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

[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

 

[purrfectpear]

Per your parameters, they are all equal in light return, cut, and eyeclean status...what''s not to love about the biggest stone?

I can''t tell the difference between a D and a G face up anyway.

 

[Tuckins1]

I would take the 1.01 carat D color SI1 as long as it is eye clear. I am color sensitive, but I also do like warmer colors as well, so I guess the g color wouldn''t make much of a difference to me either.

 

[crpediem]

1.25 SI1 color G - any day of the week.

Just check for eye cleanness, some inclusions are more noticeable than others. Black specs in the table are a lot different then a cloud or a feather that can only be seen by a keen eye on the bottom of the stone or near the girdle... In my short experience looking at diamonds.

I just went for that G SI2 and IMO it's cleaner that some SI1's I've looked at! It often just depends on the location of the inclusion(s).

I think the setting you go with comes into play here... if much of the bottom of the stone is covered by the setting/prongs then a G is probably going to look very similar to D. If much of the sides and bottom of the diamond are shown you will see more of the faint tint with a G and none with the D. If you went with a yellow gold setting then i would say G without any question because the contrast of the yellow gold on a near colorless stone make a G look very white. Even a G in a Platinum or WG setting looks white but you can see more tint (compared to none on a D) on the bottom of the diamond if the setting shows it off.

 

[MMT]

I would go for size. I think G is perfectly white.

 

[Bliss]

I''d go for the 1 carat D SI1.

I wonder what the price points would be for each? I''m assuming the 1 carat D SI1 would be equivalent to the 1.25 G SI1?

 

[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.

 

[Elmorton]

Date: 8/6/2008 7:42:54 PM
Author: RxTechRN2b
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...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.

This is what I''ve learned from PS - when you or anyone else looks at your diamond, first you will see size. Second you will see cut (how much it sparkles). Third you will see inclusions (if they''re black - most inclusions you can''t see without mag), and fourth you''ll see color.

So, that said, if you take an F and a G, put ''em down on a white sheet of paper, I doubt you''ll see much difference. Now, put it in a setting, and even a jeweler is going to tell you that their appraisal isn''t exact because it could be up or down a letter grade. No one, absolutely no one, "in the crowd" is going to be able to tell the difference between your stone that is an ex cut G SI1 vs a D VVS1. It in no way, shape or form will set you apart. What does set you apart is cut and size.

Honestly, I voted for the .85 G VVS1, because when I was e-ring shopping, I was looking for an emerald cut (inclusions and color seems to show up a little bit more in some cuts), but if you''re trying the get the biggest stone for your budget (which is what most people do), I say the 1.25 SI1 G.

 

[Circe]

I voted for the 1.25 G SI1, but my ideal balance among the various qualities would probably be for a lower color but a higher clarity, just because personally speaking, I love warmth. GOG has an O IF stone on its site that I keep eyeballing over and over and over again.

Given these specific stones, ditto me on the posts of the G SI1 supporters!

 

[coatimundi_org]

1.25 G SI1 for sure.

VVS clarity is overkill--I recently finished my diamond grading course at GIA, and it would take me AGES to find inclusions in VVS stones at 10X(VVS1=a pinpoint), so VS1/2 and eye clean SI stones are just fine. D is also overkill. The price jump is huge from D to E--and definitely G. the look? not so much--in well cut rbs.

 

[RxTechRN2b]

I don''t own any D stones, because I can''t see paying the huge jump in price from an E or F to a D. I do wear a pair of G SI studs that are my lowest value diamonds. Unlike diamond rings and bracelets, I can''t see them unless I look in the mirror (they look perfectly white and clear) -- but I think of them as inferior to my other jewelry, and that kind of bugs me. If I upgrade, it won''t be for size -- I would get the same half carat each in F color VS clarity and ideal cut.

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.

Of course whoever said that the first thing people notice is size, is correct. The person going for size will be set apart for having a bigger stone than plenty of other women. I see a lot of jewelry on my customers at the pharmacy. There are some large stones, but only a small percentage appears to be high end. And the pieces that grab my attention are low-set, discreetly small, and simple in style. I can''t get the picture out of my head of the doctors wife I waited on not too long ago -- her jewelry was exquisite and none of it was large. I know the car her husband drives (he uses the drive-up window) and the neighborhood they live in (her address is on the prescription), so to see such discreet jewelry really made a huge impression on me.

 

[Shoopy]

I just want to say that I am color sensitve, own a G, haven''t seen a twinge of color in it, and don''t consider it low quality.

That said all things equal, I would go with the 1.25

 

[kcoursolle]

In my opinion, G/Si is still very high quality. As long as the stone is well-cut (an important assumption) I would definitely go for the G/SI. There is a huge size difference between a .75 and a 1.25.

 

[erica k]

an eyeclean G would be fine by me. i have an F SI2, but if i could go larger for a little more money, i would take the G SI1 in a heartbeat. i''m somewhat color sensitive, so i wouldn''t go lower than an I in a well-cut stone, unless it were an antique cut, then i would go as low as a J.

 

[Kelli]

I, J, or K depending on setting!! And any clarity grade as long as I can''t find anything without a loupe! (vs2 if I''m being super safe and haven''t seen the stone). So of course out of your choices I''d opt for the 1.25, again as long as it''s eye clean.

 

[Kelli]

Looks like I''m the odd one out, but pricescope has made me fall in love with those lower colors, and I can''t wait to get my next diamond so I can go for the J or K! And clarity I can''t see anyway, so I don''t think I''d ever pay for higher than vs2. But that''s just me. I don''t enjoy my jewelry for how rare it is, I just love to see all the pretty sparkles!

 

[Elmorton]

Kelli, I totally agree..PS does make you love the warmer colors. A nice I''d love a nice J antique cut.

RxTechRn2b, I completely agree with you that often the most beautiful, well-crafted pieces are actually quite understated. Surfgirl has posted a few times that "nothing says married like a plain band" - and honestly, I think nothing says "class" like a plain band, too. Less is definitely more.

 

[mystiqkal]

i just wanted to point out that a well cut diamond will face up whiter and brighter than the color that it really is....

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I probably would go for a well rounded stone. My ideal would be a 1ct F-G VS quality. I have a pair of diamond studs, one is an F and one is a G and I can not tell the difference. They both look icy white to me. I seem to have an eye for inclusions, so any diamond that would have a visable profile view when mounted, I would want VS. It is a mind clean issue for me, I would really like to have a stone that is eye clean at all angles. If I was going to mount the stone in a setting where only the top would be seen (e.g. a bezel setting) I would be ok with a SI1 assuming it was eyeclean when mounted.

 

[coatimundi_org]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Lorelei]

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.

I agree Coaties, every word.

 

[Jelly]

It''s interesting to hear people think so much less of lower colored stones. My ideal cut K, SI blows almost every diamond I see in local jewelry stores out of the water!

Just because there may be a feather that I could never even see with a loupe...why does warmth equal bad quality to you people?!

If there were a choice "E" I would pick a 1.5 K, SI2 as long as it were ideal cut!

 

[Cleo]

Can I have a 2ct I colour eye clean SI2/I1 instead?

x x x

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:59:27 AM
Author: Lorelei

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.

I agree Coaties, every word.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone is entitled to their own preferences when it comes to the 4C's - but I think to state that a G SI stone "is not gem quality" is tantamount to diamond snobbery.

I have just looked at the Tiffany website, and they use diamonds up to an I colour as their centre stones... so they are clearly using G, H and I graded diamonds which are (as you put it) not gem quality.

Just MHO.

x x x

ETA: Cartier use diamonds from D-H colour...

 

[arjunajane]

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.

huh? I don't know where you are getting your info,
but a) if the diamond is equally well cut, as trillionaire suggested, then you will not be able to tell between E/F and G.
and b) if all the lovely G (and lower) si1's on this site are "commercial" and not gem grade as you say, give me "commercial" grade anyday. If H-K stones are not "gem grade", why are vendors having cutting houses spend many hard hours cutting them to the tightest parameters there are? Have we all been buying frozen spit and not realized it? I don't think so.

Sorry, I just plain disagree, and I think implying that people on here who don't want to pay the premium for D/E/VVS stones have lesser quality diamonds is incorrect and rude.


Sorry trillionaire for being off-topic

 

[honey22]

As a lover and owner of an icy white D colour, I would still have to disagree that G would show a tinge of colour. G still faces up very very white, you would not be able to detect any colour at all unless they were pavillion side up on white paper for the most of us.

SI clarity is def still gem quality, and I think many here would take offense at this, although I am sure this wasn't the intention. AJ has a stunning K S1 stone and it is a killer - an excellent example of a stunning stone with a 'lower' colour and clarity grade - and up there with the stunning stones we have seen here on PS, certainly gem quality. Hell, it's a stunner. When I say lower, I don't mean any offence or negative meaning behind that, it's simply what I said, it's just a lower colour than say D. Just as my backside is a bit 'bigger', than say a supermodel. That's just life. But if someone implied by bum was big, then I would be crapped off. Lower colour stones are just as lovely, and by no-means not as good. Hope this little (or not so little

) analogy makes sense.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/7/2008 4:25:01 AM
Author: Jelly
It''s interesting to hear people think so much less of lower colored stones. My ideal cut K, SI blows almost every diamond I see in local jewelry stores out of the water!

Just because there may be a feather that I could never even see with a loupe...why does warmth equal bad quality to you people?!

If there were a choice ''E'' I would pick a 1.5 K, SI2 as long as it were ideal cut!

Jelly, in my experience that is not the general idea on PS..
I agree with you that my 1.25 K SI1 kicks every thing else I see''s butts, and I would take choice E along with you.

I have said it before and will say it again, all things the same I will take the J/K over the D anyday. This of course is just my taste and opinion, I would never bash anothers'' choice because they want a smaller ct D.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/7/2008 5:35:14 AM
Author: honey22
As a lover and owner of an icy white D colour, I would still have to disagree that G would show a tinge of colour. G still faces up very very white, you would not be able to detect any colour at all unless they were pavillion side up on white paper for the most of us.

SI clarity is def still gem quality, and I think many here would take offense at this, although I am sure this wasn't the intention. AJ has a stunning K S1 stone and it is a killer - an excellent example of a stunning stone with a 'lower' colour and clarity grade - and up there with the stunning stones we have seen here on PS, certainly gem quality. Hell, it's a stunner. When I say lower, I don't mean any offence or negative meaning behind that, it's simply what I said, it's just a lower colour than say D. Just as my backside is a bit 'bigger', than say a supermodel. That's just life. But if someone implied by bum was big, then I would be crapped off. Lower colour stones are just as lovely, and by no-means not as good. Hope this little (or not so little

) analogy makes sense.

Beat me to it! Oh well, any chance to brag, I don't mind...
TY sweetheart for the lovely things you've said about my Perry..(she is currently blushing)..and for the record, you can call my stone lower colour all day long - heck, thats what it is! And you know thats why I love 'er.
And of course your wonderful D is higher. These are fine as they're facts.
The only time I would take issue is the "higher colour is better" blanket statement, as imho its anti-educational and individual taste.

And I bet your butt is just as cute as any ol' models, LM (bigger)AO!

 

[bee*]

If they are all comparable and totally eye-clean, then I''d go with the largest one.