Does anybody buy D colors anymore???

[Mike4]

.

 

[DoctorZ]

You have to figure out what you want from the stone. If 99.999% of the population can't tell a D from a G on a mounted stone, what's the point in paying the extra money?

I went with this when choosing my fiancee's ring:

1) No compromises on the cut. The rock needs to sparkle like crazy.
2) Stay somewhat colorless, G or better.
3) No inclusions visible to the naked eye.
4) Go with the biggest possible stone with the above parameters.

I have a buddy who went with a D VVS1 excellent cut RB. It's a beautiful stone, but his wife of 2 years is already talking about a bigger stone!

The sad truth is, for most of the population, bigger is better. I guess size does matter to a lot of women!!!

So my advice is to go for the size, go for the cut, stay out of the yellows, and no big inclusions. Even if you told everyone that the diamond was D IF, they would have to believe you unless they carried a loupe to prove you wrong. A well cut stone will sparkle so much, they'll be blinded into believing anything you say.

 

[Giangi]

D colors are very beautiful, if you like that icy and crisp look. A lot of folks over here prefer J-M color stones, which are much warmer and have ''personality''.

But others can't stand even the slightest trace of yellow and will buy only D-E-F. It depends on your eye. To me D and G are like two different planets, night and day, but I agree that once set, they both look great. But if you hold a D color stone near a G one, most probably you'll see the difference. Others have already decided a size in accordance to GF's finger size, preferences, budget and will go up in quality, since they cannot go up on size... It's all about priorities... Would you prefer a D/SI or a G-H/VS stone, assuming they were both eye-clean, at the same price, well cut, etc etc?

 

[Mike4]

.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 11/9/2003 2:32:57 PM Squeezetheshorts wrote:

Thanks for your post Giangi! I was looking for someone to say that there IS a difference between the D/F and G colors. Anyone else?----------------

The issue isn't that there is a difference. There is. The issue is how much perceiveable difference can one see face up in a setting. As Giangi said, it's all about priorities. Most feel that the difference is not much - the premium GREAT. So, I feel the difference in color is not a comparable one with regards to it's price.

 

[Giangi]

F&I, how can you always say things better than I do?

 

[Mara]

There MUST be a difference between a D and a G or else the grading chart wouldn't be accurate!

It really does have to do with your eyes. We compared an unset E stone to an unset G stone, both were reasonably well cut and we saw no difference with our naked eye in colors, even at different angles. So we got the G stone and it was bigger (or looked like it), plus the G was VS1 and the E SI1 and we saw a carbon inclusion in the SI1.




So yes there is a difference, but it really depends on your eye. If I found a good stone and it just happened to be D SI then I'd get it....but if I found one that fit the bill that was G VS2 I'd get that one just as quickly...if they were both the same price. So I don't think that its that color plays a huge difference but rather the package deal of what you find out there.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Hi,

I almost upgraded my diamond for my 5th anniversary and was planning to get a D color stone in the range of the .90s. For me, it was worth getting a slightly smaller colorless stone, but mostly because I didn't want anything larger than a carat (I have tiny fingers - 4.5 - and I'm very tiny build). . . but then I didn't upgrade and instead was given a D color stone from my mom's ring. It IS gorgeous, but now I see that although it's amazing, it's not THAT big of a deal. My G color is just as pretty. Even the I color H&A I looked at yesterday was a knockout. I guess now that I own a D it's not as big of a deal, and when I do upgrade in our two year planned time, it'll simply come down to budget. If we have loads of money, I'll get a .9 D, if we're budgeting the stone, I'll most likely get a G or H, either way it'll be a H&A.


Michelle

 

[Hest88]

The thing is, if I could easily afford a D color in the size range I want, and not care about the extra premium, of course I'd choose a D. However, most people are on a limited budget, so we'll recommend they drop the color to get a larger size because size is more noticable than a few grade's difference in color.

And BTW, we are "quality nuts" here. The difference is that we overwhelming consider *cut* to be the most important quality, not color.

 

[jenibear]

I think - as others said - it all depends on what your priorities are. I wanted a 1 ct. - no larger cause it would be ostentatious compared to all the other e-rings in my area and wouldn't fit me, my life or work. And I wanted to liven it up with large side stones, so a huge center stone would be too much. As it is the ring is "too much" and makes a lot of people stare!
But I am a quality freak. I will pay 50 more for a pair of boots because I know their premium quality even though I could get the same pair for less elswhere and no one would be the wiser.
I have a D VS1 stone. It's icy, its blinding and its gorgeous. I got it, though, not only because of the color, but because it was a package that had all the things I wanted. I didn't want to go lower than F in my center stone because I can tell the difference in color. Had there been a F VS1 or VS2 with much of the same characteristics, I probably would have gotten that one.
So you need to figure out your criteria first and then pick the color range you want to go with.
I have a friend that cares about nothing but size. She will end up with a non-ideal cut 3 or 4 ct. in H or I. Not my style, but it will make her deliriously happy.
Good luck!
If you want to see pictures of my ring just look for posts by Jenibear in the show me the ring section.

 

[dimonbob]

A G is a very nice color but if you put a D next to it, the yellow is very noticable. Once you have seen a true D and played with it for a while, you start to salivate, maybe not you, but I do. What I would really like to have is a D that pegs the colorimeter as a very high D! Is it worth it? It is to me and my wife appreciates it!

 

[Caratz]

I think it depends on personality. If I had a G or an H, I think I would always subconsciously be thinking "I know there is some yellow in there. Can I see it?" And I would always be looking for it. Same thing if I had a stone with strong blue fluorescence. Even if it did not make the stone look milky or cloudy, I would always be thinking "Does the stone look cloudy today? Can I detect the fluorescence?"

The nice thing about a D or an E is that no matter how hard you look, you will never see any yellow.

If I didn't buy a D or an E, I think I would jump down to J or K, get a monster stone, and just set the thing in a gold setting. But that's just me.

 

[diamondlil]

It is definitely a personal choice. When I upgraded, I really wanted a D because I can see the difference. I had an H before and it bothered me for 10 years. In the end, I purchased an E since I could not find a D in the size and clarity (and price) I was happy with. My E is certainly icy white which truly takes my breath away, but there are just as many folks that prefer a warmer look. My compromise was stepping down to SI2 clarity (which is now eye clean with a feather under a prong).




Diamondlil

 

[canadiangrrl]

I will echo what the others are saying here - it's all a matter of personal choice, and what you can comfortably afford.

I have an F. I couldn't spot the difference between D-E-F, and I find the icy, total lack of colour in that range to be very appealing. So that's what we ended up with, because my particular stone met our other parameters as well. A friend of mine has an ideal cut I. It's a very beautiful stone, but it "flashes" slighly yellow. It doesn't bother her, but it would bother me if it were mine.

In fancies, colour is much easier to discern. I find that to be especially true in step and princess cuts. To my eyes, step cuts at H and above look slightly yellowish, and princess cuts at H and above look not so much yellowish but dingy. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[AGBF]

I like D colored stones. If the truth be told, I can't tell the difference in cut as easily as the difference in color, but I know that saying so is heresy .

 

[canadiangrrl]

Watch it, AGBF. There's a burning stake with your name on it.

 

[Jennifer5973]

Someone very wise about diamonds once told me, "Do not pay for what the naked eye cannot see."

These ten words have served me well for over 9 years.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 11/9/2003 7:41:23 PM dimonbob wrote:

What I would really like to have is a D that pegs the colorimeter as a very high D! ----------------

This is something I wanted to hear in a long time! A while ago I crossed such an item: a small OMC which went from a misstreated piece of old Russian (?) jewelry right to the bottom of the color scale. It came a type IIb once the puzzled jeweler sent it for testing. I was furious at the time that in the couple of days the stone was within reach I could not compare it with a mainstrean D or E. Not to mention I have yet to find another old cut D color, leavig aside the VVS grade of the original contender.

How lucky should I get to cross such a color again? Do you get to handle them often? Would this off-scale-white even show during usual color grading procedures?

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 3:29:16 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------

On 11/9/2003 7:41:23 PM dimonbob wrote:


What I would really like to have is a D that pegs the colorimeter as a very high D! ----------------

This is something I wanted to hear in a long time! A while ago I crossed such an item: a small OMC which went from a misstreated piece of old Russian (?) jewelry right to the bottom of the color scale. It came a type IIb once the puzzled jeweler sent it for testing. I was furious at the time that in the couple of days the stone was within reach I could not compare it with a mainstrean D or E. Not to mention I have yet to find another old cut D color, leavig aside the VVS grade of the original contender.


How lucky should I get to cross such a color again? Do you get to handle them often? Would this off-scale-white even show during usual color grading procedures?----------------

I assume it was a clear stone if it went out of your price range, and that by "bottom of the color scale" you mean what is usually termed "high color" (like D-E-F). I certainly cannot tell you how often an exceptionally high D color stone is found; I never knew the stone went into being considered a IIb. (I will have to look that up. I thought a IIb referred to colored gems.) At any rate, you have brought us to one of the topics that has fascinated me for years: Golconda diamonds. They were clearer than other diamonds.

 

[AGBF]

Sharon Wakefield writes in the Gemkey News Center:

"Most diamond crystals contain some nitrogen impurities. In fact, diamonds are categorized - or Typed - by their physical characteristics. One such benchmark is the amount of nitrogen present.

In 1934 when this system was first proposed, a basic distinction was made based upon then current testing capabilities: Type I diamonds contain nitrogen; Type II diamonds do not. We now know that some Type II diamonds can contain very small amounts of nitrogen, but the original categories are still valid.

Each type is further segmented to account for other characteristics. Type I category is divided based on how the nitrogen is distributed in the crystal. If the nitrogen atoms are found in groups, or aggregates, the crystal is designated Type Ia. In Type Ib diamonds, single nitrogen atoms are dispersed around the crystal. Similarly, Type II diamonds are subdivided depending on the presence or absence of boron: Type IIa crystals do not contain boron; Type IIb crystals do."


So a IIb diamond contains no, or very little, nitrogen and does contain boron. What does that mean about its color?

 

[AGBF]

Beyond "D" Color Diamonds

Nitrogen causes yellow, so IIb diamonds (without it) aren't yellow. IIb diamonds can be blue or grey in tint. And here is what Christie's says about Golconda diamonds in one of its descriptions:

"Golconda mines in the southern Princely state of Hyderabad once ruled by the powerful Nizams from the Asaf Jah dynasty. Indeed some of the most spectacular diamonds of the world such as the Agra, the Hope, the Idol's eye and the Koh-I-Noor were mined in Golconda.

The celebrated French traveller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, who frequented India on numerous visits in the 17th century described these stones as, 'pools of crystal water'" a reference to the water-clear transparency and soft luminescent quality that is particular to these rarities.

The Golconda mines were almost depleted in the mid 18th Century and large diamonds of this famed provenance and distinction are seldom encountered today."

</

 

[valeria101]

Hm... yeah AGBF. The story did cross my way too. However, this source had vanished long before grades became norm and statistics got into the way of gem lore. Just immagine what the name 'Burma ruby' would mean a century or so after the LAST piece of worthy red corrundum had left Myanmar. True enough, a few gems went from Golconda into Assian royal treasuries and from there into the British (and other royal) ones, always selected for size, whiteness and clarity, just like today (bar the GIA labels). However, I suspect that no one will ever know for sure what Golconda's bulk production looked like. I doubt that the British Crown jewels represent an average. While the legend and sometimes the marketing glow of the 'Golconda' name appear side by side with great gems, I would love to look into some more serious historic overview of these mines! Do you know about such a thing, AGBF?

PS: did I mention VVS? I was working at the time with the temporary custodian of the piece (and other amazing chips), but this is all. I have no idea what hapened with the oddity, if, where and for how much it might have sold.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 8:39:30 AM valeria101 wrote:


...
"However, I suspect that no one will ever know for sure what Golconda's bulk production looked like. I doubt that the British Crown jewels represent an average. While the legend and sometimes the marketing glow of the 'Golconda' name appear side by side with great gems, I would love to look into some more serious historic overview of these mines! Do you know about such a thing, AGBF?"
...
----------------

I nearly choked reading your comment about the jewels chosen for the British Crown Jewels. I suspect you are right, and they decided to use above average stones for them . As to knowing the history of the mines: I know nothing special. I believe it was in 1999 when an especially readable history about the Golconda diamonds was published that the general public came to know about them. I have not (yet) even read *that*, but can find a link to a description of it.

 

[AGBF]

Vedams book site (http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14941.htm) is one of the places on the 'net where one can buy the book by Omar Khalidi mentioned above. Dr. Khalidi has written widely on the history of Hyderabad, but this book was written for a more general audience. This is what Vedams says about the book, "Romance of the Golconda Diamonds":

"Romance of the Golconda Diamonds/Omar Khalidi. 1999, 127 p., Col. Plates, ISBN 81-85822-57-3.

Contents: 1. Prologue. 2. Romance of the diamonds. 3. The nature of diamonds. 4. Golconda: the legend and the history. 5. The diamond mines of Golconda. 6. Famous diamonds of Golconda. 7. The Nizams of Hyderabad. 8. The diamond paperweight. 9. The richest man in the world. 10. The jeweller felt Dizzy. 11. The Nizam Osman Ali Khan's Jewellery. 12. The end of an era: sale of the century. 13. Annotated bibliography.

"The Golconda diamonds and the mines of that name are the stuff of the Thousand and One Arabian Nights. Some of the most famous (or infamous) diamonds such as the Koh-i-Noor, the Hope and the Regent were found there. The chequered history of the Koh-i-Noor has been the favourite tramping ground for the historian and the popular writer. But the Koh-i-Noor was merely one of the many precious and lustrous diamonds mined there. Despite their fame, no comprehensive account of the Golconda diamonds and the mines has been available.

"The book is written in a racy style that will appeal to an audience beyond a handful of historians or diamond buffs. For the scholar, there is a detailed identification of sources in Persian, Urdu and Telugu for Indian materials. The book is illustrated with a number of colour and black & white illustrations. These include rare photographs, maps, tables, drawings and sketches. The text is laced throughout with juicy anecdotes amply supplemented with humorous couplets and doggerels relating to the subject making the book absorbing reading." (jacket)

[Omar Khalidi is an independent scholar at the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at MIT and Harvard University.]"

 

[diamond dazed]

----------------
Can anyone tell me a good reason to not to go this route? There must be some quality nuts out here!!! ----------------

If you're really looking for reasons "not to go this route," I can give you one -- resale. If you should find yourself in a position of needing/wanting to sell the diamond, you will have an easier time selling a "D" diamond than a lower quality -- I think the chances you'll recoup most of your investment are much higher.

I say this, not because I'm an expert, but because I happened to have just bought a D/VS1 "second hand" about 2 weeks ago. I was all set on buying a diamond from Jonathan at Good Old Gold, when I happened to find this one for sale. Where I was looking at G's and H's at Good Old Gold, I ended up with a D by buying second-hand (it happened to be one of Jonathan's diamonds -- probably the other reason I considered it). I wouldn't have considered taking on the risk of buying from a private seller if the lure of that perfect color hadn't enticed me. I basically ended up with a D diamond at a G cost. The (really cool, very nice) guy selling it lost about 15% of his investment, that doesn't seem like much (though it probably did to him) -- I doubt he could have come out that well with a lower-colored diamond, partly because of their availability, but also because they don't have the "draw" that the "almighty" D has....

Just my $.02,

Kris

By the way, this wouldn't have been possible without David Atlas (and Chris DiCamillo) that we worked with there), I owe them a big customer testimonial! They're awesome.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 9:31:22 AM diamond dazed wrote:

----------------
Can anyone tell me a good reason to not to go this route? There must be some quality nuts out here!!! ----------------

If you're really looking for reasons 'not to go this route,' I can give you one -- resale. If you should find yourself in a position of needing/wanting to sell the diamond, you will have an easier time selling a 'D' diamond than a lower quality ---

Actually, this is not correct. The quickest moving stones are the g/h vs2/si1. The D stone has a more limited market. As to whether one can recoup more money on the D, perhaps. But, at the end of the day, it is where on the retail markup scale one bought the diamond.

 

[hoorray]

I'll speak up for the colorless stones! I would have loved to have a D stone, but knew it was frivolous unless I just happened on the right stone, and it happened to be a D. Instead I found a great E color stone. Even the vendors with the D stones seemed to be trying to talk me out of them. Someone put it the best: "You are paying a premium for D due to its rarity, not its looks."

I don't know if I can see the difference between d,e,f once set, but I think I could unset, and it makes me happy knowing my stone is an E. At the end of the day, there is some emotional value in knowing certain things about a stone, whether or not someone can see them. I was lucky that I was getting the size I wanted, so there wasn't a tradeoff involved there. It was just how much is the extra quality worth.

If it makes you happy, and you can afford it, go for it! If you have to trade off size, and size is important to her (as it is to most women

), make sure this level of quality is important enough to her too.

 

[valeria101]

------'Romance of the Golconda Diamonds/Omar Khalidi. 1999, 127 p., Col. Plates, ISBN 81-85822-57-3. Omar Khalidi is an independent scholar at the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at MIT and Harvard University.'----------------

Sounds great! This gets a place on my (long) list of desirable readings... It should be a refreshing variation to peep into original sources. And one thing they teach well at Harvard is nice writing, last time I checked... Thanks!

 

[caratgirl]

I always wanted a D color, but couldn't afford it in the nearly 2ct size, so I compromised on an F. But I've got to tell you, even mounted, next to a good friend's D color not so well cut stone, I must admit hers does look whiter from the more oblique angles, just not as sparkly as mine. So I can just imagine what mine would have looked like as a D color!

Oh, well, in another lifetime. There is another thread that Mara wrote in about...something regarding what diamond would you get if you had to do it over again? I would have gotten a D!

On another note, my husband likes to go to local gun shows in California and Las Vegas, since he collects antique western rifles and guns. So I go along occasionally, since the vendors have all kinds of used old jewelry and stuff. I go lucky one year and bought a great emerald and diamond ring (4.5 ct stone & 2ct dia) for a very low price, had it appraised for 5 times that amount. But I digress...there was an old lady in one of the booths that just shows off civil war antiques that had the most amazing 3 carat OEC diamond ring I have ever seen! I have seen her more recently, since I got my F color, and hers still blew mine away. I finally couldn't stand it and asked about the color, and her ancient husband proudly said that it was a very fine D color. Truly amazing! I still wonder if I should have got the old cut route. You know how a lot of great cut diamonds look a bit dark in direct sunlight and spotlights? Well, hers didn't! Just a glorious blaze of white chunky light and color.

Okay, I've typed long enough...must see what that rascal Rich Sherwood is up to...

 

[Jolie]

I have a 1.04 carat D color VVS1 diamond, and color was the second most important "c" to us after cut. To my naked eye, there was no difference between an FL, IF, VVS1, VVS2, VS1, or VS2. But there IS a difference between a D color and a G. So in sacrificing the c's to fit within our budget, it was carat and clarity that we gave up, not color (and certainly not cut).

I know a lot of people want a bigger diamond, but I have to ask "why?" Your friends are probaly smart enough to know that a larger stone = lower quality (unless you are a millionaire, in which case, congratulations!).

Anyway, just wanted to say "yes," some of us do still buy D colors. There is a difference to the naked eye.