Color-scale and rarity, are they related?

[Paul-Antwerp]

In another ongoing thread, Garry and I are in disagreement with relation to this topic. I am stating that I do not see a current direct relationship between the color-scale and rarity of these colors. In other words, somebody stating that D is more expensive because it is more rare, I disagree with.

Garry states that HIJ can be found in abundance in comparison to DEF.

So, here is my research of today. I checked the main wholesale trading-site of diamonds, Rapnet, for numerical info on available colors.

If I take the number of listed D's (regardless of lab) as 100, here is what is available:

D: 100
E: 102
F: 114
G: 123
H: 107
I: 91
J: 70
K: 42
L: 22
M: 15

Granted, Garry raises the point that many KLM from nature will not appear on a site like Rapnet, but will go through other marketing-channels.

However, D through J, the numbers do not in any way give the impression that D is far rarer than I or J. And the abundance of HIJ versus DEF is also not visible in these figures.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Hi Paul,
! agree 100% that the relative numbers of each color to another varies over time has to be a given.
How ever what is on the lists is a small snapshot of the market.
Another snapshot would be what you and diagem see available on the rough market.
Those snapshots may or may not be representative of what is coming out of the ground and what is making it to market.(they are not the same thing in my opinion)
So my comment is "that is interesting"

 

[sledge]

I would agree with @Karl_K. While your report shows these quantities today it's a very limited snap shot of overall time.

That said, I do not believe prices push higher for any product due SOLELY to limited availability. Apple has been living by that motto for years. Although they own roughly 5-10% of the market they have a very loyal fan base. Although ample supplies of Apple computers exist, they sell for higher prices because the end user perceives them as more valuable for an array of reasons.

In most cultures, the whiter the diamond the "better" it is. So while overall quantities may push prices some, the desirability of a D vs H colored stone is the primary driver IMO. If cultural thinking ever shifts, lower colored stones would appear to make a killing as today's snap shot shows low inventory and coupled with high desirability would be a very profitable position.

Of course, as noted, maybe quantities of colored stones are low because of being moved in other markets to "special buyers". Or more likely that because whiter stones are more desirable, they are the focus of the mining so naturally the numbers will lean their way.

 

[AV_]

... other marketing-channels.

What would the market channel be for an I1-I2 Fancy White ? I see few & at every price - which is disconcerting.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

What an interesting debate.

The snap-shot here of available diamonds would, indeed, seem to support your statement Paul. But availability does not necessarily equate with rarity, either, does it?

Can you correlate length of time the diamond has remained unsold?

Using your base number of 100, is it possible that the D color diamonds have (this is purely hypothetical) 40 that have been on the market unsold for 90+ days, while the H color has only 10-11 that have been on the market that long.

If so, that would indicate that the H color diamonds are moving at a rate of 90/60 (1.5 times) 'faster' than the D's.

This could bolster the argument, though Rapnet shows similar numbers in both color ranges, the D is moving much more slowly. Among the factors for lack of turnover rate could be rarity. Or is the lack of turnover (if there is one) strictly due to pricing due to perceived rarity?

 

[denverappraiser]

As it happens, I was just working this morning on a job where I needed to find comps on D/I2/roud/GIAxxx/3 caraters. That's hard as hell to find. I'm pretty sure they do exist, but they're hiding.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As someone who routinely buys stones outside the norms, I can attest to the fact it's far easier to find a D-J Emerald Cut ( for example) than a far less costly O-P color.
Rarity has little to do with the selling price in the case of color.

 

[OoohShiny]

Hi Paul,
! agree 100% that the relative numbers of each color to another varies over time has to be a given.
How ever what is on the lists is a small snapshot of the market.
Another snapshot would be what you and diagem see available on the rough market.
Those snapshots may or may not be representative of what is coming out of the ground and what is making it to market.(they are not the same thing in my opinion)
So my comment is "that is interesting"

Is there any comprehensive record of what comes out of the ground? I presume stones are graded at the mines (do they polish small windows to assess them?) and put into parcels of rough? and then sold to the highest bidder? but is anyone tracking those sales in the same way Rap tracks polished end products?

I presume this situation is exactly the sort of thing that the proposed Blockchain approach would allow in depth analysis of!

 

[Karl_K]

Is there any comprehensive record of what comes out of the ground? probably but who knows how detailed and its a trade secret so there is zero chance of it being released.

I presume stones are graded at the mines (do they polish small windows to assess them?) and put into parcels of rough? and then sold to the highest bidder? but is anyone tracking those sales in the same way Rap tracks polished end products?
The trip the rough takes before being polished varies.
Some is sold on long term contracts.
Some is sold to De Beers stakeholders(basically lots that are offered to specific companies and in the old days(still some what true) they had to buy them at the price requested.)
Some sold sold by bid.
Only very large rough will likely be sold as a single(called a special) all the rest are usually put in lots.

I presume this situation is exactly the sort of thing that the proposed Blockchain approach would allow in depth analysis of!

 

[Bron357]

I think it’s a perception.
Out there in the world of “being worn” diamonds a D colour diamond is certainly rare. That’s probably because of the premium attached to such a high colour.
I think consumers prefer to “drop down” a few grades in colour to get either a bigger diamond for the $$$ or simply afford a diamond of the size preferred.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

For context, diamonds listed on Rapnet total $8 Billion.

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Can’t really compare true diamond material rarity factors based on polished databases or virtual inventory platforms. Paul, this thread actually surprises me.

I am sure you have seen plenty of run-of-mine production living and working in Antwerp. I did, and never ever did colorless-cleanish rough diamonds reign in such lots prior to any assortment process.

OooShiny touches a good point, the more dominant miners these days are public corporations, I am pretty sure such data of production exists or can be asked to review. But in general their average price per carat (sold) numbers are published periodically and rarely do they go above $200 per carat threshold. Such numbers say a lot to professionals.

Sure, some geographical locations have shown that some mines deliver a higher quality run-of-mine production like the Namibian offshore and Canadian mines or small mines such as Lesotho, Ellendale etc. which their production average well and way above the $200 per carat price points. But in general, run-of-mine productions deliver much lower price per carat valued diamonds.

Touching Neil’s and David’s posts, in Neil’s case, every dealer I personally know would happily jump on any decent 3 carat D colored - SI2 to I2 quality range these days (the carat & color range is much wider), a very demanded size/quality combination. That’s why Neil knows they are out there hiding somewhere. After all, any Diamond mined over the last millennials is still above ground somewhere on earth

In David’s case, I have quite numerous colleagues specializing in the colored Diamond niche, any Emerald cut (and round for this matter) in the warm colors such as O-P (to Z) will not be left as-is. They will re-plan and cut such diamonds into specialty cuts such as modified brilliants and cushions in order to achieve the GIA borderline magic grades of Y-Z to fancy.

Needles to say that in general, cutters will *“probably” not cut Emerald cuts and RB’s from such warm colored rough either (cutting modified models directly from the rough can be very rewarding as they usually deliver a heavier and darker polished Diamond). So finding such polished examples are much harder than standard D-J qualities where their individual considerations make more economic sense.

*some specialized cutting houses where their significant added values are not solely based on color/clarity can and do cut such warmer colors to their branded cuts which are sold at premiums compared to what generic manufacturers can achieve.

 

[Serg]

As it happens, I was just working this morning on a job where I needed to find comps on D/I2/roud/GIAxxx/3 caraters. That's hard as hell to find. I'm pretty sure they do exist, but they're hiding.

Neil,
why does a client ask GIAXXX for I2? any idea?

lets consider https://cutwise.com/diamond/23_DC600?format=videoGirdle

is any reason to achieve Ex symmetry and Ex cut in I2 diamonds?

 

[EvaEvans]

Paul, so what your search produced NOT what's RARE in the nature, but what's ON DEMAND by humans!
This is equal to say, that new construction $100.000 houses are more scarce, because on the market there are plenty of houses over $500.000 and much less houses offered for under $100.000
Make everybody rich and you will see how the D diamonds will disappear very fast! Many people compromise with lower colors because of the budget not because of the liking. About the K,L,M stones these are not so many on production due to the limited (yet) market.

 

[diagem]

Neil,
why does a client ask GIAXXX for I2? any idea?

lets consider https://cutwise.com/diamond/23_DC600?format=videoGirdle

is any reason to achieve Ex symmetry and Ex cut in I2 diamonds?

I can clearly see why with mostly this kind of selection offerings...
https://www.jckonline.com/editorial...onds-are-shaking-up-valentines-day-proposals/

There still is something beautiful in symmetry even when partially blocked!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The prevailing argument against my observation seems to be that I did not check 'rarity' coming out of the ground, but 'rarity' remaining unsold.

I am sorry, but does that make sense? You see approximately equal DEF as HIJ, because people do not wish to buy the 'rare', expensive DEF. So, what makes them more expensive? Rarity. But people do not wish to pay the price attached to rarity, otherwise you would see far less on Rapnet.

Or are people indeed paying the price, and is the fact that you see equal quantity on Rapnet not the result of nobody wanting them, but the result of 'rarity' being overstated?

I see two possible conclusions:

1. The rarity-story of Color is correct, but because people do not, cannot pay the price-tag because of rarity, the rarity is not reflected in the market of goods, ready for sale. Result: the price-premium for rarity is exaggerated, for sure that market is not in equilibrium.

2. The rarity-story of Color is not correct, but it is a practical lie to justify price-premiums for Color.

Maybe, the truth is to be found even somewhere in the middle between these 2 conclusions.

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

If there was any true shortage of supply in the continuum of color from D to lightly tinted, we'd discover it in due course as existing supplies became depleted in certain color categories no matter what price the public might be willing to pay. It is pretty apparent that while the trade benefits from the years of marketing that has gone into making "D color" the most rare while MNOPQRS are less costly and far less rare, that it is mostly a skillful marketing convenience along with our visual perception of colored tints. Only mine owners know with any certainty what is actually scarce in their own supply and only a relatively select group, mostly diamond cutters such as Paul, know the kinds and types of rough that are truly rare and therefore difficult to find in the open market from which to cut new finished diamonds. Some of that apparent rarity happens not from mine supplies, but from much higher sales volume of middle of the road colors than for less in demand yet more costly DEF colors. Demand has a great influence on what can be found in the open market. It isn't simply Supply shortfall from mining or nature.

Visually consumers appreciate the clean look of the DEF range over what might be termed the "compromised" look of more tinted range stones. The differences in willingness to pay fit the exact constraints of each color grade very well. It is our visual perception mixed with highly precise marketing strategies. It all seems in balance if one realizes and accepts the huge marketing influences being applied.

Dealers can't generally figure out how to sell low end merchandise for much more money and can't afford to give high cost colorless stone away for middle range color prices. So, the market remains in "balance", but we must recognize it is not a totally free market. The diamond market is influenced by pressures of cost, demand, competition, supply and, of course, tradition.

 

[AV_]

... why does a client ask GIAXXX for I2? any idea?

I'd be the idiot wishing for an I1-2 with clarity based only or mainly on clouds.

It is alwayas nice to have things beautifully done, hence a fine (step) cut of fog makes sense...

(thinking out loud)

 

[crbl999]

I have a question. Do cutters buy their rough directly from the miners or are there other party(ies) involved. If the latter how do you you know that the middle men involved aren't withholding certain colors and clarity to increase the 'rarity' and value of the rough?

 

[TreeScientist]

I've been following this discussion with some interest, and I've enjoyed hearing the input of everyone in the trade. I especially like @oldminer's and @sledge's comments regarding rarity vs desirability. And I agree: It doesn't really matter how rare something is, only how much paying customers desire it. Just like the Apple example brought up by @sledge. iPhone's are far from the most rare smartphone. Actually, I think they're the most common smartphone globally by numbers. But people will still pay top dollar for them due to several reasons (with clever marketing being among the top reasons) that make them desirable to the general public. Same goes for diamonds. Despite what the actual "rarity" of colorless (DEF) diamonds is compared to near-colorless (GHIJ) diamonds, the general public currently places a high value on the perceived "lack of color" in a diamond, so diamonds with less color will sell for more. Simple demand-based economics.

But now to get to the "rarity of colorless diamonds" discussion, which is where I actually want to contribute. I think this is largely an issue of semantics. @Paul-Antwerp, you are saying that, based on what is posted on the market, a J is rarer than an F (70 vs 114 on rapnet). Well, that might be true (again, who knows what actually comes out of the mines). But tell me, what is a "J" anyway? And what is an "F"? The arbitrary segmentation of diamond color grades into tiny little steps was just a way for diamond traders to separate diamonds that have slightly more or less color.

But let's look at it in a different way. Let's do away with these meaningless subjective steps and look at diamonds objectively (I'm a scientist. I like objective). By objectively, I mean separating them into truly colorless (lacking any absorption of colored light wavelengths) vs colored (absorption of certain wavelengths). Diamond color is caused by impurities and/or structural defects, mainly clustered nitrogen atoms for yellow type Ia diamonds, so only a complete lack of impurities (type IIa diamonds) or such a minuscule amount of impurities so as to not cause any appreciable absorption of light ("normal" D color diamonds) would result in a truly "colorless" diamond.

If you're just looking at diamonds from this "black and white", yes or no, colorless vs colored viewpoint, then yes, colorless type IIa diamonds are indeed more rare than yellow colored type Ia diamonds. A LOT more rare. The only exceptions, where you could make an objective case that a certain colored diamond may be more rare than a type IIa diamond, would be for very rare colors caused by uncommon impurities or structural defects. For example, type IIb gray-blue diamonds caused by boron impurities, red diamonds caused by plastic deformation in the crystal lattice, or type Ib diamonds which, like type Ia diamonds, are caused by nitrogen impurities, but in which the nitrogen atoms are isolated (not clustered) and arranged in evenly spaced manner throughout the entire stone, resulting in a very vivid yellow color.

Saying a normal, type Ia yellow J is more rare than a normal, type Ia yellow F really makes no sense in my opinion. Because... both are yellow type Ia diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If there was any true shortage of supply in the continuum of color from D to lightly tinted, we'd discover it in due course as existing supplies became depleted in certain color categories no matter what price the public might be willing to pay. It is pretty apparent that while the trade benefits from the years of marketing that has gone into making "D color" the most rare while MNOPQRS are less costly and far less rare, that it is mostly a skillful marketing convenience along with our visual perception of colored tints. Only mine owners know with any certainty what is actually scarce in their own supply and only a relatively select group, mostly diamond cutters such as Paul, know the kinds and types of rough that are truly rare and therefore difficult to find in the open market from which to cut new finished diamonds. Some of that apparent rarity happens not from mine supplies, but from much higher sales volume of middle of the road colors than for less in demand yet more costly DEF colors. Demand has a great influence on what can be found in the open market. It isn't simply Supply shortfall from mining or nature.

Visually consumers appreciate the clean look of the DEF range over what might be termed the "compromised" look of more tinted range stones. The differences in willingness to pay fit the exact constraints of each color grade very well. It is our visual perception mixed with highly precise marketing strategies. It all seems in balance if one realizes and accepts the huge marketing influences being applied.

Dealers can't generally figure out how to sell low end merchandise for much more money and can't afford to give high cost colorless stone away for middle range color prices. So, the market remains in "balance", but we must recognize it is not a totally free market. The diamond market is influenced by pressures of cost, demand, competition, supply and, of course, tradition.

Dave and me agree.
The bulk of lower color diamonds are going to not get GIA grades and not appear on Rapnet where 90% of diamonds are GIA graded.
The pricing for rarity based on color restricts sales of top colors - especially those with higher clarity.
You are very wrong Paul.
What would be more interesting would be to compare the colors submitted to various labs and the ungraded stones sold by chains.
Dave has had considerable experiance in QC work for home shopping and various chain stores.
I would listen to him Paul

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Garry, your stubbornness surprises me. OK, not really, I know that you can be stubborn. But I have never known you as changing your words in order to uphold your position.

Originally, you said that K and lower are generally sold in chain-stores. You then added that HIJ were available in abundance in comparison to DEF.

If you come back today and claim that HIJ will be plentiful in home shopping and chain stores (uncerted), I wonder where in the 20th century you stopped following the industry? How could any cutting house today justify selling their HIJ colors through those channels?

My figures represent a supply equal to approximately 40% of the yearly diamond-production. If you want to dismiss these figures, you need to come up with something stronger than general claims where it is unclear whether you are talking L and lower, of GHI.

Live long,

 

[TreeScientist]

It seems like this topic comes up every few years here on PS, and there was a thread over a decade ago with almost the same contributors:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...eally-know-a-d-color-is-more-rare-than.27763/

@Antwerpman had some great insights in that thread, and is probably one of the few people that has actually seen the distribution of color and clarity coming out of one of the large rough suppliers. He seemed to think that colorless was more rare than near colorless and faint colors. You yourself seemed to indicate the same thing back then @Paul-Antwerp, so I'll quote you here:

"Maybe, we should say that most diamonds are tinted, either in the yellow or in the brown range.

In the case of yellow, the tint comes from nitrogen, and the almost complete absence of nitrogen would make the stone a D-colour. More than 90% of diamonds are of the type that is coloured by nitrogen.

It is highly improbable, for a diamond being formed in an atmosphere containing nitrogen, to have no nitrogen in that specific diamond.

In the case of brown, the tint comes from structural defects, meaning that the atomic binding between C-atoms is not perfect. Also, in this case, an absolutely perfect atomic binding would be graded a D-colour.

Also in this case, it is highly improbable to have a diamond without any structural defects.

It is like walking through the rain without getting wet.

Live long,"

Your quote from back in 2005 makes sense to me, as I would believe that it is incredibly rare for a diamond to form under conditions where no impurities are present whatsoever. Especially considering that the Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.

Has something changed since 2005 that led you to believe that a glut of DEFs have appeared on the market? I know that a few of the new Russian mines have been reported to be producing some high quality rough, but do you have inside info that there has there been enough of a change in rough production to shift the distribution toward the colorless range?

Saying that your figures account for 40% of the rough production doesn't really account for much, especially since this is likely 40% of the highest quality rough graded by the top labs. I'm guessing the other 60% that doesn't pass through the top labs or through Rapnet is probably not of the same quality, but I don't have any actual data to back this up. Just makes sense from an economic perspective that lower quality, cheaper rough would probably not be graded at top (expensive) labs or traded on the global scale, as it wouldn't make economic sense to do so.

 

[Serg]

Just rarity does not define price.
Balance between supply (rarity) and demand defines price .
Suppose we have same rarity for D and G color diamonds. if price will same for both colours then nobody will buy G diamonds, it will increase ratio Demand/Supply for D color and decrease the for G color.
Price for D color diamonds will always higher than for "same " diamonds with G color , it does not depends from mining companies, 4c, rarity.

But G color diamond with higher optical performance could have higher price than D color diamond if retail will find effective way to show the difference in optical performance .
It is very easy to blame 3d parties in all problems but it can not help to solve any problems.
The retail has to improve communication skills to explain to consumers the real difference between cuts in optical performance . The blaming will just reduce diamond market niche in compare with other luxury markets

 

[oldminer]

Rule 1. Finely cut diamonds are more rare than less well cut diamonds. Some folks will pay more for the best cut diamonds and some people won't.

Rule 2. Fine color diamonds are generally more rare from mother nature than diamonds which have varying degrees of light color tint. Some folks will pay more for those which have no color and some people won't.

Rule 3. Some diamonds, not especially rare ones, in the Q to Z end of the color scale, can be cut with specialized knowledge to be Lab graded as "Light fancy" or even "Fancy" color and sold for higher prices than what their inherent body color normally would command due to their special cutting and more colorful face-up appearance. Some people will pay a premium for such diamonds and some won't as they don't view such lighter fancy colors as sufficiently rare or attractive.

Rule 4. There are many unmentioned points of variable market pressure and consumer expectations influencing the outcomes of Rules 1 through 3.

There is no set of easy to follow rules which dictate the value for diamonds. Successful firms seem to find various niche markets in which they have gained understanding, but look at the rest of the markets as unruly, deteriorated, perverse or incomprehensible. Others work in those markets with varying levels of success. It is complex and deep and appears on the surface to have little consistency. Looking deeper and given time, one finds more order beneath the surface, but it is a market which appears to live by a combination of order, freedom and chaos.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

It seems like this topic comes up every few years here on PS, and there was a thread over a decade ago with almost the same contributors:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...eally-know-a-d-color-is-more-rare-than.27763/

@Antwerpman had some great insights in that thread, and is probably one of the few people that has actually seen the distribution of color and clarity coming out of one of the large rough suppliers. He seemed to think that colorless was more rare than near colorless and faint colors. You yourself seemed to indicate the same thing back then @Paul-Antwerp, so I'll quote you here:

"Maybe, we should say that most diamonds are tinted, either in the yellow or in the brown range.

In the case of yellow, the tint comes from nitrogen, and the almost complete absence of nitrogen would make the stone a D-colour. More than 90% of diamonds are of the type that is coloured by nitrogen.

It is highly improbable, for a diamond being formed in an atmosphere containing nitrogen, to have no nitrogen in that specific diamond.

In the case of brown, the tint comes from structural defects, meaning that the atomic binding between C-atoms is not perfect. Also, in this case, an absolutely perfect atomic binding would be graded a D-colour.

Also in this case, it is highly improbable to have a diamond without any structural defects.

It is like walking through the rain without getting wet.

Live long,"

Your quote from back in 2005 makes sense to me, as I would believe that it is incredibly rare for a diamond to form under conditions where no impurities are present whatsoever. Especially considering that the Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.

Has something changed since 2005 that led you to believe that a glut of DEFs have appeared on the market? I know that a few of the new Russian mines have been reported to be producing some high quality rough, but do you have inside info that there has there been enough of a change in rough production to shift the distribution toward the colorless range?

Saying that your figures account for 40% of the rough production doesn't really account for much, especially since this is likely 40% of the highest quality rough graded by the top labs. I'm guessing the other 60% that doesn't pass through the top labs or through Rapnet is probably not of the same quality, but I don't have any actual data to back this up. Just makes sense from an economic perspective that lower quality, cheaper rough would probably not be graded at top (expensive) labs or traded on the global scale, as it wouldn't make economic sense to do so.

Hi TreeScientist,

Thank you for digging up that old thread.

I do admit, there is evolution in my knowledge, observations, beliefs and convictions over a period of 13 years.

Other things have changed too since the period Antwerpman (a dear friend) referred to, about 20 years ago. The company he referred to moved from 65% to 30% market-share, new mines came up, and rough sorters now work with sophisticated color-prediction-machines as opposed to simple general estimating in those days.

Funny in this old thread is to see Garry used the same method at the time to prove the unequal distribution (tallying color-distribution on the PS-search), while me using that same method on a much broader base today is called incorrect.

Live long,

 

[TreeScientist]

Hi TreeScientist,

Thank you for digging up that old thread.

I do admit, there is evolution in my knowledge, observations, beliefs and convictions over a period of 13 years.

Other things have changed too since the period Antwerpman (a dear friend) referred to, about 20 years ago. The company he referred to moved from 65% to 30% market-share, new mines came up, and rough sorters now work with sophisticated color-prediction-machines as opposed to simple general estimating in those days.

Funny in this old thread is to see Garry used the same method at the time to prove the unequal distribution (tallying color-distribution on the PS-search), while me using that same method on a much broader base today is called incorrect.

Live long,

Would you mind elaborating on which mines in particular you're referring to that, to your knowledge, contributed to the increase in colorless rough production? I don't really have any bone to pick here, as I'm not in the trade and have no vested interest in whether a particular color is more/less rare than another color. And as I said in my first post, it doesn't matter much anyway, as any type Ia yellow is just that: a type Ia yellow diamond. No matter what "shade" of yellow it is (E, G, J, L, P, whatever).

I'm just genuinely curious from a geological perspective (I'm not a geologist myself, but I work in a geophysics department). It would be interesting to know where these diamonds lacking impurities are popping up in the world. Is it, in fact, the Russian mines? Given how much nitrogen is stored in the Earth's mantle where diamonds are formed (from Ammonia in the early atmosphere that was trapped in the Earth's interior during the planet's formation), it's really fascinating to me to think of all the factors that have to come together to form a diamond without nitrogen impurities.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Treescientist,

Trust me, I am also questioning my own reasoning. For sure, in what I stated in 2005, I neglected the fact that color-grades become wider as one goes down. That could have a far bigger effect than my theory back then about some natural distribution.

For sure, where we started 100 years ago with mostly South-African rough (Cape-color, remember), today, South African mines are closing constantly and Canadian has become more prominent.

Still, I could be wrong and there could still be 'some' rarity-factor in Color. But not in the dramatic ways that diamond-pricing seems to reflect. You need to understand that the industry in a very inefficient way is lead by the Rapaport-price-sheet in that way. That sheet dictates the price-difference between D and F, for instance. And if the sheet as such does not dictate it, the miner-cutter-interaction dictates that same difference, for anyone not accepting that price-premium of D over F will not be able to buy an assortment of high color rough.

That again leads to what @oldminer incorrectly defined as rule number 1: "Finely cut diamonds are more rare than less well cut diamonds." I disagree that this is a rule. But with color-price dictated by the Rap-sheet and the miners, and carat-weight being presented as more important than diameter or surface, the almost only way cutters in general can compete (obtain rough) is by hiding unnecessary weight in less well cut diamonds.

Going back to Color only, from a consumer-perspective, how can one justify a 20% premium of D over F (in some combos even 30%)? None of the reasons brought up (chain stores, homeshopping, uncerted, ...) truly applies to the difference between D and F. Still, the Rapnet-inventory shows no meaningful difference between the availability of either. Or do you think a factor of 11 F versus 10 D is sufficiently meaningful to justify a 20% price-difference? You could argue that F sells far faster than D. But if that is the case, is that not a confirmation of the price-difference being too high?

@Serg is right when he states that the key is in the communication towards the consumer. For me, that starts with questioning the validity of each C, as it is educated, described or graded today.

Live long,

 

[TreeScientist]

You could argue that F sells far faster than D. But if that is the case, is that not a confirmation of the price-difference being too high?

Live long,

Actually, if D is indeed more rare than F, but they have it priced in a way in which Fs sell proportionally faster than D, resulting in roughly equivalent replenishment rates (and thus equal quantities of both on the market at any given time) then I would definitely not say that the price-difference is too high. I would say it is just right (and I'm sure any others among us that are involved/interested in economics would say the same thing ).

Let's say you have X and Y widgets that are similar goods with a limited replacement rates. If you can sell X widget at roughly the rate that you can replenish X widget (and put it's replacement back on the market) at Z*1.2, and you can sell Y widget at roughly the rate that you can replenish it at Z*1.0, then as a skilled supply chain manager, you would sell X at Z*1.2 and Y at Z*1.0. It would make no sense to also sell X at Z*1.0, because a.) You're selling it at below the value that you know you can sell them for while matching the replacement rate, which would lead to b.) The lower value of X would likely lead to increased sales, which would mean that you may not be able to keep up with the demand.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, so I highly doubt there is some giant stockpile of D colors sitting around in some vault. Actually, if the diamond rough supply was still controlled by a monopoly like it was a hundred years ago, then I could almost, maybe bring myself to believe that something like that may be going on. But since there's so many players in the rough market now, I'm pretty sure that if one of them had a large supply of Ds lying around that they know could bring top dollar, then they wouldn't be sitting on them.

 

[oldminer]

"That again leads to what @oldminer incorrectly defined as rule number 1: "Finely cut diamonds are more rare than less well cut diamonds." I disagree that this is a rule. But with color-price dictated by the Rap-sheet and the miners, and carat-weight being presented as more important than diameter or surface, the almost only way cutters in general can compete (obtain rough) is by hiding unnecessary weight in less well cut diamonds. "
The above quotes Paul.
Strange how you like to say I am incorrect yet you say that cutters compete by hiding "unnecesary weight in less well cut diamonds". One's I'd say often still graded as GIA XXX. That is exactly what makes finely cut diamonds more rare and more valuable. The truly fine diamonds, finely cut ones, such as those your company cuts, are those which I am calling out as rare, yet you disagree with such a scarcity. Maybe it is the way you read what I wrote or object to my thinking that this is a "rule". It is certainly an unbreakable market force. You can't simply break diamond valuation into color only, cut only, clarity only, or any other individual component. Rarity at the retail level comes about through a complex process which defies complete written description. Rarity at the mine is well hidden by miners and distributors. Rarity in the open market is not due to supply or color but more so by unequal demand and niche business models.

When it comes to the color scale, we don't know if there is some part of the D-Z range which is never found in nature? Do we know for sure if there is a particular hue within R color which we have never found an example of? Is it possible that there is not a particular hue of G color which has never been found in nature? I doubt we fully understand rarity of color enough to know what is truly rare, or non-existent. To me, the color scale should not be equated with rarity, but with human perception of purity and suitability for making jewelry which sparkles. People equate colorless diamonds with high quality because it is what they have been taught. It fits into our general concept of clean and neat versus dirty and unkempt. Rarity is not addressed in this at all, but if rarity and colorlessness goes hand in hand, then there is a basis for value changes as color changes.