected.
Also, it is my understanding that inclusions in lab-grown diamonds (at least with HPHTs) are carbon, not cracks, so they shouldn't affect the stability of the stone. Perhaps one of our experts could comment?

So, on the size/clarity trade off between stones Number 1 and 2, it depends where you're leaning. Of course we all want larger stones. I would have no trouble recommending Number 1, if you're satisfied on the other factors (cut, polish, etc.). Even the 0.78 is a good size though. I will say that my 0.72 is definitely big enough for me. The colour more than makes up for the <1ct size.

On the subject of sparkle, I will say that blues (and pinks, in my experience) don't refract in quite the same way as white stones. That is to say sparkly, but not as many rainbows. I don't really understand why, but I suspect it has something to do with the same properties that make the colours so much darker in sunlight. Actual experts could doubtless explain this.

My two cents would be order the first stone, examine it from all points of view and if you don't like it, send it back in favour of stone Number 2.

Hope that helps!

 

[EEFranklin]

Periwinklegirl did an excellent job, as usual, addressing the bulk of your questions.

The majority of light in a well cut diamond both enters and leaves through the crown. The setting won't significantly change the color or performance of the diamond, so choose the ring design based on what you like most.

Colored diamonds still perform like you expect a white diamond to, and don't lose brilliance or scintillation because of the color, until you move into the 'fancy deep' and 'fancy dark' colors. The difference is that more of the light returned has some degree of color in it, so it won't appear quite as bright white as a colorless diamond would, but only marginally so. Colorless diamonds reflect all light, so when it breaks up into the spectral rainbows, you see all colors in them. Blue diamonds reflect blue light (along with white too), so not all of those fire rainbows have the full spectrum of colors in them. This, I believe, is what periwinklegirl is describing about the sparkle.

SI clarity does not impact cut in any significant way. A dark inclusion might block a tiny percentage of light flow, but overall shouldn't be a major concern. Inclusions in HPHT-grown diamonds are typically metallic and appear black, but are graded using the same criteria (size, placement, quantity, etc.) as colorless diamonds. Inclusions in blue diamonds are also more difficult to see than if the same inclusion were in a white diamond, making SI a bit 'safer' of a choice in blue, all else being equal.

The difference between an EGL 'good' and 'very good' are quite minor and anything above a 'fair' doesn't impact the overall performance of the diamond.

Our photos are not setup explicitly to show hearts and arrows, so it is quite possible for a diamond to have H&A but not display them in our photos.

For those three diamonds:
1) The inclusions in BB410 won't cause any structural issues and some of those in 7-8 o'clock are just reflections of inclusions that the camera picks up but the eye doesn't. The one around 3 o'clock will probably be visible to you if you are looking close trying to find it, but otherwise shouldn't be noticeable.

2) This diamond is more clean than #1, but the main inclusion is more in the table. The larger table will give it a bit more brilliance and a bit less fire and scintillation.

3) This clarity is more like #2 than #1 and could have probably been called SI1 (EGL tends to be conservative with our diamonds). Our photos for #2 and #3 were taken just minutes apart, and their color compared to each other are more similar than different, so I wouldn't worry about the different color grade on this one.

Any of those are a good choice, and I think you ended up choosing #1 (it sold shortly after periwinklegirl's post). If you have any hesitations about the clarity or anything else, you are certainly welcome to return or exchange it.

 

[periwinklegirl]

Hi Eric,
Thanks very much for your kind words. I'm not sure that my post made a lot of sense, these are difficult concepts to explain in words (at least for me). Thank you for clarifying why I don't notice the scintillation in my FCDs as much as in my white diamonds. It's there of course, just not as striking. But the play of colour is fabulous! I love how the pinks look when the light is coming from the side.

Can you try and explain (in small words) why FCDs look darker in sunlight?

Sorry for possible threadjacking. But since we're on the subject of explaining FCDs...

JB - we'd love to hear what kind of setting you choose and your girlfriend's reaction!

Thanks!

 

[mepp]

hi jbourbaki -- congrats on your decision to buy lab grown!

i don't know if i can really add to the discussion since you have such good answers above but i figure i'll toss in my opinion anyway!

I won't comment on clarity because i think you'll probably just want to check out the stone for yourself. so clarity aside, i vote for stone #1. i tend to really focus on cut quality, and i think #1 wins in this regard. plus, with all else being equal (color), you may as well go for that the first thing I recommend is plugging the dimensions into the holloway cut advisor (HCA). the measurements are not 100% precise on the grading reports, but they should be reasonably close and are a really helpful start. here are a my (non expert) comments:

stone 1: of the 3 stones, i think this one has the best proportions, with the best HCA results. if it were graded as a colorless diamond, it might not be classified as an "ideal" cut, but it does well and there is usually some compromise between maximizing color and light performance. this seems to strike the best balance of the 3. note that according to HCA, this dimensions of this stone will make it perform well from close up but even better from a few feet away.

stone 2: even though this one is a .78 ct vs. the .85 ct above, it would actually look from above to be almost the same size (6.05 x 5.99mm vs. 6.06 x 6.10 mm). this is achieved by making it a bit shallower. it also has a large table 64%, which will make it seem large for its carat weight. but there are tradeoffs with this stone, as the overall light performance won't be as good as #1.

stone 3: this stone is similar in ct weight to #2, but where #2 is wider with a shallower depth, #3 has a narrower width with a deeper depth (5.75 x 5.79 mm). so it will look smaller from above. i'd guess the deeper dimension may have been done to maximize color performance (more distance for the light to travel might increase the perceived saturation). of the 3 stones, i think this has the biggest tradeoff with light performance. it's of course very reasonably priced, though.

all told, for value, size, color, and light performance, i like #1. i hope the clarity looks good for you!

 

[jbourbaki]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for all the advice! It is very much appreciated Perwinkle girl you really answered my questions well, and Eric you were very helpful. I've ordered #1 (as Eric noticed) and I can't wait to see what it looks like in person!

Mepp, thanks for mentioning the Halloway Cut Advisor. I found it shortly after my post, and its rating of the cut relative to the other two was what helped me make my decision. I'll post back once I get the diamond and can tell you what I think if it!

Cheers,
Joel D

 

[periwinklegirl]

Hi Joel,
Glad to be of help. I know it can be hard to decide which to get, and at that price, it's no small decision!
Congratulations again!

 

[JamesChemist]

Hey Joel,

Congrats on your upcoming engagement. Did you have a chance to look at the diamond yet? What are your overall thoughts, and what setting did you decide on? I speak for many I think and state we would love to see pictures if you have any.

 

[jbourbaki]

Hi,

Sorry for not getting back with you all. I have been very busy of late! I ordered the BB410 diamond and to my untrained eye it seems a beautiful diamond with an excellent cut, but it was a little lighter blue than I was expecting (which I could have lived with) and it has a couple of inclusions which, will almost invisible when you look the diamond head on, can appear quite easily throw the crown at very specific angles. This might be fine for some, but I guess I'm turning out to be a bit of a perfectionist about this.

In the end I also ordered

http://d.neadiamonds.com/lab-created-diamonds/BB375

which is the diamond I think I will keep. I don't like its cut quite so well (I would have preferred a smaller table and larger crown facets) but it is still very nice and it is VVS2 clarity and just the saturation of blue I was hoping for.

I'm posting some pictures of both diamonds (the larger lighter one is BB410), but honestly these diamonds are really hard to capture in pictures and I'm not sure how useful they will be. In real life the diamonds don't look as dark blue as these pictures make them out to be (they do look rather dark in direct sunlight, though I didn't get any pictures of that).

Here is one picture under a fairly bright diffuse ceiling fluorescent light.



Here are a couple more in the same setting but some what shaded by me and the camera which I placed closer to the diamonds





Here is one illuminated by the camera's flash:



And finally, here is one shot where you can see the inclusion in the larger diamond through the crown.



Thanks again everyone for your help and advice!

Joel D

 

[jbourbaki]

Just as a quick follow-up, I think my photography skills aren't so good and/or my camera isn't great for the task, but the above pictures really don't do the diamonds justice at all. They are actually much lighter, cleaner, and clearer looking than in the pictures. I wish I could somehow do them justice, because they are just lovely!

 

[periwinklegirl]

Your pictures are great. They really are the hardest things to photograph!
I like your choice of the darker, cleaner-looking stone. You really can't tell until you see them in person. I'm glad you've found a stone to suit you. And thanks for the sharing the pics with us.

 

[JamesChemist]

@jbourbaki @periwinklegirl and others (@mattsaccount) With your blue diamond rings do you ever worry about clashing with your other jewelry? Currently talking with my GF and she likes blue diamonds better than yellow diamonds and yellow better than orange. But feels like a blue diamond might clash with her other jewelry. Have you all had issues with that? Thanks in advance.

 

[periwinklegirl]

Hello!
My fancy intense blue is set in white gold with white diamonds and I wear it with a channel set wedding band also in white gold with white diamonds. I like the look of cool tones together.
I don't tend to wear a lot of yellow gold anyway, as I don't particularly like it. I wear coloured stone right hand rings, earrings, etc. all the time, and I don't have any problems with clashing.

Hope that helps!