Facing up a color grade lighter

[mission1]

I've read a few times that once a diamond is set, it may face up around one grade lighter. Is this because of the metal around the diamond itself reflecting through the diamond, or the human eye comparing it to the ring?

Reason for asking is that I've just received a potential replacement for a diamond I bought just before christmas, and will be comparing the two side-by-side later. The first one is a G grade and is set in a platinum ring. The potential replacement is a couple of grades lower (I grade), and is loose. Both graded by GIA and similar size (0.9 vs 1.05). I haven't got the two side by side yet (as one is on my fiancee's finger!), but the Grade I sparkles like crazy and looks beautiful. However, in certain low lights or angles I can see a yellow tint face-on, and I don't know whether this will differ at all once set. I want to make the comparison between the two as fair/realistic as possible.

Thanks

 

[MissGotRocks]

I have never heard or witnessed that. Diamonds are color graded face down but face up they may look similar. You would probably see more color in the side view of an I vs G color diamond.

The biggest determining factor in sparkle is cut quality and I can't speak to that for your two diamonds since you list no stats. Sounds like you are happy with the replacement though and that is always a good thing!

If you need any additional help, please let us know!

 

[mission1]

It looks clear through the pavilion - but I think I can see a bit of yellow in poor light if I look at the face slightly off centre....ie when I can see more clearly into the diamond as it isn’t reflecting back as much light into my eye. I’ve definitely read of them facing up a bit lighter once set.

The stats of the stones probably isn’t relevant beyond the color grade...both are in the recommended ranges, but the replacement is a VS2 35/40.6 with 55 table - compared to an SI1 34/40.6 with a 56 table.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The ability to see small differences in diamond color is by no means universal. Some people are far more sensitive than others- and that would seem to include you @mission1
Regarding a setting and how it affects face up: yes a setting can impact the perceived color. But not in a necessarily logical way. Too many variables in stone and setting to make blanket rules.
But I very much feel that you’ll be able to see the tint if you can now.
Will it bother the recipient??! You would know best

 

[mission1]

Thanks @Rockdiamond ... I’ll find out later which the recipient prefers! I haven’t even let on that I’ve got a replacement option yet, but hopefully she’ll agree that a comparison is a worthwhile process, if only to stop me regularly staring quizzically at her engagement ring

 

[lambskin]

Not a fan of I color. Looks warm through side view and if other diamonds are used in a setting unless all I or so. Doesn't fluor also brighten up a warmer stone?

 

[sledge]

Not a fan of I color. Looks warm through side view and if other diamonds are used in a setting unless all I or so. Doesn't fluor also brighten up a warmer stone?

Ugh, here we go.

Short version -- maybe, but not necessarily. It depends on the intensity and color of the fluor in the stone, along with the body tint of the stone and finally the intensity of the UV/VV source.

Assuming you have a blue fluor in a stone with yellow tint, which are the usual combos, then the blue can offset the yellow and whiten/brighten the stone. The caveat being, the stone has to fluorescence at a high enough level for this effect to occur. For the stone to fluorescence the UV/VV has to be a certain frequency and intensity level to excite the fluor in the stone.

Consequently, a stone with VSBF in direct sunlight will have a higher chance of fluorescing than a MBF in an office with 12' ceilings and low UV light bulbs.

Think of it this way, if I wanted to buy a black car then why would I buy a light grey car that under the right conditions go darker to actual black. Sure, I might enjoy it when the car was black, but what about the times when those right conditions don't exist?

For this reason, I recommend buying a color the wearer finds appealing with NO effects of fluor. This ensures the wearer will NEVER be disappointed without worry of different lighting conditions, etc.

 

[ringo865]

Is the weight increase translating to a significant increase in diameter?

 

[sledge]

Is the weight increase translating to a significant increase in diameter?

Doubtful if significant. The other 0.90 had a 34/40.6 and 56 table if I recall correctly. I think it'd size up close to 6.20mm. Looking at his other thread, it appears the new stone measures out just a hair over 6.40mm.

Opinions on these two diamonds

I'm still contemplating a new diamond, and would be grateful for any comments on these two stones. Priced similarly, both I color (if I dont like it I'll return it). Am I right in thinking that the SI1 is better proportioned overall? I'm basing this on a slightly lower overall depth (61.7% vs...

www.pricescope.com

That said, his reason for replacement wasn't size but seeing obstruction in the other stone. I'm not quite sure how it jumped from G to I color.

What does obstruction look like?

Hi everyone. I’ve noticed that now my diamond is set, when I look at it at a very slight angle to the face at arm’s length a black spot appears just off centre. It disappears if I tilt the diamond back again very slightly. Is this likely to be a bit of obstruction, leakage (?), or just something...

www.pricescope.com

To answer the question about color -- everyone has their own sensitivity. Both my wife and I see tint in her H stone. She sees it more easily than me, but oddly enough isn't as bothered by it as I am. Of course I wasn't bothered by it at all until she said she noticed it, lol.

When/if we ever upgrade I will likely go F+ color because of her ability to see color and preference for colorless.

All that said, she (still) gets compliments quite frequently about how white and sparkly the stone looks and how the design of the e-ring is amazing (no traditional solitaire for her, lol).

In the grand scheme of things, it's a non-issue for us. But I can't answer that question for you guys.

What I would advise is that if you are happy with the performance of the stone, then you allow her to see the new stone without any knowledge or pressure to accept it so you can gauge her TRUE opinion and thoughts on the color. All assuming this isn't a surprise proposal of some sort.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Think of it this way, if I wanted to buy a black car then why would I buy a light grey car that under the right conditions go darker to actual black. Sure, I might enjoy it when the car was black, but what about the times when those right conditions don't exist?

Sledge- the key here is that the times that the fluorescence won't be "activated" are, in large part, times when there's not enough light to see the difference between an I and an H.
But in general, I agree that consumers shouldn't buy an I with blue fluorescence if what they really want is an H.

 

[mission1]

Thanks all. Well, I think that now I can see it, the I color is too yellow for me. In terms of why I went from G to I, it was that I liked the diamond overall and wasn't convinced I'd really see the difference from G to I.

As @sledge says, I bought this slightly larger diamond as I preferred the proportions (albeit only 35/40.6 vs 34/40.6), and was concerned about obstruction in the original diamond. As it turns out, with them side by side, aside from the color I found it hard to spot much difference in the visible performance or obstruction between the two diamonds, which has provided me with some reassurance.....so in that sense the process has been worthwhile.

Most importantly, my fiancee can't spot differences between the two diamonds (well, possibly the color after I highlighted it). I initially didnt tell her anything about how the two compared and asked if she had any preference. She loves the diamond she already has, and thinks I'm mad. I blame you all......

 

[yssie]

A well-cut J faces up like a well-cut J. It does not face up like a well-cut I or H. It might face up brighter than a poorly-cut I or H, but it will not face up more colourless than a poorly-cut I or H.

I detest when people state that excellent cut can yield a stone that "faces up a full colour grade higher"... it's a common assertion and it's a bushel of malarky, as my aunt says.

 

[mission1]

@yssie , the question I asked on this thread was whether the setting could effectively enhance the color. I mentioned nothing about the effect of cut.

Example below of what prompted me to ask for opinions on here:

 

[sledge]

Glad to see this has worked out for you @mission1.

Thanks for posting the blurb from BGD. The way you worded it earlier didn't come across the same to me as the above.

Basically what BGD is saying is that a face up view will appear more colorless than a side/pavilion view. That is true. Color/tint is see through the pavilion. And when color grading, the stones are positioned against a white board and viewed as such.

The part not mentioned is we don't live in a 2D world. Women catch side views of their rings all the time, so simply mounting doesn't mask tint. However, if there is a setting that helps cover the pavilion then there is less body to see tint so it may provide an optical illusion there is less color.

Does that make sense?

Look at the side vs top profile of these diamonds. I'd say it's easier to spot a difference from D-H or D-K in the side view whereas the difference is noticeable but less so in the top view.

Diamond Color: Grading Chart and Buying Guide | Whiteflash

A diamond’s color impacts both its appearance and its value. Read this guide to understand more about diamond color before marking your purchase.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[mission1]

Thanks @sledge. I'm aware of the increased visibility through the pavillion compared to face-on. However, the BGD text also says that it faces up whiter "because the color of the metal touching the diamond reflects through the diamond". In my original post I was asking for views specifically on this stated effect, in anticipation of comparing a loose diamond to one already in a platinum setting.

 

[Rockdiamond]

A well-cut J faces up like a well-cut J. It does not face up like a well-cut I or H. It might face up brighter than a poorly-cut I or H, but it will not face up more colourless than a poorly-cut I or H.

Thank you!!!
This is such an important point. sometimes stones that are less well-cut ( by PS standards) may have a better face up than another stone of the same body color, with "better" angles.
I completely agree with the first paragraph from the BGD blurb. The second two paragraphs are by no means assured.
The face up color is more difficult to grade precisely because it's less consistent, from stone to stone.

Then, in terms of which metal color, and how it affect H-K color stones- I do not believe we have a consensus on what the color does in these ranges. I have seen it go both ways due to many factors.
You could make a case that 18kt yellow gold prongs actually make white diamonds look whiter, due to the contrast.

In my original post I was asking for views specifically on this stated effect, in anticipation of comparing a loose diamond to one already in a platinum setting.

In terms of this point specifically- I'd never want color grade a diamond in a setting- for the reasons I stated above. But my considerations may be different than yours.
I would want to grade the color in a way that would match what GIA would do- you probably just want a great looking diamond

 

[distracts]

Well-cut stones are brighter - that is, they reflect more light - than poorly-cut stones. A G that is badly cut in a way where it doesn't reflect as much light will look darker than an ideal-cut J, just because less light will be reflected back at you with the first than the latter. But it's not to do with color, really. It's kind of hard to explain but very apparent when you see it if you're comparing several diamonds. Some will concentrate color and appear more yellowy, and some (even D color) will have a dull gray look because they aren't reflecting light.

This isn't quite the same thing but a similar effect can be seen easily online with a shape like the pear, which shows more color at the tip because the facets there are smaller and reflect light differently than the facets at the round part, which looks lighter by comparison. When the pear is rotated sideways, you can see that the body color is the same throughout (I picked a K so you the body color is obvious), but when it is face-up, there is a brighter part and a darker part.

1.03 Carat pear diamond

This pear shaped 1.03 carat K color vs1 clarity has a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

So. It's kind of like that, but different.

As to white metal reflecting through the diamond and making it look whiter - even the "whitest" white metal is pretty gray, so I dunno about it making it look whiter... when compared to being set in yellow or rose gold, sure, but compared to loose? I'm dubious... Even getting a yellow or rose gold setting to intensify a lower color depends a lot on the particulars of the cut and the particulars of the setting.

 

[Karl_K]

A well-cut J faces up like a well-cut J. It does not face up like a well-cut I or H. It might face up brighter than a poorly-cut I or H, but it will not face up more colourless than a poorly-cut I or H.

I detest when people state that excellent cut can yield a stone that "faces up a full colour grade higher"... it's a common assertion and it's a bushel of malarky, as my aunt says.

Preach on.
The color grade in non-fancy diamonds is a material grade not face up color grade.
Now if a diamond could change overall color from a setting a diamond in a gold doughnut bezel would appear gold.
This is the light draw from the girdle in a modern RB with faceted girdle.
First is the somewhat average 3.0% girdle.



Same angles an extremely thick girdle.

With a reasonable girdle% the light draw from the girdle is minuscule in the near tolk range.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We're "mixing metaphors" here. Color and Cut.

Based on the prominence of "super ideal information" here on PS, I totally understand why people will say an "ideal cut" looks whiter than a poorly cut diamond.
But it's not a statement based in reality.
If we're comparing two well-cut stones with the same body color, ( as graded by GIA), one is "ideal" the other not, there's no way to say which will face up whiter based solely on cut.
"Poorly cut" is a term that can encompass so many different types of stones- some of which might actually show less body color through the table than an ideal cut of the same color.

 

[sledge]

Preach on.
The color grade in non-fancy diamonds is a material grade not face up color grade.
Now if a diamond could change overall color from a setting a diamond in a gold doughnut bezel would appear gold.
This is the light draw from the girdle in a modern RB with faceted girdle.
First is the somewhat average 3.0% girdle.



Same angles an extremely thick girdle.

With a reasonable girdle% the light draw from the girdle is minuscule in the near tolk range.

Am I misinterpreting your images? It appears there is stronger light draw in the ex thick girdle (3.5%).

Also, looking at your software I noticed the 3% average girdle has a carat weight 0.79 with same TB, CA, CH, PA & PD.

Then in the 3.5% extra thick girdle the carat weight jumps to 0.93 with all the same values, except turned red or green, and the overall depth dimension changed.

Am I correctly interpreting that a 0.5% girdle thickness change increases the weight 0.14 carats, or almost 18%!?! That seems like a considerable jump. Or did some of the data turn red as those items don't work with the new girdle thickness?

Sorry, not familiar with the software, so I'm sure this is noob 101. Trying to learn.

 

[sledge]

We're "mixing metaphors" here. Color and Cut.

Based on the prominence of "super ideal information" here on PS, I totally understand why people will say an "ideal cut" looks whiter than a poorly cut diamond.
But it's not a statement based in reality.
If we're comparing two well-cut stones with the same body color, ( as graded by GIA), one is "ideal" the other not, there's no way to say which will face up whiter based solely on cut.
"Poorly cut" is a term that can encompass so many different types of stones- some of which might actually show less body color through the table than an ideal cut of the same color.

I would agree some items are getting crossed. For instance, my post #14 wasn't about cut affecting color, but rather trying to point out color is more easily observed from the pavilion vs top view. I'd assume the images I posted are all well cut stones, probably ACA's, given they are WF images.

That aside, do you have any real world photos where a "poorly cut" stone is showing less body color through the table than a well cut stone? I can see what you are saying but it seems like in a well cut stone that light enters, bounces and leave back through the top.

If I flood any color with 50% light then it will look more pale than if I flood with 25% light, right? So while the color would never technically improve, the optical illusion would be it's whiter/more pale from the top? I'm not well versed in fancy colors, but I thought the big general thing was an ideal cut in a fancy is not beneficial for this exact reason -- it weakens the color. So a more poor cut that doesn't reflect light as well is more desired for intense color.

Am I thinking of this incorrectly?

FYI, not being argumentative, but rather trying to get it straight.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi @sledge
I didn't see it as argumentative at all! I appreciate the discussion.
Honestly, a difficult aspect is that sometimes I feel like there's a correction that needs to be made- but I really hate to step on anyone's toes. People can be extremely devoted to ideas/brands.

The brands like to emphasize the positive aspects of their products. But you're not going to see a Ford advert touting where Chevy performs better.
There's a lot of Super Ideal discussion on PS....and Super Ideals being discussed are something special, no doubt. But as well as it's cut, other stones are also very well cut. And remember, a Super Ideal is not going to walk your dog, or vacuum your house.

The WF pics you posted are excellent- no doubt. But it's like looking at a portrait of a person- they show one side- but by no means all the different ways a stone can look. Lighting makes a huge difference. Taking pics requires an intensity of light beyond what your eyes require to see the color. So it's quite difficult to capture diamond color in a meaningful enough manner to be used for comparison.

That aside, do you have any real world photos where a "poorly cut" stone is showing less body color through the table than a well cut stone? I can see what you are saying but it seems like in a well cut stone that light enters, bounces and leave back through the top.

A broker just tried to sell me a stone. RBC- badly cut.
I say badly cut, because the stone has flat top.
Tilt it a bit and you can see a reflection of the ( non faceted) girdle in the table.
BUT....the stone weighs 1.60cts and measures 7.8mm. An SI would measure less than 7.5. The difference in size will be easily noticeable to anyone who can see.
And the stone faces up quite well in terms of color, in spite of my estimated O-P color. There's no GIA on the stone.

I didn't buy it....but I was tempted. It was very cheap ( just not cheap enough and it really did look nice.
I made a video- I'll post it later.....

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I've read a few times that once a diamond is set, it may face up around one grade lighter. Is this because of the metal around the diamond itself reflecting through the diamond, or the human eye comparing it to the ring?

Reason for asking is that I've just received a potential replacement for a diamond I bought just before christmas, and will be comparing the two side-by-side later. The first one is a G grade and is set in a platinum ring. The potential replacement is a couple of grades lower (I grade), and is loose. Both graded by GIA and similar size (0.9 vs 1.05). I haven't got the two side by side yet (as one is on my fiancee's finger!), but the Grade I sparkles like crazy and looks beautiful. However, in certain low lights or angles I can see a yellow tint face-on, and I don't know whether this will differ at all once set. I want to make the comparison between the two as fair/realistic as possible.

Thanks

@mission1 ,
I know you have received a number of helpful replies and forgive me if this has already been stated.

Regarding the line I bolded above. A diamond is a system of tiny mirrors that are constantly scanning the environment and returning reflections of what it sees back to your eye. Therefore the ambient light and objects in the environment will impact what you see. A well cut diamond will return a high percentage of light to your eye, and if that light is white the diamond will appear white. The visual impact of the white light return will dominate the appearance of the diamond, tending to overtake the body color. If the ambient light is dim and/or a warmer light, you are more likely to be aware of the diamond's body color. This seems to be consistent with what you are reporting.

Regarding whether the mounting will influence the perception of color in your diamond, yes it can have an effect. This is why you usually see colorless or near colorless diamonds set in white heads even if the rest of the ring is yellow gold. It is also the reason that GIA teaches students when grading diamonds not to let the test diamond touch the master when comparing because there can be a color bleed between the two.

Since I color is safely in the near colorless range, it is very adaptable and will look white in a range of settings and lighting conditions if well cut. It really boils down to your taste and color sensitivity.

 

[Karl_K]

Am I misinterpreting your images? It appears there is stronger light draw in the ex thick girdle (3.5%).

Also, looking at your software I noticed the 3% average girdle has a carat weight 0.79 with same TB, CA, CH, PA & PD.

Then in the 3.5% extra thick girdle the carat weight jumps to 0.93 with all the same values, except turned red or green, and the overall depth dimension changed.

Am I correctly interpreting that a 0.5% girdle thickness change increases the weight 0.14 carats, or almost 18%!?! That seems like a considerable jump. Or did some of the data turn red as those items don't work with the new girdle thickness?

Sorry, not familiar with the software, so I'm sure this is noob 101. Trying to learn.

The extremely thick was around 7% maybe 7.5% I was going to say that but forgot.

 

[Karl_K]

imho the visible color differene face up has more to do with contrast with the background more than anything with well cut diamonds and reasonable girdles face up in near tolks.
GIA touches on this on why they chose neutral gray for their trays in GIA DiamondDock™

 

[Rockdiamond]

If the ambient light is dim and/or a warmer light, you are more likely to be aware of the diamond's body color

Yes, and if you look when it's pitch dark you'll see even more color
Seriously, you need a lot of light to grade a diamond's body color.
In my experience, dim lighting is never sufficient to observe a diamond's body color

 

[Karl_K]

Which one of these pops out the most as having the best color?

 

[Karl_K]

Yes, and if you look when it's pitch dark you'll see even more color
Seriously, you need a lot of light to grade a diamond's body color.
In my experience, dim lighting is never sufficient to observe a diamond's body color

Never say never but I have had to try hard at times to find the right lighting to see it. It has to be close to just right and the environment and lighting has to be pretty clean also.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Which one of these pops out the most as having the best color?

Of course, the three yellow diamonds are all the same color.

 

[Rockdiamond]

AS promised, a video- albeit crude
When I give the profile view, you can see the body color- the heads on doesn't look nearly as tinted.
You can also see the shallow crown. This qualifies as a poorly cut diamond. I believe it came from an estate- it is an older stone for sure.
The stone looks pretty bad in the video- it looked a little nicer in person.