Can you tell which of these is not like the others?

[GeorgeStevens]

Here are five diamonds. Four are the same color - exactly - per their GIA certs. The fifth, also GIA certified, is many shades of color different. Which one?

It is my belief that photos on most diamond vendors' websites are nearly useless for assessing color, and also that most lay-people can't tell the difference between colors that they think are quite far apart, particularly when comparing different shapes. Hence people fussing about G vs. E are fussing over nothing. So prove me wrong. Which of these is not the same color as the others? Happy to eat crow if people get this right.

Diamond 1:

​

Diamond 2:

​

Diamond 3:

​

Diamond 4:

​

Diamond 5:

​

The diamond that is exceptional in terms of color is SI; the others are all VVS1 or better. The diamond that is exceptional in terms of color has medium blue fluorescence; the others have none. All diamonds have at least very good cut, polish, and symmetry. Some are Type IIa. As far as I know, all were photographed by the same photographer under the same conditions.

 

[OoohShiny]

No.3 looks a little blue to me, compared to the rest, but RBs seem to all look very much the same directly face-on in pictures!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Ill guess, because it is a guess, #4. It seems darker than the others.


Annette

 

[gemmyblond]

I'm going with Diamond #1 as the exception.

And for bonus points -- or not (as is more likely the case) -- I think Diamond 2 is Type IIa. I suspect that Diamond 3 could also be Type IIa, but the faceting (and blue-ness) makes it tougher to see the potential limpidity.

Can't wait to hear the answer. Thanks for setting up an intriguing challenge, GeorgeStevens.

 

[heididdl]

Sorry I guess I'm just dumb but I can't tell which is better from stock photo. Do you have assets on these sttones. Plus do you have the GIA or AGS specs. I would like to see the cut ratios et al...

 

[AprilBaby]

#3

 

[Karl_K]

a: that lighting is not conductive to viewing body color, it would have to be deeply tinted for it to show.
b: with different cuts unless they are colorless will show tint different for the same grade. Even the rounds are different cuts in this example and will show color differently.
c: the pictures are near black and white, impossible to show color.

If they were all the same color say J no florescence the oval would show the most face up color and the EC the second in lighting conductive to viewing it.
If they are all D then they would all be colorless.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

Here are the results. Don't read any further if you don't want the answer.

Here are the certs and details:

Diamond 1: 16217323. N SI
Diamond 2: 5151960000. D VVS2, potentially IF, Type IIa
Diamond 3: 5151832545. D FL Type IIa
Diamond 4: 5151809301. D VVS1, potentially IF
Diamond 5: 5151853515. D IF Type IIa

So diamond 1 is fully 10 color grades lower than the others. Frankly I couldn't tell in the printed catalogue nor on the screen. Seems that a good camera can either bring out color or suppress it. Compare the look of Diamond #1 with this N-colored diamond (albeit with different certs). Or, as Karl points out above, different stones can show color very differently.

The photos are all from Sotheby's at their upcoming Magnificent and Noble Jewels auction. The lot numbers are 506, 504, 500, 493, and 487, respectively.

Mrs. Stevens's favorite lot is 488.

 

[Gypsy]

a: that lighting is not conductive to viewing body color, it would have to be deeply tinted for it to show.
b: with different cuts unless they are colorless will show tint different for the same grade. Even the rounds are different cuts in this example and will show color differently.
c: the pictures are near black and white, impossible to show color.

If they were all the same color say J no florescence the oval would show the most face up color and the EC the second in lighting conductive to viewing it.
If they are all D then they would all be colorless.

This. Plus those pics are photoshopped.

 

[gemmyblond]

Wow - that bracelet in lot 488 is especially appealing - classic with a twist. Gorgeous. If you're the successful bidder, please return and post real-life pics (I'm serious).

Back to the above challenge: to my eye, Diamond 1 has clearly more tint and softness and is just tonally different in overall composition somehow. I'm not speaking about faceting or light return, but just the comprehensive visual feel of it. Similarly, Diamonds 2 & 3 have the hard-to-describe but unmistakeable look of Type IIa stones, although it's far easier to see it in #2 (and impossible for me to say that about #5.)

Coincidentally, the stones in my personal collection which I enjoy the most are either N color or D (all GIA).

Thanks for sharing.

 

[pyramid]

These are glamour shots and therefore not color grading shots. There is too much glare showing off the facets to see into
the stones to see the color.

Stones are graded face down for color. I can clearly see color difference between F and G and any diamonds H and down look to have too much tint in my preference. I can see color in G but don't mind it. As many say and I agree also, in an antique cut I would happily go down to even an L. This is just because I want it to look antique. If I had bought it in them days though, I don't know if
the old antique curtains color look would have been so appealing and I would probably have wanted my antique cut to have been no lower than G color too.

It is up to everyone to decided what they want.

I don't think a D E F color as a waste of money. I see it as better quality as it shows no color impurity. Sort of like a $200 cardigan is better quality than a $15 cardigan. I would not pair a E color with SI1 clarity though as that is not balanced. To me the clarity would pull down the color quality's appeal. I would buy a G SI1 clarity, no problem though. Everyone has to buy what they want. I quite fancy a D IF or D VVS1 but in a smaller size as I would not want to pay the money for a large one, although that would be my ultimate preference. Cut should always be Excellent in a D-F high clarity, but likewise I couold live with a VG cut if it looked good to my eyes in a G SI1, or even a good cut if I still loved the stone.

I used to be against people here buying those large low colors e.g. P color but now I have realised it looks good to some. It may not to me but then some appear to see colorless as stark white.

 

[pyramid]

Oh and Karl K has the answer correct.

 

[pyramid]

Does Type IIa not appear on the the GIA Report then? Do vendors on Pricescope have Type IIa in their online inventories and people are buying them now knowing?


(Realise these are all huge expensive stones, so probably it is on their paperwork but thought it would have been on the GIA Reports too.)

 

[gemmyblond]

Pyramid, I believe that GIA does not indicate a Type IIa designation on the report itself, but rather adds a side letter that comes with the standard GIA report. This side letter designates the stone as a Type IIa and describes what that means; it also has a small photo of the stone and the GIA report number. So the stone travels with its usual GIA report as well as this side letter.

Submitting a stone for Type designation is a separate request from regular grading and is an additional fee.

At least that's how it worked a few years ago; not sure if it's changed more recently, but my understanding is that it's still the procedure and paperwork.

 

[KenD]

Here are the results. Don't read any further if you don't want the answer.

Here are the certs and details:

Diamond 1: 16217323. N SI
Diamond 2: 5151960000. D VVS2, potentially IF, Type IIa
Diamond 3: 5151832545. D FL Type IIa
Diamond 4: 5151809301. D VVS1, potentially IF
Diamond 5: 5151853515. D IF Type IIa

So diamond 1 is fully 10 color grades lower than the others. Frankly I couldn't tell in the printed catalogue nor on the screen. Seems that a good camera can either bring out color or suppress it. Compare the look of Diamond #1 with this N-colored diamond (albeit with different certs). Or, as Karl points out above, different stones can show color very differently.

The photos are all from Sotheby's at their upcoming Magnificent and Noble Jewels auction. The lot numbers are 506, 504, 500, 493, and 487, respectively.

Mrs. Stevens's favorite lot is 488.

Great post!
Certainly worth going to the website to see the details for these and other pieces. The auction will be in Geneva. Luckily, we can all bid by phone.

Weights and estimates in Swiss Francs:
1. 103.46 cts / 3,200,000 - 4,460,000
2. 31.34 cts / 4,460,000 - 7,100,000
3. 70.33 cts / 10,700,000 - 14,300,000
4. 17.25 cts / 1,520,000 - 2,200,000
5. 25.32 cts / 3,800,000 - 4,700,000

A Swiss Franc is worth a little more than one US dollar (1 CHF = 1.1306 USD).

 

[pyramid]

Thanks gemmyblond.


I do bet though that the color difference in No 1 will be very apparent face up in real life.


Does anyone know if the vendors here sell Type IIa diamonds, untested or ever with the covering letter saying they are Type IIa.

I know Type IIa is a lot more exspensive than Type 1.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

It is my belief that photos on most diamond vendors' websites are nearly useless for assessing color.

Indeed - and I am pretty sure most people share this belief.



<<Frankly I couldn't tell in the printed catalogue nor on the screen. Seems that a good camera can either bring out color or suppress it>>


While this is possibly true, this isn’t just about the camera. All of the photos have been edited in Photoshop or other software.

+1+1+1 to Karl, Gypsy and Pyramid.

 

[kenny]

There are a zillion things that affect how colors appear in the Internet pics we each view on our monitors.
Imagine if GIA graded diamonds by looking at their pics on the Internet.
They wouldn't.
We shouldn't either.

This has been explained zillions of times by zillions of posters here over the years.
Yet, again, and again, and again, and again, people post pics of diamonds for opinions on color … and others gush over how white it looks for a I, J, K, L, M, etc.

Please, stop this madness.
Just stop it.
It's ignorant and stupid, especially on a diamond education site.

I'm not insulting, condescending or insensitive.
I'm just speaking truth.

 

[yssie]

Wow - that bracelet in lot 488 is especially appealing - classic with a twist. Gorgeous. If you're the successful bidder, please return and post real-life pics (I'm serious).

Back to the above challenge: to my eye, Diamond 1 has clearly more tint and softness and is just tonally different in overall composition somehow. I'm not speaking about faceting or light return, but just the comprehensive visual feel of it. Similarly, Diamonds 2 & 3 have the hard-to-describe but unmistakeable look of Type IIa stones, although it's far easier to see it in #2 (and impossible for me to say that about #5.)

Coincidentally, the stones in my personal collection which I enjoy the most are either N color or D (all GIA).

Thanks for sharing.

.
.
.
This is a joke, right?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Those are very nice pencil sketches of diamonds! Suitable for framing on the wall.

And totally useless for anything else because they are so photoshopped.

It's true no one can distinguish body color from photos. But why is that important? We don't wear photos on our hand/necks/ears. Trying to evaluate body tint from photos is like trying to decide if you will like how something tastes based on Guy Fieri's description.

 

[Gypsy]

Those are very nice pencil sketches of diamonds! Suitable for framing on the wall.

And totally useless for anything else because they are so photoshopped.

It's true no one can distinguish body color from photos. But why is that important? We don't wear photos on our hand/necks/ears. Trying to evaluate body tint from photos is like trying to decide if you will like how something tastes based on Guy Fieri's description.

 

[gemmyblond]

This is a joke, right?

No, I didn't mean it as a joke. I was (and am) being genuine.

I agree that trying to tell body color from photos is a losing game.

But I meant what I said above - to my eyes, stone #1 just looks different in tone somehow. And stones 2 & 3 do look clearer to my eyes.

I've read auction catalogues for many years - Sotheby's/Christie's especially show several Type IIa larger stones in many of their auctions. I believe they have a way of photographing/photoshopping those stones to make them look clearer or at least more recognizable as Type IIa stones. It's a consistent look, trying to capture and showcase the way Type IIa stones can look IRL.

That's what I was referring to; sorry if I didn't articulate it very well.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those are very nice pencil sketches of diamonds! Suitable for framing on the wall.

And totally useless for anything else because they are so photoshopped.

It's true no one can distinguish body color from photos. But why is that important? We don't wear photos on our hand/necks/ears. Trying to evaluate body tint from photos is like trying to decide if you will like how something tastes based on Guy Fieri's description.

+2

Whoever gave you the idea that color can be judged from vendors pictures, George?? I will ALWAYS say that color can almost never be judged in pictures on vendor sites and most posted on this forum. But I have taken a picture with my cheap automatic camera and can easily see the color difference. So color can be captured if one desires to do so.

 

[Gypsy]

GOODNESS! THAT VC SETTING MAKES ME WANT every.time. I see it DS!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

GOODNESS! THAT VC SETTING MAKES ME WANT every.time. I see it DS!

You know what, Gypsy, I was thinking the exact same thing!!! There were several of those pics with that setting, and I thought, why don't I just get it because I have loved it for so long?! I guess I am just worried about whether a stone this size will look as good.

I think lower color can be captured especially when compared to a G or higher colored diamond.

For you...

 

[GeorgeStevens]

Whoever gave you the idea that color can be judged from vendors pictures, George??

Oh gosh, maybe just every post here saying how important it is to get high quality pictures of the stones. James Allen is quite popular here, and they make the following claim about photos and color:

Every diamond on James Allen is photographed with 15x or greater magnification in 360° so you can truly understand the diamond’s beauty, shape, cut, color, clarity and sparkle like never before

Fortunately, some folks are a little more honest:

Diamond photos will not show the color, cut, carat weight, polish or symmetry, and are useful for clarity purposes only.

Yup.

So color can be captured if one desires to do so.

Of course. If you're selling fancy colored diamonds, you want to capture as much as you can. Otherwise you want them to look white. And the same diamond can be made to look both.

By the way, I doubt Sothebys would photoshop photos of million-dollar diamonds. Although they make no accuracy claims about their photos, I think that would be quite the scandal if proven true.

 

[Dreamer_D]

High quality pictures are important because they show facet patterning and they can help visualize where inclusions are located. But color cannot be judged by a single photo of a diamond, or by comparing two photos taken at different times. I do think photos like DS posted or like other vendors sometimes provide where multiple diamonds are lined up in the same frame can be useful. It will not tell you the actual color and it won't tell you what things look like in person, but it can help to see relative tint like that when, for example, you have seen a GIA h in person and want a sense of how a J might compare.

 

[gemmyblond]

GeorgeStevens, you're right...that would be quite a scandal if true, but hardly the first involving a high-profile auction house!
In this instance, I used the term 'photoshopping' more generally -- the auction houses have highly specialized and somewhat proprietary photo setups and post-processing techniques to showcase the stones and their unique attributes, and to convey certain information in a (somewhat) consistent visual way.

 

[Gypsy]

High quality pictures are important because they show facet patterning and they can help visualize where inclusions are located. But color cannot be judged by a single photo of a diamond, or by comparing two photos taken at different times. I do think photos like DS posted or like other vendors sometimes provide where multiple diamonds are lined up in the same frame can be useful. It will not tell you the actual color and it won't tell you what things look like in person, but it can help to see relative tint like that when, for example, you have seen a GIA h in person and want a sense of how a J might compare.

This.

We don't ask for photos and videos for color. We ask for them with rounds primarily for inclusions. Because we recommend a lot of VS2 and SI1 stones. Mostly we want idealscope images though.

For fancies you have to see the faceting. So we need pictures.

It has nothing to do with color. We routinely tell people their color tolerances are personal and to go out and see diamonds in real life.

I also think is is confusing that you are railing against photos depicting diamond color since you are the one who started this thread: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/laboratory-master-set-photo.201317/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/laboratory-master-set-photo.201317/[/URL]

 

[Gypsy]

GOODNESS! THAT VC SETTING MAKES ME WANT every.time. I see it DS!

You know what, Gypsy, I was thinking the exact same thing!!! There were several of those pics with that setting, and I thought, why don't I just get it because I have loved it for so long?! I guess I am just worried about whether a stone this size will look as good.


For you...

What size is the stone pictured in the ring? And what size if yours? If yours is bigger I think it will look great. Heck even smaller would look lovely.

I think you should go for the setting. It's just fantastic.