Does anybody buy D colors anymore???

[Mara]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 2:21:12 PM Jolie wrote:






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!).

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

Hee Hee this is funny. WHY? Are you really a female?

All my friends know about diamonds is that they are sparkly. Larger stone = lower quality? Not likely! Larger stones do not equal millionaire status...not at all!

I know alot of people with larger stones who did not lower quality to get them, they just shopped smart and maximized their budget. As someone who saw no difference between an E and a G stone...I definitely do not have the quality hangups that alot of other people do...and I really firmly believe you should not pay for things you can't see.

I would never pay for D VVS1 unless the price difference was so minimal for the same size that it was worth it. D SI1 would be fine if that was the only thing I could find, but I would not start a search out with a D quality or VVS because I know the markups associated with each grade.

To each their own and it doesn't mean that anyone who buys a D VVS1 wasted the money, it was their choice and right for them which is all that matters. But just as if someone who wanted G VS ended up getting a larger stone...that is not sacrificing quality...it's a perception of quality, which 99% of the time is incorrect.

 

[dimonbob]

Once upon a time when I was a GTL-GIA is Santa Monica, we had a diamond cutter from NYC come in with a couple of good sized diamonds for grading. They both were higher color than the highest D that we had in the Color Master set. If there was such a thing as C color, they would have qualified. They were graded as D. We all had a chance to look at these totally colorless diamonds and could not believe what we were looking at.

Can you understand now why I would want one that pegs the Colorimeter?

 

[Kay]

I have a D, and I just love the icy crispness of it. I was looking for an E, because D and E are supposed to be virtually indistinguishable and I thought the E would be a better value, but then the *right* stone came along and it was a D and within our budget.

Our priorities were cut (very difficult to find an AGA cut class 1 marquise with a great length to width ratio), color (I am very color sensitive & color shows more in fancies than well-cut RBs), and then clarity. I knew I wanted a stone in the 1 to 1.25 carat range, so for us it was not a matter of trading size for color -- we just wanted the best cut, best color, eye-clean stone in our budget.

I compared 2 well-cut stones before buying, my D and an F. The F was beautiful on its own and would have made a lovely ring, but next to the D it didn't have a chance -- it was the D that called to me (not a huge price difference either in that case).

 

[caratgirl]

Dimonbob, I would love to get one like that as well. For those of us that want the extra 'pop' of whiteness, that is like the holy grail...well, kind of.

Even face up and set, some stones are of a higher color, and just scream whiteness and fire at the same time. I think that it is like the people that love the warmer shades, you just can't convince either one to change, which is very good, because then everyone would like the same thing, making it even more over-priced.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 2:21:12 PM 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!).

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

I have to ask why do you assume a larger stone mean lower quality? Your logic is flawed. Personally, I like a larger medium range stone. I would not feel comfortable with myself or with wearing a 3c D/VS stone. I would think it a waste of money.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 2:37:34 PM dimonbob wrote:

Once upon a time when I was a GTL-GIA is Santa Monica, we had a diamond cutter from NYC come in with a couple of good sized diamonds for grading. They both were higher color than the highest D that we had in the Color Master set. If there was such a thing as C color, they would have qualified. They were graded as D. We all had a chance to look at these totally colorless diamonds and could not believe what we were looking at.

Can you understand now why I would want one that pegs the Colorimeter?
----------------

This does not address personal preference. A large D diamond would not be my preference. One reason is it would give me a headache. Florescent lights give me a headache.

 

[dimonbob]

I'll take a "D" headache anytime. But yes, I agree cut is King but pure white of a D is certainly Queen.

 

[pulp_princess]

I'd get a D, cut being equal.

I love that ice!

 

[diamond dazed]

This is an interesting thread... it has me thinking -- mainly about whether a whiter diamond is just a perception of quality or whether it is actually a better quality diamond....

If a greater quality cut is what gives a diamond more "bling, bling" then it seems like quality (of a diamond) is defined by it's ability to return light -- the more, the better.

From what I remember of physics (it's been a while), white light is the presence of all colors -- therefore the whiter the light that comes back to your eye from a diamond, the better job it's done returning the full spectrum. Seems to me that could be considered "quality" of light return.... As you go down the color scale, the diamonds will selectively return to you colors less evenly distributed across the spectrum -- either in the yellow range, or the grey range. So something within the diamond is changing the spectrum that went into it -- no, it's not compromising the strength or integrity of the diamond, as an inclusion would, but it is compromising the light spectrum bouncing off of it. Which is what a poor cut would do -- doesn't affect the strength, just the light....

I guess I think a case can be made for lower color = lower quality, at least in one sense.


Kris

 

[canadiangrrl]

Kris,

I know jack about physics, but your explanation rings a bell...I was in Tiffany's in Toronto a few months ago, and the guy who manages the store (he's a GIA GG) said something along those lines with respect to colourless stones & light return...

During this same shopping trip, Mr. Canadiangrrl viewed a bunch of mounted Tiffany solitaires with diamonds ranging from D to I. He was not told what any of the colours were, but he was able to discern a D from a G. However, just like me, he could not discern an F from a D. And Mr. Canadiangrrl knows jack about diamonds (but he does know physics, bless him.)

I like D's - they're truly beautiful. But this little expedition sealed the deal for us. An F, to us, is indistinguishable from a D.

And btw, one of my sisters has a 1.54 D VVS2 RB, purchased for her from the aforementioned "T" store. She's not a millionaire and nor is she even particularly interested in diamonds.

 

[Mara]

I don't think that light return has anything to do with color of the stone from what I have read? Can an expert chime in? I'd love to hear if someone out there has seen a D and G stone side by side--same cut (like two ACA's or similar) and can rightly say that light return seems better from the D. Or show me an IdealScope image that shows this. Now if you are talking white light return in terms of visual -- that is a hugely subjective thing and depends on one's eyes... as does the perception of color at all!

 

[Caratz]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 7:28:01 PM Mara wrote:


I don't think that light return has anything to do with color of the stone from what I have read? Can an expert chime in? I'd love to hear if someone out there has seen a D and G stone side by side--same cut (like two ACA's or similar) and can rightly say that light return seems better from the D. Or show me an IdealScope image that shows this. Now if you are talking white light return in terms of visual -- that is a hugely subjective thing and depends on one's eyes... as does the perception of color at all!

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

The nitrogen absorbs only a very small percentage of the light.

 

[diamond dazed]

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

The nitrogen absorbs only a very small percentage of the light.----------------

One interesting side note -- here's an explanation of how an object appears yellow (taken from science.howstuffworks.com):

For example, to see a yellow object, either the object is directly emitting light waves in the yellow frequency, or it is absorbing the blue part of the spectrum and reflecting the red and green parts back to your eye, which perceives the combined frequencies as yellow.

***********

Since a diamond isn't emitting light, it falls into the later category, meaning that it is absorbing the blue part of the spectrum -- so..... I think I finally know why blue flourescence causes a diamond to appear whiter ---it puts that missing blue back into the spectrum, shifting the diamonds reflected light back toward the white light spectrum.

Who knew there was so much science in diamonds. So cool.

Kris

 

[Mike4]

.

 

[canadiangrrl]

This comes from Blue Nile's site. It's on their page entitled Color.

"Acting as a prism, a diamond can divide light into a spectrum of colors and reflect this light as colorful flashes called fire. Just as when looking through colored glass, color in a diamond will act as a filter, and will diminish the spectrum of color emitted. The less color in a diamond, the more colorful the fire, and the better the color grade." (source - Blue Nile - http://www.bluenile.com/diamond_color.asp)

This is along the lines of what I was told by the GIA GG at Tiff's. Except his explanation was more scientific and mostly went over my head.

 

[ringbling17]

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

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!).

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

This statement really made me laugh.

I guess if we were to follow the same train of "thought", then those same "friends" are probably thinking that a small stone = cheap bastard fiance!

Unless you go running around telling everyone what your stone specs are, no one will notice the difference, they will just believe what you tell them.
In fact, I have yet to have anyone question my 3 carat superideal H&A A Cut Above D Flawless diamond!!!!

I am sure they think I can't afford it, but I am a millionaire! Aren't I?

And to address the question of Why? Who wouldn't want a bigger stone? Unless it is so yellow and so included, most women would go for a larger medium quality diamond than a smaller higher quality diamond.
Not that I am saying getting a D color is wrong. Everyone has a preference.
I just don't like the idea that those those of you that have a D think you are better than those of us that don't.

 

[pulp_princess]

----------------
On 11/10/2003 5:46:20 PM canadiangrrl wrote:

Kris,

I know jack about physics, but your explanation rings a bell...I was in Tiffany's in Toronto a few months ago, and the guy who manages the store (he's a GIA GG) said something along those lines with respect to colourless stones & light return...


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

The real manager of Tiffany & Co. is a lady. There are two gentlemen who are associate sales managers that work under her. When I had a complaint, I had to go to the sales managers, who brought it to the attention of the director, who is definitely female. I got to know all three very well by the time my kerfluffle was over, and they know me.

Who knows, you may have seen me there too.

(edited to say that this applies to the Toronto Tiffany's and no other)

 

[aljdewey]

You know......all this science stuff about why a lower color diamond reflects more light back is interesting and all.....but here's the thing....




Even though it may be factually and scientifically true, it is undiscernable to most unaided human eyes. We're talking about splitting *fractions* of hairs in the name of science.




For those who want a D and see a difference in a truly colorless diamond......enjoy saving the premium for it and wear it well, enjoy the hell out of it.




For those who don't have the budget or have a problem paying a premium for something that undiscernable to the other 95% of the non-eagle-eye-color-freak population, save a few bucks and drop down. Most people will never be able to see the differerence.

 

[magna2]

Buying diamond is like anything else in life - it is about compromises and what priorities the individual has set.

There are still many people who buy D color diamonds. If my discretioanry income allows me, I too would prefer a D/IF/1+ ct diamond. However since that type of diamond is beyond my financial means, my wife now owns a E/VS2/1.04 ct diamond e-ring.

Could I tell an E from a F, or for that matter a G? - Probably not, but my wife at that point uhad expressed interest in a "white" diamond and knowing not much about diamond then I let the jeweler steer me in the purchase. While I am quite satisfy with the diamond, I would definitely made trade-offs for a better quality cut if I were to do it all over again.

 

[Jolie]

Just have to defend my earlier statement re: larger diamonds. I was not trying to denigrate the lucky people who have 3 carat flawless diamonds (sadly, I'm not one of them). But as we've always strived to get the "best" diamond for our money, the larger the stone = the lower the rest of the stone's attributes. For example, if I have $10k to spend on a stone, that is a finite amount of money. I could get a D color vvs1 1.5 carat (just an example - I don't know exactly how much a stone like that costs). But if I wanted to go up to a 2 carat or 2.5 carat to impress some friends and strangers, I know I would have to compromise on the color and clarity, and maybe even cut - because the $10k that I have to spend would remain $10k. Does that make sense?

I remain firm in my belief that in order to get the larger stone for the same amount of money that I have budgeted, the color, clarity, and cut would be compromised - which to me equals "lower quality." So, I am not automatically impressed with someone else's humongous stone, as we all must balance the four c's. And I am also aware that other people may think my "D" color was a poor choice ("stupid," as my sister called it) because I sacrificed carat for color - which is a valid criticism if carat is more important to an individual. Like I said, in balancing the 4 c's, we all must give up something; I just wanted to weigh in that carat alone does not automatically impress everyone and should not (in my opinion) be the only goal. Sometimes small and perfect gives more of a warm and fuzzy feeling than large and flawed.

But my bottom line was to try to answer the question of whether people still buy D color - "yes" because it is visible to the naked eye.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Hey Jolie,

What you're saying makes perfect sense.

There are variances in the perception of quality, and you purchased a diamond that best defines quality to you, within your budget.

Size is relative, too. My 1.18 RB seems pretty big to me.

I live in an affluent Canadian city (Toronto) and it's reasonably rare to see even well-heeled women wearing diamonds over the carat mark. There seems to be somewhat of a perception up here that larger diamonds are sort of bourgeois. In the US, however, it's a different story. My fiance lives in DC, where affluence is not uncommon, and larger diamonds are definitely more commonplace.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 11/12/2003 3:42:01 PM Jolie wrote:










But my bottom line was to try to answer the question of whether people still buy D color - 'yes' because it is visible to the naked eye.
----------------

I disagree.......for 95% of folks out there, the difference between a D and an E/F is *not* visible to the naked eye.....unless that naked eye is focused on the grading report!

I don't plan on wearing my grading report.....I'd prefer to wear my diamond.