Why is this 2ct Oval so cheap?

[JK_88]

http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamonds/detail/61953051

It's stats, including color would suggest it would be higher in price like other stones. Is there something on the certificate that I'm missing? Is it because there's no florescence?

 

[drk14]

The same diamond is offered by JA:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/2.02-carat-j-color-vs1-clarity-sku-490689

[Although it is priced $75 more at JA than Lumera's list price, you can probably ask JA for a price match or "PS discount" to purchase at the same price or lower (also, JA offers free return shipping, while Lumera does not, so that counts for something, too).]

To answer your question, JA's 360 Display reveals some issues with this diamond. Although the faceting appears fairly crisp and sparkly around the belly of the oval, there is some darkness (obstruction) in the points, and a lot of "mush" and lack of scintillation under the table and shoulders.

Also, when I turn the diamond sideways, to me it looks like the plane of the girdle is a bit tilted compared to the table plane -- this would make it difficult to mount the stone in a ring in a way that looks symmetric.

There are many factors that go into diamond pricing, so the above are just some possible issues that may have contributed to the price of this diamond being lower than you expected.

 

[JK_88]

Ahh I didn't know this option was available. I figured that it had to be something not reflected in the stats and had to be something you looked at in person. For this reason I'm having one of the recommended vendors here help me find something. Good old gold comes highly recommended and I have to say the customer service (I'm dealing with Matt) is pretty exceptional.

 

[JK_88]

this is probably an enormously stupid question, but how are you seeing that problem with symmetry?

Both of you seem to have spotted it immediately so I'm trying to see where this problem is.

 

[drk14]

GOG has a good track record with ovals, so you're in good hands. You may be able to save a little money by looking for something on your own with help from the PS community. There are others here who are much better at picking diamonds than I am, but I'll leave this one as a possible starting point for a search effort:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/2.03-carat-j-color-vs2-clarity-sku-490688

This one has more uniform scintillation, chunkier faceting, higher symmetry, and better shape appeal than the one you were looking at, while also being slightly spreadier and slightly cheaper.

Good luck!

 

[JK_88]

I'm still having trouble understanding how spread is evaluated, when that table seems higher? I've seem a number of guidelines that say the ideal table range is 53-63 and depth is 58-62. I've never seen this really explained in a way that tells me why those dimensions are optimal for spread or face up look. Am I just misunderstanding it, or are these more general guidelines for which stones have the best chance of having good light performance?

Thanks guys, the education here is fantastic and it just helps me be a bit less of a bozo when I talk to vendors.

 

[Rockdiamond]

this is probably an enormously stupid question, but how are you seeing that problem with symmetry?

Both of you seem to have spotted it immediately so I'm trying to see where this problem is.

Totally perceptive question!
I've never seen a stone get a VG symmetry from GIA that has visual asymmetry.

As a general rule- Medium, or even strong blue can be a big plus in J color diamonds.
As opposed to D-E-F color stones with MB, or SB J color stones with florescence are not discounted, unless there's a problem with the fluorescence.


I'd also love to have a better idea what "mush" is.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'm still having trouble understanding how spread is evaluated, when that table seems higher? I've seem a number of guidelines that say the ideal table range is 53-63 and depth is 58-62. I've never seen this really explained in a way that tells me why those dimensions are optimal for spread or face up look. Am I just misunderstanding it, or are these more general guidelines for which stones have the best chance of having good light performance?

Thanks guys, the education here is fantastic and it just helps me be a bit less of a bozo when I talk to vendors.

JK- you can not effectively select an oval diamond using measurements.
To get a rough idea of overall spread, look at LxW measurement.

Light performance is someone's idea of how a diamond looks- and especially with an oval, that might not match what you love.
Use photos and videos to select is my advice.

 

[drk14]

"Spread" refers to the projected area of the diamond in top-down view. For two diamonds with the same shape outline, you can compare spread by multiplying Length x Width. For two diamonds that have different shape outlines, spread cannot be compared in this way (although it is in some cases possible to use geometric formulae to estimate projected areas to compare diamonds of different shapes).

"Symmetry"... Can refer to the GIA symmetry grade (which is "VG" for the diamond you selected). VG is one grade lower than Excellent, so all other factors being equal, a VG symmetry diamond will be priced lower than an Ex symmetry diamond. If you have a high-resolution image (or better, a 360 view like that provided by JA), you can judge symmetry for yourself (at least in a subjective manner). Look at the shape of the stone, the lines made by the outlines of the facets and virtual facets, the shape and orientation of the girdle, the centering of the culet and table, etc. Does everything look even and balanced? That's one way to judge symmetry.

"Mush"... Not a very scientific word, but it does have a fairly well-defined operational definition as used on Pricescope. Check out a handful of these links for an idea of how to interpret that word.

Now, David, I suspect you didn't ask about "mush" to get a definition, but rather because your position is that some diamonds that get labeled "mushy" by PSers are ones that in your (and your clients') opinions are beautiful, whereas the conventional wisdom on PS seems to be that mush should be avoided. So I want to clarify that personally, I have no data that would refute your position (more accurately, my interpretation of your position -- hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you too much, and forgive me if I have). But I would say that some mushy diamonds are definitely less sparkly than non-mushy (a.k.a. crisply faceted) diamonds, while simultaneously, there appears to be a lack of tools to help an internet diamond shopper distinguish between a beautiful mushy diamond and a non-beautiful mushy diamond. So, in my own opinion, unless one is viewing stones in person, it is safer to eschew mushy diamonds until such time that we have the proper tools to see what you see in these stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Drk,
Based on real market experience:
The difference between EX and VG symmetry will not be visible to the naked eye. An expert with a microscope would likely be able to spot it- but not necessarily quickly. IOW- the difference is as narrow as can be.
Also other factors will have more of an effect on price - or more accurately, there is no direct correlation between market price, and VG vs EX symmetry on Oval Diamonds.


Mush:
Thanks for the google search- very cool!

I don't have time to go through threads, but was more interested in what you dislike about "mush"

As you kind of articulated, I do feel that there's a very skewed view of diamond cut assessment here on PS.
A term gets coined, and suddenly people are being advised to avoid stones for reasons the people making the warning have no concept of.

I totally appreciate the tone of your post, and willingness to discuss.
This is truly not about what I or my clients find attractive.
We carry both types of diamonds.
My motivation is a love of the diamond business and it's diversity.
Also that I truly detest advertising that's disguised as education.
I can see the beauty in "crisp facets" but not to the exclusion of stones that might be termed "mushy" here.

But once a term gets a negative connotation, it's far easier to sway uneducated buyers.
Think about a bottomless bucket of crushed ice.
It's amazing!
Like some sort of ...portal. You can't see the bottom. Such stones can be remarkably bright with an edge to edge "mush" of scintillation.
But since the term has gotten trashed here, all of a sudden people who have no idea what it actually looks like are warned against it.

 

[drk14]

Think about a bottomless bucket of crushed ice.
It's amazing!

I'm curious... in your experience, do all diamonds that get labeled "mushy" on PS have this alternative quality that you describe above? Or are there in fact some diamonds that appear "mushy" in photos and videos that are simply duds (and do not exhibit the "portal" effect you describe)? In other words -- is there a one-to-one correspondence between what PSers call "mush", and what you describe as a "bottomless bucket of crushed ice"?

Also, I did not mean to imply that you or your clients only like mushy diamonds, so apologies if I didn't word that carefully.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No apologies necessary- I'm probably (definitely ) hyper sensitive after all these years here.
Yours is a great question.
It's not possible to say "all" stones that get knocked ( mush is a new word) are good or bad.
But what I can say with certainty is that after taking photos of more than 10,000 diamonds -'and spending years here- is that I see a lot of diamonds being dismissed without sufficient evidence.
In some cases I'm thinking - that looks like a sweet stone and it's getting dissed.
That is not to say that some barkers aren't eliminated as well.
We all agree that there's a ton of badly cut diamonds out there.
But there's plenty of nice ones as well.

It sometimes seems that buyers may miss out on really nice stones.

To the op- sorry about the thread jack.
I can't make comments on any particular diamond- but I can make general comments.
Obviously I would not , as a general rule eliminate a stone for some of the reasons here.
In general the price of diamonds on the virtual sites is pretty much as low as you can find.

 

[drk14]

For the sake of argument, I will use an oversimplified definition of "mush" and describe it as areas in which the virtual facets appear blurry and indistinct in photos and videos. Most likely the blurriness is due to long path lengths (large numbers of internal reflections of the light ray), combined with the finite depth-of-focus in high-magnification images. Another factor that may contribute to the inability to distinguish between virtual facets in "mushy" regions may be if the facets draw light from the pavilion (which typically sits on a uniform gray background in vendor images such as those from JA, thus giving neighboring facets a similar brightness, with minimal contrast and scintillation).

To me, it does seem perfectly plausible that the same long path lengths that lead to facet blurriness in photos could in person manifest as a "portal" or "bottomless bucket" illusion, in which the eye focuses on light reflections that have arrived from a distance much greater than the physical depth of the diamond.

Nonetheless, if we also both agree that some "mushy" diamonds are simply badly cut, how is an internet shopper supposed to distinguish (based on photos and videos, which have finite depth-of-focus) between a "mushy" diamond that has promise, and one that is most likely a "barker"? If there are no simple ways for internet consumers to make this distinction, then (unfortunately for those who may prefer the "bottomless bucket" effect), it is safer to recommend "crisp" diamonds over "mushy" diamonds when providing advise to PS shoppers.

I also apologize to the OP for threadjacking, but I think he is off working with GOG, so no harm no foul?
David -- if the above is a topic that you think is worthy of discussion, feel free to start a new thread.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

this is probably an enormously stupid question, but how are you seeing that problem with symmetry?

Both of you seem to have spotted it immediately so I'm trying to see where this problem is.

Totally perceptive question!
I've never seen a stone get a VG symmetry from GIA that has visual asymmetry.

As a general rule- Medium, or even strong blue can be a big plus in J color diamonds.
As opposed to D-E-F color stones with MB, or SB J color stones with florescence are not discounted, unless there's a problem with the fluorescence.


I'd also love to have a better idea what "mush" is.

I strongly disagree with the statement above about fluorescence (my bold). It is a misconception that fluorescence helps the diamond's appearance in normal viewing conditions. There is however evidence that diamonds with medium and stronger fluorescence are sometimes overgraded for color in labs. Since part of the market avoids diamonds with fluorescence, liquidity is reduced - not a "big plus".

While many people are fans of fluorescence, there are pros and cons that consumers should understand in order to make well informed decisions. Blanket statements like the one in bold are a disservice to that goal.

(The diamond in question has no fluorescence)

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

As DRk14 has pointed out, the internet buyer is at a disadvantage to see the differences in "mush". It is my opinion that diamond seekers are looking to make their selections easier and less complicated and therefore some simple designations eliminate some choices quickly. Life here on PS is designed to make the purchase of diamonds easier. Its taken me a while to understand why only a few vendors are used as the" go to" for diamonds. Its been a proven good choice and eliminates the hundreds of choices out there.

My question for David is this: As you are mainly a seller of colored diamonds, why don't you educate us more on here about colored diamonds--cushions vs radiants. You must have some guidelines you can give us that will help us streamline that process? Please do understand that for the purposes of this website, to me at least, the ability to make choices can't depend always on the "you must see it".

I feel that your area of expertise is not shared on here-- you only enjoy criticism of others(vendors). Please discuss colored diamonds--I love them.

Annette

 

[Rockdiamond]

To the issue of: Since people are buying over the web, and stones using virtual facets as the recipe for beauty ( let's please eliminate derogatory terms like "mush") are more difficult to assess from photos and ASET, instead let's assume everyone wants what can be bought "safely"

There's so many holes in this.
First off, many times people are steered towards more costly stones with smaller spread. "Ideal" cut costs more. There's a number of reasons why- including increased cost of labor- and possibly ( but not always) smaller yield. But the fact remains that a lot of the stones frequently recommended here cost more and look smaller than alternative stones.
Secondly, and probably more important: since diamonds are bought for love- and the purchase is based on a person's perception, what you love may not be what someone else loves.
Clearly the two different cutting styles are different.
Some of the world's most successful Brick and Mortar jewelry firms continue to sell a lot of stones with VF's based on people walking in and buying them. I find beauty on both "Crisp Facets" and " Dazzling ice". And I'm clearly not alone.
This isn't about my taste but rather assisting consumers in cutting through bull.

Annette,
When there are FCD discussions that I can participate in, I will gladly.
But I also love colorless diamonds.
I have personally selected and purchased many millions of dollars worth of stones between D-J color over the past 17 years.
Not to mention the fact I was trained by Harry Winston on colorless diamonds.
I love to discuss fancy colors- but remember, colorless Fancy Shapes and FCD fancy shapes share a huge commonality.
Yes there's differences, but the similarities are greater.

 

[Rockdiamond]

this is probably an enormously stupid question, but how are you seeing that problem with symmetry?

Both of you seem to have spotted it immediately so I'm trying to see where this problem is.

Totally perceptive question!
I've never seen a stone get a VG symmetry from GIA that has visual asymmetry.

As a general rule- Medium, or even strong blue can be a big plus in J color diamonds.
As opposed to D-E-F color stones with MB, or SB J color stones with florescence are not discounted, unless there's a problem with the fluorescence.


I'd also love to have a better idea what "mush" is.

I strongly disagree with the statement above about fluorescence (my bold). It is a misconception that fluorescence helps the diamond's appearance in normal viewing conditions. There is however evidence that diamonds with medium and stronger fluorescence are sometimes overgraded for color in labs. Since part of the market avoids diamonds with fluorescence, liquidity is reduced - not a "big plus".

While many people are fans of fluorescence, there are pros and cons that consumers should understand in order to make well informed decisions. Blanket statements like the one in bold are a disservice to that goal.

(The diamond in question has no fluorescence)

Working my way up....
Bryan- if you look at the way the market values diamonds, you'll see that there's a significant difference in price between a D/VS1 MB as compared to a stone with no FL.
In a J color, the value of an MB or even SB and inert stones is not affected by this characteristic. Such stones are not avoided by the market.
IMO the reasoning behind this is that it's far easier to sell a J color with MB based on the appearance.
There's enough UV content in many lighting situations to "light up" an I-J-K color stone and make it look like a few shades lighter.
I have witnessed this on countless occasions.

A Fancy Yellow stone that looks quite yellow isolated in a light box can look almost like an M color if viewed in daylight.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

this is probably an enormously stupid question, but how are you seeing that problem with symmetry?

Both of you seem to have spotted it immediately so I'm trying to see where this problem is.

Totally perceptive question!
I've never seen a stone get a VG symmetry from GIA that has visual asymmetry.

As a general rule- Medium, or even strong blue can be a big plus in J color diamonds.
As opposed to D-E-F color stones with MB, or SB J color stones with florescence are not discounted, unless there's a problem with the fluorescence.


I'd also love to have a better idea what "mush" is.

I strongly disagree with the statement above about fluorescence (my bold). It is a misconception that fluorescence helps the diamond's appearance in normal viewing conditions. There is however evidence that diamonds with medium and stronger fluorescence are sometimes overgraded for color in labs. Since part of the market avoids diamonds with fluorescence, liquidity is reduced - not a "big plus".

While many people are fans of fluorescence, there are pros and cons that consumers should understand in order to make well informed decisions. Blanket statements like the one in bold are a disservice to that goal.

(The diamond in question has no fluorescence)

Working my way up....
Bryan- if you look at the way the market values diamonds, you'll see that there's a significant difference in price between a D/VS1 MB as compared to a stone with no FL.
In a J color, the value of an MB or even SB and inert stones is not affected by this characteristic. Such stones are not avoided by the market.
IMO the reasoning behind this is that it's far easier to sell a J color with MB based on the appearance.
There's enough UV content in many lighting situations to "light up" an I-J-K color stone and make it look like a few shades lighter.
I have witnessed this on countless occasions.

A Fancy Yellow stone that looks quite yellow isolated in a light box can look almost like an M color if viewed in daylight.

The fact that lower colors are not devalued as much by fluorescence as high colors hardly qualifies as a "big plus".

You may think that I-J-K colors "light up" and look whiter in many lighting conditions due to fluorescence, but the scientific data suggests otherwise. Unless the diamond is exposed to direct sunlight or held within inches of fluorescent bulb (as is done in glabs during color grading), the intensity of the UV is insufficient to activate the fluorescent effect.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It's not a matter of "think" Bryan.
It's a fact.
I suggest you look at some actual diamonds as opposed to lab studies.
It does not have to be direct sunlight.
In dim lighting, I agree the fluorescence will not be visible,
But in daylight - or even many well lit fluorescent lighting- such as Costco type lighting can make the effect visible.
I've seen fluorescent J colors look far whiter than J colored inert stones.
A stone that looks whiter than it is, yet costs he same as another that does not is why many buyers value J color stones with Medium or even strong blue.
I'd call that a big plus.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

It's not a matter of "think" Bryan.
It's a fact.
I suggest you look at some actual diamonds as opposed to lab studies.
It does not have to be direct sunlight.
In dim lighting, I agree the fluorescence will not be visible,
But in daylight - or even many well lit fluorescent lighting- such as Costco type lighting can make the effect visible.
I've seen fluorescent J colors look far whiter than J colored inert stones.
A stone that looks whiter than it is, yet costs he same as another that does not is why many buyers value J color stones with Medium or even strong blue.
I'd call that a big plus.

David,
I will try not to be offended by your statement "I suggest you look at some actual diamonds as opposed to lab studies". I have been looking at diamonds for 35 years and continue to do so five days a week.

I would suggest that instead of perpetuating myths about diamonds, you read some of those "lab studies" yourself. Modern research often reveals surprising things that sometimes contradict long held beliefs. Anyone truly interested in consumer education should pay attention to the scientific research as well as relying on their trained eye.

http://www.acagemlab.com/temp/CowingOvergrading.pdf

 

[Rockdiamond]

I will also try not to get offended by your comments Bryan.


The paper is regarding the overgrading of diamonds based on fluorescence.
In the general point I agree. Such stones do pose a problem for color graders.


Part of what I understand from the article is the difficulty of finding truly "UV free" lighting.

Here's an article by National Geographic about how fluorescent bulbs emit too much UV
Even in the study you referred to it mentions taking steps to eliminate UV from fluorescent bulbs.
It seems the only bulbs with 0 uv are LED

http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/08/separating-myth-from-fact-on-cfls-and-leds-five-concerns-addressed/

Another difficulty in making blanket statements is that two stones with the same level of GIA graded fluorescence can have dramatically different appearances based on the fluorescence.
As has been mentioned many times there are cases of Strong Blue diamonds that have an oily appearance- which is visible in any lighting environment. Most do not have this problem, but in stones that do have the issue, it's clearly visible in any lighting environment.


The market, as I pointed out seems to follow this in the pricing of I-J color stones with MB or even SB
Bottom line, my experience is that there's plenty of normal viewing environments where fluorescence can be detected in certain diamonds.

Bryan, in the area where you look at diamonds- is there a window in the room?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I will also try not to get offended by your comments Bryan.


The paper is regarding the overgrading of diamonds based on fluorescence.
In the general point I agree. Such stones do pose a problem for color graders.


Part of what I understand from the article is the difficulty of finding truly "UV free" lighting.

Here's an article by National Geographic about how fluorescent bulbs emit too much UV
Even in the study you referred to it mentions taking steps to eliminate UV from fluorescent bulbs.
It seems the only bulbs with 0 uv are LED

http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/08/separating-myth-from-fact-on-cfls-and-leds-five-concerns-addressed/

Another difficulty in making blanket statements is that two stones with the same level of GIA graded fluorescence can have dramatically different appearances based on the fluorescence.
As has been mentioned many times there are cases of Strong Blue diamonds that have an oily appearance- which is visible in any lighting environment. Most do not have this problem, but in stones that do have the issue, it's clearly visible in any lighting environment.


The market, as I pointed out seems to follow this in the pricing of I-J color stones with MB or even SB
Bottom line, my experience is that there's plenty of normal viewing environments where fluorescence can be detected in certain diamonds.

Bryan, in the area where you look at diamonds- is there a window in the room?

David,
While the study I cited is specifically related to over-grading of color of fluorescent diamonds, it is based upon scientific data that clearly demonstrates the lighting conditions when it is possible or not possible for a diamond to fluoresce and to therefore undergo a change in appearance. Your statements indicate that you have either not read the study or do not understand it. For instance, you say that a diamond that has an oily appearance due to fluorescence is "visible in any lighting environment". That is completely untrue - the fluorescent effect would HAVE to be activated in order to produce a transparency reducing effect. If a diamond is oily in any lighting environment, then it is clearly something other than fluorescence causing it.

 

[drk14]

I find beauty on both "Crisp Facets" and " Dazzling ice". And I'm clearly not alone.
This isn't about my taste but rather assisting consumers in cutting through bull.

David,
I don't disagree with the above. However, unfortunately my threadjack here got threadjacked , so I think this is no longer a good place for constructive discussion.

Therefore, I have created a new thread to try to get the bottom of some of the questions I raised, and I hope you will join me there:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ut-bottomless-buckets-of-dazzling-ice.212443/

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Bryan,
You may not get this, but I respect you- and your company a lot.
We see things differently for sure.
I did not read the entire study, but I did read parts of it.
I do not believe that anything I read will change my life's experience.

Although there's a lot of natural daylight in my office I've looked at such stones in dim lighting many times. The fluorescence was instantly visible.
Have you ever seen an "oily" looking strong blue ( or other color fl) stone?

Can you please describe the viewing environment on which your experience is based?
If your argument is based solely on the study you sited, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I find beauty on both "Crisp Facets" and " Dazzling ice". And I'm clearly not alone.
This isn't about my taste but rather assisting consumers in cutting through bull.

David,
I don't disagree with the above. However, unfortunately my threadjack here got threadjacked , so I think this is no longer a good place for constructive discussion.

Therefore, I have created a new thread to try to get the bottom of some of the questions I raised, and I hope you will join me there:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ut-bottomless-buckets-of-dazzling-ice.212443/

yooo got dat right!!!

Thanks again drk!!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Bryan,
You may not get this, but I respect you- and your company a lot.
We see things differently for sure.
I did not read the entire study, but I did read parts of it.
I do not believe that anything I read will change my life's experience.

Although there's a lot of natural daylight in my office I've looked at such stones in dim lighting many times. The fluorescence was instantly visible.
Have you ever seen an "oily" looking strong blue ( or other color fl) stone?

Can you please describe the viewing environment on which your experience is based?
If your argument is based solely on the study you sited, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

David,
You seem to have plenty of time for voluminous postings of the same viewpoints year after year, yet you do not take time to read the research in any depth. So you read parts of it and you are satisfied that it will not change your mind or your “life’s experience”?

It’s a shame that you do not feel a responsibility to fully inform yourself given you are posting as an expert on a public forum.

In answer to your questions, I have looked at many strong blue fluorescence stones in my career, including some that were oily. And I have looked at them in a wide variety of lighting environments. I concur with the observations put forth by many people including GIA that it is rare for fluorescence to make a stone look milky in normal viewing environments. And that is in line with the research that shows that the fluorescent effect is not activated in the vast majority of normal viewing environments.

However, based upon my own observations I do not subscribe to the commonly held view that milkiness is a yes/no proposition, but rather a matter of degree. Almost all strongly fluorescent stones that I have observed in direct sunlight lose some degree of transparency. The saving grace is that most people do not spend much time admiring their diamonds in direct sunlight, so that issue is largely moot.

Of more concern to consumers should be the over grading problem and overall value/liquidity issue, which also happen to be interrelated.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

JK..if you are still around, I might encourage you to consider looking at I color stones. J color in an oval sometimes results in areas where the tint is more concentrated and therefore visible. You should be able to see what I am talking about in the JA video. H or I color would be a much better choice in an oval, in my opinion. I am not against J color in stones that have a cut that has even color distribution.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan- this is an important subject definitely worth it's own thread. I will start one next week. If you could highlight passages that you feel support your position I think it would be easier than posting the entire 14 page document.