Diamond Color Chart

[pyramid]

http://www.gemnation.com/base?processor=getPage&pageName=color



I thought this color chart showed a difference from the side more than some do, don''t know how accurate it is though, just found it when surfing the internet.

 

[MissAva]

I think the idea of had a sive veiw is pretty spiffy. But I think the tonal vairations may be off. I could not tell the differnece between the D and the J except that the D had more blue (as did all the colorless). Perhaps it is my computer screen but I thought each diamond within a given column looked very similair to the others with in. I dont know though..JMO. Thanks for posting that though, its a very neat idea.

 

[pyramid]

I felt I could see the difference in each stone but I have very very keen eyes for color and clarity. One jeweller told me I could see things he could only see at 20x in the microscope.

 

[oldminer]

The steps may be more than reality, but it does demonstrate something that is informative. Every monitor is different unless it has been carefully color calibrated. That is a major weakness. Secondly, I think there is less difference than what is portrayed, but it is only an opinion, not a fact. I like the attempt and there is some truth to it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

better than this?

 

[MissAva]

I tend to do better in person and in pictures of acutal object rather then a picture of a picture. Very kool about the eyes though, I am jealous.

 

[pyramid]

Matatora

I don''t know if it is a blessing or not. I can agree on a G colour but I would not go lower than a VS1.

 

[cflutist]

Garry, great post.

The "J" sure looks "warm" to me, at least on my monitor. I guess I am color sensitive as the
e-ring diamonds I own, or have owned are all D, E, or F.

 

[dazedland]

The J definitley looks a little warmer to me, it could be the flourescent lights in the office though.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

NO question it''s a great idea, but Garry''s photo is heads and shoulders above the site linked to, in terms of illustrating the slight differences in shade between the shades of d-j.

Of course differences in monitors will make ths look different on different systems- but Garry''s photo depicted the differences.
I''m not saying you could use Garry''s photo to color grade a diamond- but it does give consumers a good idea of what we look for when color grading a colorless, or near colorless diamond

 

[pyramid]

I would think that Garry would have the stones under proper daylight diamond lights.

I have read that graders used to only grade color at a north facing window between 12noon and 2pm in the past.

 

[MissAva]

WOW! This was bothering me so I went online in the university lab and the moniter here does make it more obvious (I keep mine at home fairly dark, and I forget this at times.) I still think that the middle row of stones looks very "warm" but then I always do. I still feel like the differences are ewasier to see when it is a picture of real diamonds side by side in a picture, but that is just me and I have formal training in color grading.

 

[carrot]

The advantage of the Gemnaion chart is that the diamond images are on a white background. The photo posted by Garry has a wheat colored background which almost certainly means that the apparent colors of the stones are as far off as the wheat colored background is from white.

In order to evaluate the color of a diamond, it is placed in a pure white tray, table down and examined under white (full spectrum) light. This is the easiest and best way to see the diamond''s color. To establish the correct grade, they are compared against calibrated stones of known color grades against a white background.

It is obvious from the various posts in these forums that opinions vary regarding the significance and value of the color grade of a diamond. Prospective buyers should visit a jewelry store where they can examine diamonds of various color grades against a pure white background under various lighting conditions. It is essential that this comparison include a D color diamond as a benchmark. Since people see color differently (and, on average, women have a greater color perception than men) it is essential that the significance of color be fully appreciated by the buyer before a buying decision is made.

Some people cannot discern color differences at all (especially the first time they compare diamonds of different color grades) and others can pick out a one color grade difference. With a little experience, color differences become more obvious. Color, or more accurately lack of color, is a significant contributor to the beauty of a diamond and should not be underestimated, particularly in solitares.

 

[FireGoddess]

It''s interesting I was at Ben Bridge jewelers about...hmmm...2 years ago looking for an ID bracelet for my DH and could not HELP veering over to the diamond counter

...I was wearing an I SI1 RB at the time and wondering if I had become more color sensitive, or my stone was becoming more "mind un-clean"....anyway, so they had a "color tray" of diamonds in every color from D down to J. I couldn''t see a bit of difference until I got down to the J...but the diamonds were in a black velvet box. However, I can clearly see color differences higher up the scale when stones are on a white background. Is this why they plop their "color tray" of diamonds on a black background? So you won''t notice the differences in color as well? It seems a bit disingenuous if that''s the case. Just wondering....???

 

[MissAva]

Hmm, the few times I have gone to look at loss stones they have put them in thes little whte cardstock things. (Im sure there is a term for these but it excapes me at the moment.) Personally I think color is alot easier to see in person then over a computer. It is one of the things that makes me nervous about buying a stone over the internet, beucase when I see the J'' s here they always looks soo lovely and I think I could do that, but when I go and look in person even the H&As start to bother me when the color drops below g/h. Carrot do you know why it is that women can see more of a difference? Is that just in terms of stones or is it for everything? Also does flor make any real difference, and is that why they use CZs to color grade?

 

[carrot]

Any object can only reflect colors that are contained in the light which illuminates it.

For example, if a light source contained only one, pure color (a single wavelength of light as froma laser) it could not appear as any color other than the source color. If any object that had no red color component at all was illuminated by a pure red light, it would appear black.

When white light illuminates an object, that light is composed of a huge "mixture" of individual colors from violet to deep red. The color the eye sees is that combination of individual colors which the object reflects. All of the other colors from the source are absorbed.

Diamonds displayed against a dark background appear to have more brilliance because of the contrast the eye sees between the dark background and the light being reflected from the diamond. Diamonds "look better" against black.

They also look better under light from "point sources". That is, the light comes from a tiny point as opposed to a large surface. That''s why diamonds look better under direct sunlight than under an overcast sky. They also look better under bare filament bulbs (like halogens) than under frosted bulbs and they will have more fire as the distance between the diamond and the light source increases. The next time you are in a jewelry store, look at the light bulbs over the diamond counter.

When the goal is to see and grade the internal color of a diamond, the obvious choice is white light and a white background because white light best exposes what is actually there and pure white provides the standard against which deviations from that standard are measured. Further, point sources of light are avoided because brilliance and fire make it more difficult to see into the diamond. (This is another reason that light return is the most important attribute of a diamond.)

 

[cflutist]

Date: 6/27/2005 12:50:19 PM
Author: Matatora
Hmm, the few times I have gone to look at loss stones they have put them in thes little whte cardstock things. (Im sure there is a term for these but it excapes me at the moment.) Personally I think color is alot easier to see in person then over a computer. It is one of the things that makes me nervous about buying a stone over the internet, beucase when I see the J'' s here they always looks soo lovely and I think I could do that, but when I go and look in person even the H&As start to bother me when the color drops below g/h. Carrot do you know why it is that women can see more of a difference? Is that just in terms of stones or is it for everything? Also does flor make any real difference, and is that why they use CZs to color grade?

Women may see color better than men (I know I do when I compare myself to websailor) because we have more rods and cones in our eyes. When I point out different shades of sapphires to websailor, he says they all look "blue" to him ... LOL

CZ Master Sets are less expensive than Diamond Master Sets used for color grading. If memory serves me, it is a painstaking process to create a master set from diamonds as the GIA is strict rules about size, cut etc when grading for a master set.
Of course, Diamond Master sets are prefered any day over CZ ones.

 

[Jennifer5973]

At the end of the day, a D is a D is a D and a J is a J is a J, cut well or not.

 

[carrot]

Jennifer I could not agree more. I did not want to even HINT toward choosing a low color grade stone!

It is very obvious to me why D color stones command the price that they do. As you have well said, a D is a D is a D, it will be a D every time you or someone else looks at it and it will still be a D 40 years from now!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

CZ master sets are all but useless- A CZ can not re-create the color of a diamond,
I do not feel that color recognition can be leared- some people can pick slight differences in shade. When a person has this sensativity =, they can be taught to color grade diamonds.
In general, "old timers" ( the folks who taught me, back in the palelogic era) felt that women did have a better chance of having this ability, as compared to men.
Of course, say this today and get sues for sexual discrimination,,,hehehe


These old timers also held the "Nothern Light at noon" thoery.

Of course it would be great to be able to veiw diamonds in the exact "best" light. In the real world this is simply not possible very often for consumers.
Unless you go to a outside ( not in mall) north facing store, at noon, and the diamonds are loose. How often is that going to happen?

When purchasiing diamonds for stock, I can't always wait for the optimal conditions.
I ( and other dealers) have developed an ability to use varied lighting - but it is pratically impossible late int he day- eyes are tired


If folks can look at mounted stones with GIA reports, in a dependable store, that should give them a good idea.
Why include a D unless someone is really having a problem with H color , for example.
Personally, I DO often reccomend J color to non sensative people- it's simply a matter of a person's preference.
For those that can enjoy the slight tint of a J can get a stone 2.5 times the size of folks who must have a D.


I still think Garry's chart gives a very good idea of what we look at when color grading diamonds ( the little white thing is called a "tray")

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The photo has been here on the tutorial for a long time http://diamonds.pricescope.com/color.asp

I seem often to find myself in disagreement with many in the industry:
1. I do not klike to use high color temp grading lights - I prefer normal daylight fluoro tubes as they show differences in color better.
2. I use CZ when i am travelling to buy and have no problems with them.
3. CZ is better for some fancy cuts because they have more ''transperancy''.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Pyramid

I don''t think that chart shows actualy photos (as Garry''s surely does), all is shows is the same pic tinted more and more to represent the lesser colors. The colors don''t even appear "real" to me at all. They seem computer-generated.

R/A

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Great point about the CZ masters Garry.
I guess if a delaer has used them , and has a basis of refernce, they could be useful.

PS- I was trained on Daylight fluorescent bulbs.
I still find them way better than high color temp grading lights too.

 

[pyramid]

R/A

Yes it is just pictures but I thought it was better than that color bar you see on some sites with just the letters. The real diamonds are ofcourse the real mccoy''s.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Those pics though not perfect do give a consumer a good idea of how slight the differences between grades really is.

Jon's site at www.GoodOldGold.com has a lot of excellent info on color (among other things).

 

[pad3006]

That link is really interesting, thanks for posting it. I was reading it and I had a question. I know that at one time someone had posted a question that they could see inclusions on a VS 1 or 2 stone, and people wrote back and said that sometimes that happens and sometimes VS2''s seem less clear then SI1 or 2 because of the size , color and location of the inclusions. But on that site, it states that for VS1 and 2, the inclusions are very small and are not visable with the naked eye. So how is that possible that someone could actually see the inclusions and it not be given an "I" clarity rating, thanks

 

[Rank Amateur]

Clarity grades are based on how easy or difficult it is to find the inclusions with a 10x loupe. Because the definition of "eye visible" is so variable from person to person it is not a criterion for grade assignment. I''m not sure how a VS2 could be "less clear" than an SI1.

The "I" in the grade SI does not stand for "eye". Aye-aye?

 

[pyramid]

Everyones eye sight is really different. A lot of times people say they can see an inclusion but this is after they have looked at the diamond with a loupe so their eyes are automatically zooming into that part of the stone whereas they wouldn't see it if they looked first without the loupe which is what consumers are supposed to do. I have also read that eye clean is meant to be at a 12 inch distance from you eyes not looking close up. Eye clean it has also been said is not a word which GIA and other labs use.

As I said above if you look at a diamond and see a white inclusion near the centre to the bottom left of the diamond with a louipe and then look at the diamond again without the loupe you will look in this area instead of at the whole round diamond.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/28/2005 6:02:57 AM
Author: Pyramid
Everyones eye sight is really different. A lot of times people say they can see an inclusion but this is after they have looked at the diamond with a loupe so their eyes are automatically zooming into that part of the stone whereas they wouldn''t see it if they looked first without the loupe which is what consumers are supposed to do. I have also read that eye clean is meant to be at a 12 inch distance from you eyes not looking close up. Eye clean it has also been said is not a word which GIA and other labs use.

As I said above if you look at a diamond and see a white inclusion near the centre to the bottom left of the diamond with a louipe and then look at the diamond again without the loupe you will look in this area instead of at the whole round diamond.

Color perception varies greatly between people too (as Cflutist mentioned). The difference between D and G to someone especially sensitive may be as dramatic as the difference between D and K to others. Then of course you have great cut and the face-up appearance to throw in the mix...

Pyramid, I''ve been working on a piece about clarity for the FAQ and your points above were a perfect illustration. I quoted you in the portion about clarity interp, hope you don''t mind.

 

[carrot]

John

After reviewing the FAQ link, I find the proposed explanation unclear. If I came across such a definition on a vendor''s website, I would find it evasive. It could be understood as setting the stage for misunderstandings or perhaps establishing a "back door" for those who might try to sell diamonds as eye clean when in fact they aren''t. Further, the article mixes lab report grades with the term "eye clean" when the two cannot be consistently related. Clarity grades are used to determine the rarity and value of a diamond and ultimately its selling price. "Eye clean" has a distinctly different purpose.

The term "eye clean" does not need a voluminous explanation. A stone is either eye clean or it isn''t. Inclusions can either be seen in or they can''t. What consumer would be satisfied if someone sent them a diamond advertised as eye clean when the consumer could see an inclusion in it?

Certainly one would not use a person with deficient eyesight to determine if a stone was eye clean, nor would they evaluate it in a poorly lit room. Further, a loupe does not make an inclusion more visible to the naked eye. In fact, especially for the inexperienced, it would be entirely appropriate to use a loupe to locate inclusions to simplify the process of determining whether the inclusions can be seen with the naked eye or not. All it would do is shorten the time involved in making the determination.

Further, many settings provide at least a partial side view of the stone. Thus, if a diamond is eye clean from the top but not the side, this should be clearly indicated. If a vendor wants to make the point that an inclusion can be hidden behind a prong, that one thing. But if an inclusion can be seen without magnification, this should be clear to the purchaser in advance.