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

[vespergirl]

My ring from a previous engagment was a 1 ct E SI1, and my current ring is a 2 ct G SI1. I definitely get more compliments on the 2 ct G, mostly people say how big and sparkly. Even though I think D and E stones are gorgeous, you really won''t be able to notice the difference in color - I think that even H stones are bright white.

 

[geckodani]

Also an owner and lover of a D, I myself would have a hard time going "lower" than F if I were to upgrade, simply because I''ve become accustomed to the color of the stone on my hand. My .75 is a VS2, and if I could go back in time, I''d tell DH to get a slightly larger eye-clean SI instead.

I''ve louped my VS2 and can''t see a darned thing - eye clean would be fine with me! That said, I don''t expect to ever upgrade my stone, and am ecstatic with its specs.

I am EXTREMELY color sensitive. My SIL has a 5 stone ring and matching band that are G. I have no clue what the clarity is. Her set is STUNNING. I do notice the color difference between hers and mine, but only because I''m looking for it.

I also think that perhaps the abundance of diamonds makes the slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) warmer color show more.

Ultimately it''s whatever your preference is.

 

[trillionaire]

Hey everyone!

First, I meant to post this in Rocky Talk, but I am glad that it is getting love here anyway! I started this thread because I *often* see guys posting on PS about how they are seeking a higher color/clarity diamond, and would sacrifice size to achieve that and stay within budget. I have anecdotally commented that *most* women would prefer a larger sized great cut stone, assuming that it is still eye clean, so I was pretty anxious to see the results on this poll. (surprise, surprise... size does matter!

)

Please feel free to refer guys to this thread in the future

, not to *prove* that women just want a bigger stone, but because it is really important to know which parameters are the most important to their lady. ANd if it is a total surprise and he doesn''t want to consult her, GO BIG OR GO HOME!

(j/k... sorta

)

Anyways, please let the thread continue! And I LOVE the 1.5-2ct I-K comments! The diversity on this forum is fantastic, and I have seen incredible rings of so many colors! Congrats to all the lovely diamond and gemstone owners here on PS!!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2008 12:34:25 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 8/6/2008 9:47:36 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b


This week I read a diamond book that talked about how most American women choose a stone of lower value in order to go bigger. I prefer not to be in the crowd of women happy with commercial grade stones. Even if the G SI stone looks white and clear, that is not gem quality and I don''t think T&Co, Cartier, HW, etc., would ever set an SI stone even if it was eye clean.

You think SI is not gem quality? I think a lot of PS''ers, gemologists, diamond experts etc. would disagree with you. I certainly do. Pre PS, I once had a stone that was sent to 2 grading labs. EGL-US gave it an SI1, because it had a tiny feather. GIA gave it a VS2. EGL-US grades soft to boot. You can''t forget subjectivity in grading. T&Co grades their own stones--wonder how many AGS/GIA SI1 stones would be given a T&Co VS? Nothing against T&Co, but I''m partial to independent labs.

In diamond rough there is gem quality, near gem, and industrial grade. Industrial
grade is not fashioned into gems, and near gem rough is cut(bad portions removed) to become gem. Are there gnarly frozen spit diamonds out there? Sure, but they are not SI1--not by a long shot.

The beauty of a diamond is in the eye of the beholder. My K VS1 round brilliant is just as beautiful as my G VS1 oval.

Check out the auction results for Sotheby''s and Christie''s--you''ll find several K-L
SI1-SI2 stones--but I digress.

Oooh coati, you are obviously paying attention in school!

Thank you for the informative post!

I love my G.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Thanks Ellen, Lorelei, and Cleo!
I love school!

Ellen-I love your G too.
Now, if only I could see Lorelei''s stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 9:45:32 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/7/2008 12:34:25 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 8/6/2008 9:47:36 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b


This week I read a diamond book that talked about how most American women choose a stone of lower value in order to go bigger. I prefer not to be in the crowd of women happy with commercial grade stones. Even if the G SI stone looks white and clear, that is not gem quality and I don't think T&Co, Cartier, HW, etc., would ever set an SI stone even if it was eye clean.

You think SI is not gem quality? I think a lot of PS'ers, gemologists, diamond experts etc. would disagree with you. I certainly do. Pre PS, I once had a stone that was sent to 2 grading labs. EGL-US gave it an SI1, because it had a tiny feather. GIA gave it a VS2. EGL-US grades soft to boot. You can't forget subjectivity in grading. T&Co grades their own stones--wonder how many AGS/GIA SI1 stones would be given a T&Co VS? Nothing against T&Co, but I'm partial to independent labs.

In diamond rough there is gem quality, near gem, and industrial grade. Industrial
grade is not fashioned into gems, and near gem rough is cut(bad portions removed) to become gem. Are there gnarly frozen spit diamonds out there? Sure, but they are not SI1--not by a long shot.

The beauty of a diamond is in the eye of the beholder. My K VS1 round brilliant is just as beautiful as my G VS1 oval.

Check out the auction results for Sotheby's and Christie's--you'll find several K-L
SI1-SI2 stones--but I digress.

Oooh coati, you are obviously paying attention in school!

Thank you for the informative post!

I love my G.

Your G diamond is stunning Ellen and of excellent gem quality!

Thanks Coaties, I know you would love my diamond, even though it is lower clarity.

 

[RxTechRN2b]

Oh brother! No one needs to take any offense to a hypothetical survey on which the thoughts behind the choice was requested and is only a personal opinion. I don''t own any D stones as I already mentioned, and I even wear commercial grade studs that looks just as white and sparkley as my E/F VVS/VS stones! The survey was obviously set up to make you choose either high value small stones or lower value bigger stones. I did not invent the diamond grading system nor did I assign monetary value to the stones depending on their qualities or lack thereof. No need to take offense to a personal opinion in a hypothetical survey that is not about any diamond I own or any that you own. You are requested to say why you would choose the one you did in this survey, not pick apart my reasons for my choice. I don''t even own the stone that I chose for the purposes here, so there isn''t even anything to take offense too. I''ve got quite a few books on diamonds, including one with photos of celebrity engagement rings that says I1-3 and SI1-2 stones are not suitable for engagement rings because "these are not quality stones" on page 124. My other books are more technical and do indeed list SI/G and under as commercial grades. I know (and own studs) that SI G faces us white and clear! So I''m sorry that anyone took offense to my personal opinion backed up by research to a stone that I only picked hypothetically and don''t even own!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2008 10:14:07 AM
Author: coatimundi
Thanks Ellen, Lorelei, and Cleo!
I love school!

Ellen-I love your G too.
Now, if only I could see Lorelei's stone.

Thankies! You too Miss L!

And I'm so glad you're loving school!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 10:43:38 AM
Author: RxTechRN2b
Oh brother! No one needs to take any offense to a hypothetical survey on which the thoughts behind the choice was requested and is only a personal opinion. I don't own any D stones as I already mentioned, and I even wear commercial grade studs that looks just as white and sparkley as my E/F VVS/VS stones! The survey was obviously set up to make you choose either high value small stones or lower value bigger stones. I did not invent the diamond grading system nor did I assign monetary value to the stones depending on their qualities or lack thereof. No need to take offense to a personal opinion in a hypothetical survey that is not about any diamond I own or any that you own. You are requested to say why you would choose the one you did in this survey, not pick apart my reasons for my choice. I don't even own the stone that I chose for the purposes here, so there isn't even anything to take offense too. I've got quite a few books on diamonds, including one with photos of celebrity engagement rings that says I1-3 and SI1-2 stones are not suitable for engagement rings because 'these are not quality stones' on page 124. My other books are more technical and do indeed list SI/G and under as commercial grades. I know (and own studs) that SI G faces us white and clear! So I'm sorry that anyone took offense to my personal opinion backed up by research to a stone that I only picked hypothetically and don't even own!!

I think the thing is Terry that by referring to G colour and SI clarity diamonds as being commercial and not gem quality, you will find quite a few Pricescopers disagree, as many own such diamonds. " Commercial grade" to me implies unattractive diamonds which many PSers SI and near colourless certainly are not, and stones not being of "gem quality" makes me think of industrial diamonds being worn in jewellery!

So it could be the implications of these terms being used which people disagree with. If the cut is great, any clarity grade if eyeclean or close to it and colour grade will look beautiful and far more so than any D Flawless with a mediocre cut for example.

And there are many near colourless and SI clarity diamonds owned by PSers which have a fabulous cut and demonstrate this!

 

[RxTechRN2b]

I just had a thought that people are taking offense to the term commercial quality. In a book by Fred Cuellar he defines anything less than investment quality as falling in the commercial class. If you think I''m meaning industrial class, I''m not -- industrial stones are the dingy ugly frozen spit stuff. Commercial class is pretty, just not what you''d buy if you wanted to make an investment in your stone. But I''m sure there will be people chiming in to say that their SI stones are indeed investment quality. I''m not going to keep coming back to defend myself. I did my research and even if I didn''t, I''m entitled to my own opinion on a survey without being attacked and picked apart!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 10:59:28 AM
Author: RxTechRN2b
I just had a thought that people are taking offense to the term commercial quality. In a book by Fred Cuellar he defines anything less than investment quality as falling in the commercial class. If you think I'm meaning industrial class, I'm not -- industrial stones are the dingy ugly frozen spit stuff. Commercial class is pretty, just not what you'd buy if you wanted to make an investment in your stone. But I'm sure there will be people chiming in to say that their SI stones are indeed investment quality. I'm not going to keep coming back to defend myself. I did my research and even if I didn't, I'm entitled to my own opinion on a survey without being attacked and picked apart!

Terry, I am not attacking you in any way, just offering my opinion as you have done. I never make personal attacks and I try to be respectful and polite at all times here. As to investment quality, there are a few threads in the archives about this, it seems that nowadays even D F / IF are not a good investment unfortunately, and I don't think you would find that many PSers see their diamond purchases as a good investment in anything other than their happiness perhaps, and that is also why vendors who have upgrade policies are so popular.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2008 10:59:28 AM
Author: RxTechRN2b
I just had a thought that people are taking offense to the term commercial quality. In a book by Fred Cuellar he defines anything less than investment quality as falling in the commercial class. If you think I'm meaning industrial class, I'm not -- industrial stones are the dingy ugly frozen spit stuff. Commercial class is pretty, just not what you'd buy if you wanted to make an investment in your stone. But I'm sure there will be people chiming in to say that their SI stones are indeed investment quality. I'm not going to keep coming back to defend myself. I did my research and even if I didn't, I'm entitled to my own opinion on a survey without being attacked and picked apart!

I appreciate you doing research, and wanting to share, but mentiong this man (and what he thinks), here, will not get you anywhere. Do a search on him.

And I understand you were just voicing your opinion, but as you yourself mentioned in another thread recently, you don't always come across well. If I have an opinion, I think about how it might be received by someone else. If I think it might offend, I'm either ultra careful how I word it, or I just don't say anything at all. I don't mean this as an attack at all Terry, just trying to show you how your posts may be/are viewed by others.

 

[Phoenix]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:48:24 AM
Author: jewelerman

Date: 8/7/2008 12:34:25 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 8/6/2008 9:47:36 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b


This week I read a diamond book that talked about how most American women choose a stone of lower value in order to go bigger. I prefer not to be in the crowd of women happy with commercial grade stones. Even if the G SI stone looks white and clear, that is not gem quality and I don't think T&Co, Cartier, HW, etc., would ever set an SI stone even if it was eye clean.

You think SI is not gem quality? I think a lot of PS'ers, gemologists, diamond experts etc. would disagree with you. I certainly do. Pre PS, I once had a stone that was sent to 2 grading labs. EGL-US gave it an SI1, because it had a tiny feather. GIA gave it a VS2. EGL-US grades soft to boot. You can't forget subjectivity in grading. T&Co grades their own stones--wonder how many AGS/GIA SI1 stones would be given a T&Co VS? Nothing against T&Co, but I'm partial to independent labs.

In diamond rough there is gem quality, near gem, and industrial grade. Industrial
grade is not fashioned into gems, and near gem rough is cut(bad portions removed) to become gem. Are there gnarly frozen spit diamonds out there? Sure, but they are not SI1--not by a long shot.

The beauty of a diamond is in the eye of the beholder. My K VS1 round brilliant is just as beautiful as my G VS1 oval.

Check out the auction results for Sotheby's and Christie's--you'll find several K-L
SI1-SI2 stones--but I digress.

Yep...Tiffany has had SI1-G quality diamonds in their stock...been there...seen it ...also seen large beautiful HW diamonds at auction that have SI1 Clarity grades. A true SI1-G graded diamond that has a superior cut is enough for me and then its size all the way!

Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. It's interesting infor, JM. Tiffany in SG only carrries VS2 as their lowest clarity but they go to I colour. Personally, I am more colour senstive than clarity sensitive (some of you may know I have a pair of I1 clarity pears and I just cannot see any inclusions without my loupe). I wonder if all Tiffany's in Asia are like that? Hmmm... Next time I go to HK, say, I will check that out. I do know that most / many (?) Asians do prefer higher colour (D, E) as well as higher clarity (IF, VVS). I really wonder if it's an educational issue (ie. because they don't know about PS, he he) or just plain preference for perceived higher value "stuff" (just like the Asian preference for Mercs, BMW's, Ferrari's etc)?

I own G and H colour stones (as well as D, F ones) and am considering K ACA's for studs. So maybe I am not so colour senstive after all, he he

.

No right or wrong here, we like what we llike, even if education wasn't even an issue. If we liked the same things, the world would be a very boring place.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[fieryred33143]

Honestly Terry, I was a little offended by your post. It came across as a very "technical" way (what with all the research and books and quotes) of saying that G diamonds suck. I''m not diamond savvy and don''t know all the terms but when I read "commercial grade" or "not gem quality", I took offense (as a G e-ring owner). No biggie on my end since at the end of the day I''m still engaged

 

[vintagelover229]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:10:38 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/7/2008 10:59:28 AM
Author: RxTechRN2b
I just had a thought that people are taking offense to the term commercial quality. In a book by Fred Cuellar he defines anything less than investment quality as falling in the commercial class. If you think I''m meaning industrial class, I''m not -- industrial stones are the dingy ugly frozen spit stuff. Commercial class is pretty, just not what you''d buy if you wanted to make an investment in your stone. But I''m sure there will be people chiming in to say that their SI stones are indeed investment quality. I''m not going to keep coming back to defend myself. I did my research and even if I didn''t, I''m entitled to my own opinion on a survey without being attacked and picked apart!

Terry, I am not attacking you in any way, just offering my opinion as you have done. I never make personal attacks and I try to be respectful and polite at all times here. As to investment quality, there are a few threads in the archives about this, it seems that nowadays even D F / IF are not a good investment unfortunately, and I don''t think you would find that many PSers see their diamond purchases as a good investment in anything other than their happiness perhaps, and that is also why vendors who have upgrade policies are so popular.

If diamonds were a good investement then how come when you try to resell one you bought (ex: engagment didn''t work out) that most people can''t get back half of what they paid for it?

The ONLY reason we paid what we did for my stone is because it would make me happy and because I love it. If we ever needed to sell it bc we needed money (which I doubt that day will come...the flat screen will go 1st

) we woudn''t see much of what we paid at all!

 

[CrookedRock]

As an owner of a larger J colored stone I don''t at all consider it to be not gem quality. Actually quite the contrary... I have actually been offered more for it than I paid, and by a very high end store. We didn''t buy it as an investment, we bought it bc we love it.
Redrose~ I''m with you... The ring wouldn''t go first.... The boat would!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:59:14 AM
Author: CrookedRock
As an owner of a larger J colored stone I don''t at all consider it to be not gem quality. Actually quite the contrary... I have actually been offered more for it than I paid, and by a very high end store. We didn''t buy it as an investment, we bought it bc we love it.
Redrose~ I''m with you... The ring wouldn''t go first.... The boat would!

I don''t have a big flat screen or a boat. I do have these 3 kids however..... I keed, I keed.

 

[Bliss]

Date: 8/6/2008 7:42:54 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
I voted for the D VVS 3/4 carat. I considered the slightly larger G VVS but would rather have the D color -- D, E, and F are colorless with F being colorless only in stones smaller than 1/2 carat. G is in the near colorless range, which is a step down and could show a tinge of color, and is not gem quality material. The two larger choices were in the SI clarities and would be considered commercial grade material. I take pleasure in choosing smaller stones of high color and clarity (and even fancy color diamonds) because I like to set myself apart from what most of the crowd is wearing.

Hey Rx!

I'm a pet rock lover and have to say that F stones are colorless in larger sizes than 1/2 carat. I'm sure your G studs are GORGEOUS!!!!!

Isn't your yummilicious canary diamond an SI quality gem? I think it's amazing. I don't consider your diamond commercial grade, I think it's GEM-TASTIC!!!!! Can we have more photos, please?

That's a dream stone and every time I see your avatar, I long for one!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 12:08:29 PM
Author: Bliss

Date: 8/6/2008 7:42:54 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
I voted for the D VVS 3/4 carat. I considered the slightly larger G VVS but would rather have the D color -- D, E, and F are colorless with F being colorless only in stones smaller than 1/2 carat. G is in the near colorless range, which is a step down and could show a tinge of color, and is not gem quality material. The two larger choices were in the SI clarities and would be considered commercial grade material. I take pleasure in choosing smaller stones of high color and clarity (and even fancy color diamonds) because I like to set myself apart from what most of the crowd is wearing.

Hey Rx!

I'm a pet rock lover and have to say that F stones are colorless in larger sizes than 1/2 carat. I'm sure your G studs are GORGEOUS!!!!!

Isn't your yummilicious canary diamond an SI quality gem? I think it's amazing. I don't consider your diamond commercial grade, I think it's GEM-TASTIC!!!!! Can we have more photos, please?

That's a dream stone and every time I see your avatar, I long for one!

I didn't realize Terry's diamond was an SI clarity as she said that wasn't her preference.

It is lovely and I agree definitely not commercial quality!

 

[JoeNewbie11]

1.25 SI1 color G

1.25 SI1 color G

1.25 SI1 color G

1.25 SI1 color G

1.25 SI1 color G

This is so simple.

 

[ootori227]

I vote for 1.25 SI1 color G!!
I recently purchased a K color and I am not color sensitive at all so G is still VERY WHITE to me!

 

[Kelli]

Ootori can we please see your K? Does it have it''s own thread?

 

[pocahontas]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but my vote's for the 1.00 D SI1. In fact, this is exactly what my FI and I chose for my e-ring and like your example we had the choice of going bigger with a lower colour (1.22 G SI1) for pretty much the same price. Of course, everyone is right and it comes down to personal preference, but I am extremely colour sensitive and I can/did notice the slight warmth of the G-coloured stone regardless of what others might think about the ability to do so. Did that warmth make the diamond ugly? Absolutely not, but I love the icy-whiteness of my little D and wouldn't trade it for the world. Is it the biggest diamond out there? Not even close, but it's perfect for me and it's totally mind-clean. Just my two cents.

 

[Lorelei]

I forgot to mention how I voted, I am with Joe, Oot and others who voted for 1.25 G SI1.

 

[stone_seeker]

For what its worth, I went to Cartier on 5th Ave in New York and they were selling a 1.2ct H, VS2 cushion cut diamond in their bridal section. And it was beautiful. So I dont think G/H color is commercial grade or any other grade labeled to mean unattractive.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/7/2008 1:34:45 PM
Author: stone_seeker
For what its worth, I went to Cartier on 5th Ave in New York and they were selling a 1.2ct H, VS2 cushion cut diamond in their bridal section. And it was beautiful. So I dont think G/H color is commercial grade or any other grade labeled to mean unattractive.

I bet it was gorgeous!!

 

[ButterBean]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:04:06 AM
Author:trillionaire
Okay, let''s assume a well cut stone with excellent light return, eye clean and comparable pricing.

What would you choose?

.75 VVS1 color D
.85 VVS1 color G
1.0 SI1 color D
1.25 SI1 color G

Please comment on your choice

I would go with the last one, as I am not very color-sensitive and if eye clean, then it would be gorgeous!

 

[RxTechRN2b]

Yes my canary is SI-1 with an inclusion the same color as the diamond -- in fact, fancies are graded differently than white diamonds and the color is the most important, not clarity. That idea can be found in "the diamond handbook" by Renee Newman chapter 10 "evaluating fancy colored diamonds"

I think everyone is getting all bent out of shape over nothing. I chose one of the 4 diamonds given on the survey -- and I repeat for the third time that I do not own a D and never will. My choice for a white stone is in the E/F range and VS to VVS. I in no way meant that SI quality is ugly -- my studs are SI-1 G and for the third time I state that they look just as good as my higher quality pieces. I just am kind of disappointed knowing that they are commercial grade. They are beautiful, but not "mind clean" to me. That is my personal opinion so don''t take that statement personally about any diamond you own -- this is a survey about what you would choose and why. I don''t care why you would choose a bigger diamond, which is your own personal business. If you think bigger is more beautiful -- great, that''s your feeling about it. If you think bigger is better -- again, you have the right to feel that way. I have the right to think that higher value diamonds (according to the professional wholesale/retail price list and professional grading system) are better.

Each person has a right to their own feelings -- which were asked to be included by the OP. I''m not ripping anyone apart for their personal feelings about why they chose what they did on this survey.

I just got finished reading a technical book on diamonds by "the diamond guy" and am using terminology from that book. I never said SI G stones don''t LOOK like gem quality -- in my mind I just am disappointed that my earrings don''t qualify technically as gem (or investment quality). I think that''s what they call "mind clean" here on PS. I can feel that way if I want to. I can''t tell by looking at mine -- or yours -- if they are SI or VS. But the special set apart feeling my T&CO and OGI stack rings give me are subjective to me alone! You can''t tell by looking at them that they are not just generic stack rings of lower clarity color diamonds -- but I know in my mind what they are, and they are extra special to me. So shoot me if that subjective feeling is wrong!

For more information, I bought my canary ring and studs 4 years ago and since then my taste and knlowledge of diamonds has evolved to where I would prefer to have the higher value stones. By higher value I am meaning as per wholesale/retail lists of diamonds separated by clarity color and size -- monetary value has nothing to do with emotional value or how good the stone looks. I did not create the grading system or price lists of diamonds. No one here should be able to make an arguement over the fact that VVS D diamonds have more monetary value (per professional lists and grading) than SI G stones if all else in cut and eyecleanness is equal.

In any case, my latest purchaces were T&Co and OGI half-eternities in (of which their quality was NOT listed as a choice in this survey) of E/F VVS/VS stones. I take pleasure in having them because they are extra-special in quality and name compared to what many other people choose. I know I could have gotten the same thing for less money if I dropped clarity, color, and name brand -- so shoot me for being a quality wh**re!

I don''t know how else to explain my personal opinion on a hypothetical survey about a stone that I don''t own. I''m sorry I even expressed an opinion. I have commercial (again, just a technical label) value studs and to me they LOOK as beautiful as my higher value jewelry. I''m sorry if anyone takes offense to my opinion in a survey clearly devised to separate those who go for size over quality (or value according to the professional wholesale/retail price listings). Some prefer to be set apart by size, or just prefer the look of larger -- after all, the average e-ring is 0.38 carats. Others prefer to be set apart by value, or just prefer the pleasure in owning a more valuable (monetary and mind clean) diamond. It is only an opinion and only a survey. I do not appreciate being attacked for my own personal an subjective feelings.

Just because I would chose the D VVS on the survey today doesn''t mean that was my taste in jewelry 4 years ago when I bought my canary or studs. In fact, my taste for superb quality has evolved over time with my growing knowledge of diamonds. I didn''t even own any jewelry besides a very small e-ring until 4 years ago! Who knows, maybe someday my taste will change and I will want a bigger ring! When I was a kid I had a very limited menu of foods I liked. Now I eat all kinds of food (but no baked beans, peas, or limabeans please).

As for F color being colorless under 0.5 carat, my information is coming directly from "the diamond ring buying guide" by Renee Newman Page 11. I also base my statements on value and classification on the Fred Cuellar book "how to buy a diamond." He talks a great deal about the value of diamonds according to the grading scale and resale potential. He''s the one that said something about the majority of American women (no mention of men, sorry) that have a diamond will sacrifice quality in order to get more size, and so their stones don''t really have resale value. What a jeweler buys for wholesale is way less than he sells retail, and he would not expect to buy your diamond for what you paid for it (I know, some stores do have upgrade policies on stones you bought there if they qualify). The statement that SI and I clarities are "not quality stones" comes directly from the book "with this ring" by Penny Proddow/Marion Fasel page 124.

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

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:47:11 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
Yes my canary is SI-1 with an inclusion the same color as the diamond -- in fact, fancies are graded differently than white diamonds and the color is the most important, not clarity. That idea can be found in ''the diamond handbook'' by Renee Newman chapter 10 ''evaluating fancy colored diamonds''

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

for an opinion that was solicited, that was certainly not my intention with this thread. I appreciate you explaining and clarifying and reclarifying your position, because my goal was to reflect that it is not safe to *assume* the someone places more value on one "C" over another. Clearly some were offended by the "terminology," but hopefully people can chalk it up to a misunderstanding and let it go.

Also, your ring is TDF!

I have admired it for a VERY long time, and even used it as a reference for fantastic settings when helping a friend look for yellow diamonds!

If he''s smart, he will get something just like it!

 

[Circe]

Terry, not addressing the main point of your post, but just the sources ... Fred Cueller is not a reputable source concerning the industry. He''s produced a very pithy book, but a lot of it is ... hrm, self-serving, to say the least, and a great deal of the terminology is unique to him. He puts a lot of emphasis on "bonded" jewelers, and disparages the competition to encourage potential buyers to come to *him.* I''m searching now to see if we already have a thread with diamond text resources like the one in colored stones, and not spotting anything ... now, that''s a candidate for a sticky if ever there was one! It''d be a better world if "they would not publish lies for the lay-reader to embrace," but there are as many unscrupulous people on the shelves as there are in the shops, sometimes.