A love for "not perfect" diamonds

[diamondseeker2006]

I appreciate the beauty of most antique diamonds, but there is also appreciation for the work of the more skilled cutters even in the past. I have seen hundred year old Tiffany OEC diamond earrings that were magnificently cut. I have a very beautiful antique asscher that may not be perfect, but it is beautifully cut.

Fluorescence is not an imperfection, it is a natural attribute that some see as beautiful and some do not.

@diagem I keep saying this over and over, but I appreciate the cutting perfection of the two stones I have from you! Sorry, but I would not trade them for any wonky old cuts!

 

[Rfisher]

That's so weird. It shows up for me as available! Not mine--just one that I admire fairly often. Maybe this link will work? https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/pear-shaped/1.02-carat-i-color-si2-clarity-sku-8874097

I see it now
I admire it too!
I see a lovely lavaliere

 

[Rfisher]

I hope to one day have a near super ideal 2ct MBC.
Everything else I currently have is perfectly wildly imperfect.
I will strive to love them all equally.
my cold clinical precise one
And my Wonky McWonk Wonk one.
I do the same for my kids.

 

[AV_]

It is all about diamonds & all that they can do - the few attributes measures for the purpose of pricing & such, feel conventional, I can play with them, since it so happens we are around at the same time of history [might these be the round brilliant Ideal? www ], but diamonds were and will be what they ever were & many are very beautiful in ways that are not at all relevant for cutting at all - eg. modified cubes with concave facets, some polycrystalline yellows - they have been jewels & will be, obvious beauty.

ramble

 

[1ofakind]

My DH is very confused by my attraction to old diamonds with personality and character. He has an engineering background so the idea that there can be a ’perfect’ diamond means the rest are ‘imperfect’. I just give him a hug and remind him that he has benefited from my appreciation of imperfections.

 

[monipod]

@moneymeister - Maybe? I posted a few pics in the thread about cool inclusions My oval has a baby Fanta Garnet in it.

I'll post again:

 

[Demon]

I can't say I seek them out, but I find my fair share of imperfect diamonds that I love! Inclusions don't bother me as long as they don't impact performance, and I actually find inclusions interesting. And some, like the one @monipod has are really pretty inclusions. My little 44 pt fancy intense green-yellow has four naturals, one of which is indented and on the crown. Doesn't impact anything as far as I can see, and there is no way I could not pick this diamond out if I needed to for any reason.

 

[MMtwo]

@moneymeister - Maybe? I posted a few pics in the thread about cool inclusions My oval has a baby Fanta Garnet in it.

I'll post again:

Hi Monopod, this is not it, but this is very neat! Hmm, now I am going to try to remember who has it. It had a little ruby, if memory serves me (which it doesnt!).

 

[doberman]

I do think we may do a disservice to some posters with all the emphasis on super ideal cuts. I think we tend to give the impression that anything else is inferior. Not everyone wants to spend that kind of money or go down in size to afford the stone.

 

[tigertales]

Yes!!
I was a rock hound as a kid, ferreting mica, feldspar, crystal and agate out of the mountain paths, or the pebble on a city sidewalk.
Inclusions and mineral veins delighted me then, and delight me in my diamonds now.

 

[DiaLuv]

@moneymeister - Maybe? I posted a few pics in the thread about cool inclusions My oval has a baby Fanta Garnet in it.

I'll post again:

Very cool.

 

[stracci2000]

Yes!!
I was a rock hound as a kid, ferreting mica, feldspar, crystal and agate out of the mountain paths, or the pebble on a city sidewalk.
Inclusions and mineral veins delighted me then, and delight me in my diamonds now.

Me too!
I still pick up interesting rocks on the side of the road...........

 

[DiamondsNPearls]

I just want to say I love this thread & never thought I'd see one like this on PS. I feel like flawless diamonds are glorified...

 

[monipod]

Hi Monopod, this is not it, but this is very neat! Hmm, now I am going to try to remember who has it. It had a little ruby, if memory serves me (which it doesnt!).

I think I know what you mean though and it was posted by the OP of that thread. Someone else had a eeny weeny sapphire or blue mineral in one of the small diamonds in her brooch. Swoon!

 

[elizat]

I do think we may do a disservice to some posters with all the emphasis on super ideal cuts. I think we tend to give the impression that anything else is inferior. Not everyone wants to spend that kind of money or go down in size to afford the stone.

I think this is true, based upon the other thread about that topic. It's not one size fits all.

 

[lovedogs]

I do think we may do a disservice to some posters with all the emphasis on super ideal cuts. I think we tend to give the impression that anything else is inferior. Not everyone wants to spend that kind of money or go down in size to afford the stone.

I think this is true, based upon the other thread about that topic. It's not one size fits all.

I think its important to remember that most new posters are guys buying an ering for their gf. And in that case, I would be incredibly hesitant to recommend anything outside of round/ideal unless the gf specifically picked it. Of course if someone comes here wanting a ring for themselves and specificslly wants something unique I would like to think I would happily recommend that they buy what they love

 

[tigertales]

I just want to say I love this thread & never thought I'd see one like this on PS. I feel like flawless diamonds are glorified...

True. I got tired of seeing 'newbies' obsess about it. Especially when they're newly engaged and juggling other more important financial concerns. It's a shame. A beautiful diamond does not have to be perfect, but that's almost verboten to say here!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@moneymeister - Maybe? I posted a few pics in the thread about cool inclusions My oval has a baby Fanta Garnet in it. I'll post again:

I will show you mine I put it on Vimeo - way better resolution

 

[MMtwo]

I will show you mine I put it on Vimeo - way better resolution

That's a flipping BEAUTIFUL diamond! The clear inclusions - are they diamond crystals? Really neat!

 

[caolsen]

Love this thread

I am normally a stickler for cut & clarity, color doesn’t bother me. The color/tone is fun to play the range on - settings and side stones, halos or bezels can all be major levers to make color your friend.

That said, this ring and stone combo grabbed me the moment I saw it.

Perfect - far from it. There is a hunk of carbon just inside the girdle easily seen with a loupe, a few issues with windows, a small cloud and it’s likely only a fair cut, given the age. The appraisers can’t decide if it’s a OEC or a transitional.

But this stone in its original die cast platinum setting, with the small tiny OECs in the gallery, the tiny sapphires —- everything about is speaks to me. One small issue with the prong at 9 AM needs to be fixed, otherwise I would never take it off.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

This is stunning and I am totally jealous! How wonderful. I hope you wear it with absolute joy!

 

[mommylawyer]

Thank you for starting this thread!

After almost twenty years with my 1 ct (center stone) G/I1/VG diamond, I splurged on a halo diamond ring with a 1.66 ct Ideal J/VS1. I am mortified to admit that I struggled to appreciate my new "better" diamond.

Because of the good clarity, the diamond is translucent instead of white. I know this is a good thing, but it looks weird to me. Because of the ideal cut, I can see the arrows flashing in the stone. I think this is so strange, even though I know it's a good thing because of the videos I've watched on PS. The diamond sparkles beautifully and it throws off big flashes of light. My original stone doesn't "flash from across the room" like my new one. But up close, I have a hard time appreciating the difference. If it wasn't for all the videos on PS explaining how an ideal cut diamond should look, I would have thought my new diamond was a dud. You guys saved my sanity on my new purchase, by the way. Thanks for giving me a place to share. The truth is that I still prefer my original diamond with its big inclusion (under a prong).

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

I actually felt ashamed for preferring my imperfect, low-color, fluoro, chipped while being set diamonds. And they're not that large, either. But I chose them, I paid for them, and I love them all. This thread makes my heart sing.

 

[DiaLuv]

Love this thread

I am normally a stickler for cut & clarity, color doesn’t bother me. The color/tone is fun to play the range on - settings and side stones, halos or bezels can all be major levers to make color your friend.

That said, this ring and stone combo grabbed me the moment I saw it.

Perfect - far from it. There is a hunk of carbon just inside the girdle easily seen with a loupe, a few issues with windows, a small cloud and it’s likely only a fair cut, given the age. The appraisers can’t decide if it’s a OEC or a transitional.

But this stone in its original die cast platinum setting, with the small tiny OECs in the gallery, the tiny sapphires —- everything about is speaks to me. One small issue with the prong at 9 AM needs to be fixed, otherwise I would never take it off.

Very pretty ring.

 

[DiaLuv]

Thank you for starting this thread!

After almost twenty years with my 1 ct (center stone) G/I1/VG diamond, I splurged on a halo diamond ring with a 1.66 ct Ideal J/VS1. I am mortified to admit that I struggled to appreciate my new "better" diamond.

Because of the good clarity, the diamond is translucent instead of white. I know this is a good thing, but it looks weird to me. Because of the ideal cut, I can see the arrows flashing in the stone. I think this is so strange, even though I know it's a good thing because of the videos I've watched on PS. The diamond sparkles beautifully and it throws off big flashes of light. My original stone doesn't "flash from across the room" like my new one. But up close, I have a hard time appreciating the difference. If it wasn't for all the videos on PS explaining how an ideal cut diamond should look, I would have thought my new diamond was a dud. You guys saved my sanity on my new purchase, by the way. Thanks for giving me a place to share. The truth is that I still prefer my original diamond with its big inclusion (under a prong).

I like both of your rings. I am partial to three stones though.

 

[tigertales]

Thank you for starting this thread!

After almost twenty years with my 1 ct (center stone) G/I1/VG diamond, I splurged on a halo diamond ring with a 1.66 ct Ideal J/VS1. I am mortified to admit that I struggled to appreciate my new "better" diamond.

Because of the good clarity, the diamond is translucent instead of white. I know this is a good thing, but it looks weird to me. Because of the ideal cut, I can see the arrows flashing in the stone. I think this is so strange, even though I know it's a good thing because of the videos I've watched on PS. The diamond sparkles beautifully and it throws off big flashes of light. My original stone doesn't "flash from across the room" like my new one. But up close, I have a hard time appreciating the difference. If it wasn't for all the videos on PS explaining how an ideal cut diamond should look, I would have thought my new diamond was a dud. You guys saved my sanity on my new purchase, by the way. Thanks for giving me a place to share. The truth is that I still prefer my original diamond with its big inclusion (under a prong).

I went through the exact same thing when I got my first hearts and arrows perfect Triple X. I could see each dark arrow, and I DID NOT like it!!!!
This thread is like True Confessions!

 

[mommylawyer]

I went through the exact same thing when I got my first hearts and arrows perfect Triple X. I could see each dark arrow, and I DID NOT like it!!!!
This thread is like True Confessions!

I'm glad I'm not alone on this!

 

[Smith3]

I personally only like old cut diamonds, new cuts don’t do it for me. I like a lot of personality and don’t mind wonkiness

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I went through the exact same thing when I got my first hearts and arrows perfect Triple X. I could see each dark arrow, and I DID NOT like it!!!!
This thread is like True Confessions!

Interesting - many of the pics here are of old cut styles and they most often display large dark facets.
The dark star or big chunky dark facets turn colored as you rock the diamond - so it of course needs to have small point light sources to happen.
If Tigertales you look at your diamond a lot in diffused lighting you will be annoyed by the dark star.

Lots of personal choice and environmental issues.

 

[tigertales]

Interesting - many of the pics here are of old cut styles and they most often display large dark facets.
The dark star or big chunky dark facets turn colored as you rock the diamond - so it of course needs to have small point light sources to happen.
If Tigertales you look at your diamond a lot in diffused lighting you will be annoyed by the dark star.

Lots of personal choice and environmental issues.

Thank you Gary for explaining that! The sparkle is great in sunlight!