** Golconda Diamonds... **

[msop04]

Personally, I don't believe that Ds are any more special than other colors. It's whiter, but not necessarily rarer. I feel like it's mostly marketing. Mine is only special to me because it was the first piece of jewelry I bought after graduation, but I never wear it as I'm not into rbs anymore.

ForteKitty, I had always been under the ASSumption (and we all know what that can do!! ) that the colorless (D-E-F) colors were more rare, but had never thought about the whole marketing thing -- which holds true for so many things we purchase... Is this true? Are D colors just as readily mined as, say, a J or K color stone, and the diamond powers that be? If so, DAMN THIS MARKETING!!!

 

[Smith1942]

Deb: Argh! I typed out a long response and lost it! And I have to go as I'm late. Basically I said that I certainly took your point about reporting whatever the source says, but am surprised the speaker in the extract I quoted would risk his rep by saying in the NYT that the same stones are found in Africa if there wasn't some factual basis, and that let's hope an expert chimes in.

Regarding the first extract you posted, IF the speaker above was correct, then Type IIA and Golconda could be used interchangeably, I think? Because it would mean that Golconda-type stones don't only come from Golconda. Is it possible that there is one stone type, and when it comes from Golconda it's called Golconda, and when it comes from elsewhere it's called a Type II? It's very confusing!

Or perhaps the speaker I quoted is indeed incorrect and Golcondas can only come from Golconda - which is now closed.

In the first article linked on this topic, it says that the designation is two-fold - geographical and gemological.

The synthetic part is sneaky. They only say that their synthetic product "corresponds" to the Golconda type, but they align it with the special stone type, nevertheless. Clever.

 

[msop04]

"Even producers of synthetic and treated diamonds are hoping to cash in on the buzz. On March 1, G.I.A. reported that its laboratory had identified an 'impressive' 38.59-carat F color cushion cut , treated by a high-pressure, high-temperature process, that 'corresponded to a typical Type IIa diamond.'”

Deb/AGBF

I have been reading a lot about the HPHT process... is this a coming treatment for any diamonds? I was under the impression that diamonds (unlike colored stones) weren't really "treated," per se... (Forgive me if this is a stupid question )

 

[Smith1942]

Personally, I don't believe that Ds are any more special than other colors. It's whiter, but not necessarily rarer. I feel like it's mostly marketing. Mine is only special to me because it was the first piece of jewelry I bought after graduation, but I never wear it as I'm not into rbs anymore.

ForteKitty, I had always been under the ASSumption (and we all know what that can do!! ) that the colorless (D-E-F) colors were more rare, but had never thought about the whole marketing thing -- which holds true for so many things we purchase... Is this true? Are D colors just as readily mined as, say, a J or K color stone, and the diamond powers that be? If so, DAMN THIS MARKETING!!!

But, even if the rarity value is a lie, I can see an extra iciness in the Ds. I was about to say that I feel I paid extra for something I can see, but that's not actually true as my D diamonds were the cheapest of everything on offer at the time, in the inventories where I was shopping.

But anyway, I don't think it's JUST marketing. I can see a special lack of colour in them, so for me there is a physical difference.

One company I'd trust with my life is Blue Nile, and when you pick a D diamond on their site the paragraph about the colour that pops up says it's rare, or rarer than other colours, I can't remember the exact wording. Surely they would not lie outright and say it's rare when it's no such thing, because all it would take is for a gemologist or an industry expert - maybe a competitor - to come along and sue their pants off over it. And if they'd been selling D diamonds as a rare thing when they were not, just imagine the class action lawsuit. I thought there was consensus in the diamond industry that Ds are the rarest colours?

Or, are they only rare because DeBeers controls much of the supply, and they are not actually rare in nature? (Well, they did control a huge percentage of the supply - not sure if the same is still true.)

 

[msop04]

Regarding the first extract you posted, IF the speaker above was correct, then Type IIA and Golconda could be used interchangeably, I think? Because it would mean that Golconda-type stones don't only come from Golconda. Is it possible that there is one stone type, and when it comes from Golconda it's called Golconda, and when it comes from elsewhere it's called a Type II? It's very confusing!

In the first article linked on this topic, it says that the designation is two-fold - geographical and gemological.

The way I understood it was that the stones possessing this rare chemical composition (no N) and special latticing were first found in Golconda, so they were called "Golconda diamonds" (meaning composition, not region mined) -- so now that they have found them in other areas/mines, I guess they could still be called Golconda diamonds...

 

[msop04]

Surely they would not lie outright and say it's rare when it's no such thing, because all it would take is for a gemologist or an industry expert - maybe a competitor - to come along and sue their pants off over it. And if they'd been selling D diamonds as a rare thing when they were not, just imagine the class action lawsuit. I thought there was consensus in the diamond industry that Ds are the rarest colours?

This is what I'd always thought, so... found this article to confirm.

Yep, more rare according to GIA...

http://www.gia.edu/diamond-quality-factor

"A diamond’s value is often affected by the rarity of one or more of the Four Cs. Colorless diamonds are scarce—most diamonds have tints of yellow or brown. So a colorless diamond rates higher on the color grading scale than a diamond that is light yellow. Value and rarity are related: In this case a colorless diamond is more rare and more valuable than one with a slight yellow color. The same relationship between rarity and value exists for clarity, cut, and carat weight."

 

[bgray]

i may be completely wrong but i understood that Golcondas were determined by their nitrogen content and not color. obviously you can be a D color Golconda but you can have many colors of Golconda that are not D.

 

[AGBF]

Basically I said that I certainly took your point about reporting whatever the source says, but am surprised the speaker in the extract I quoted would risk his rep by saying in the NYT that the same stones are found in Africa if there wasn't some factual basis

Well, that was my point, Smith. His reputation as what? The men quoted are marketers, salesmen!!! They sell diamonds. They are not independent consultants in laboratories. What do they have to lose? I have linked to an article about the new (well, as of 2009), aggressive advertising campaign launched for diamonds in the United States by De Beers. The must opulent diamond stores like Graff were interviewed for the article. The people selling diamonds are pulling out all the stops to make them seem like rare, precious commodities in which any wealthy person would be wise to invest his hard-inherited money! What better than to convince people that they can sell you a Golconda diamond?

Link to article...http://www.robertburkeassociates.com/wwd-jewelers-craft-a-new-path-to-luxury

Deb

 

[msop04]

i may be completely wrong but i understood that Golcondas were determined by their nitrogen content and not color. obviously you can be a D color Golconda but you can have many colors of Golconda that are not D.

Yes, this is my understanding.

 

[msop04]

Well, that was my point, Smith. His reputation as what? The men quoted are marketers, salesmen!!! They sell diamonds. They are not independent consultants in laboratories. What do they have to lose? I have linked to an article about the new (well, as of 2009), aggressive advertising campaign launched for diamonds in the United States by De Beers. The must opulent diamond stores like Graff were interviewed for the article. The people selling diamonds are pulling out all the stops to make them seem like rare, precious commodities in which any wealthy person would be wise to invest his hard-inherited money! What better than to convince people that they can sell you a Golconda diamond?
Link to article...http://www.robertburkeassociates.com/wwd-jewelers-craft-a-new-path-to-luxury

Deb

You are so right, and (unfortunately) it's so true.

 

[Smith1942]

Well, that was my point, Smith. His reputation as what? The men quoted are marketers, salesmen!!! They sell diamonds. They are not independent consultants in laboratories. What do they have to lose? I have linked to an article about the new (well, as of 2009), aggressive advertising campaign launched for diamonds in the United States by De Beers. The must opulent diamond stores like Graff were interviewed for the article. The people selling diamonds are pulling out all the stops to make them seem like rare, precious commodities in which any wealthy person would be wise to invest his hard-inherited money! What better than to convince people that they can sell you a Golconda diamond?
Link to article...http://www.robertburkeassociates.com/wwd-jewelers-craft-a-new-path-to-luxury

Deb

You are so right, and (unfortunately) it's so true.

Been running around doing chores in the heat - am fit to expire!

I had a look at the link, and of course Deb is correct about the people quoted in the NYT article. I was thinking about it as I ran errands. It makes sense that he'd just want to get his name out there as someone who can source these special, rare gems. I think I was a bit blinded by trust in the New York Times. But of course, well-heeled readers might ring him up now wanting to buy.

You've both got more smarts than I have, when it comes to sellers and their tricks!

 

[pandabee]

These are all very interesting threads/articles, and I've enjoyed reading through them!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm trying to educate myself more on this topic... What I gathered from this is that Golconda diamonds are classified as such not by "color" or by region necessarily, but by their unique chemical composition (lack of Nitrogen) and pristine crystal structure (making them uniquely transparent). I noticed that PS member, Richard Sherwood, made this statement:

"These type IIA diamonds manifest two totally different body colors, either colorless to near colorless (usually D-F and less so G-H), or varying shades of brown (and brown-pink)..."

Since he states Golconda diamonds' colors are indeed based on the colors that present, a "D" Golconda will be totally clear and amazingly transparent, as a Golconda H color (though transparent) will have more body color.

Forgive me if I keep asking the same questions... I feel like I'm in Medicinal Chem again and just not quite getting it.

I don't have anything useful to add to this conversation about Golconda (other than it's been interesting reading about them) but I totally relate to this!!! So glad we don't ever have to refer back to that in real life. Like ever.

 

[shimmer]

I think in short we need one of the trade people to repost how people grade ie they look under a scope usually at that central area in a diamond and grade the colour which hopefully will help explain how you can get one grading which is technically correct yet a totally difference actually face up or appearance of that stone.

I also find it fascinating btw that in short you can get a "D" or a "G" and so on that don't visually appear the same colourwise yet are classified or graded the same.

Yes -- this would be great!

Again, I have the GIA diamond grading lab fresh in my head, so I would like to answer this in terms of how GIA teaches colour grading, with a set of masterstones. Obviously the diamonds are clean, with daylight-equivalent lighting and a neutral background.

In rounds, they teach to look into the pavilion, the centre of the diamond, from a direction that is perpendicular to the pavilion.

In fancy shapes, they recommend looking at the stone table down, along the diagonal in both directions, as well as face up. You are allowed to adjust the colour grade by only one grade if the stone looks darker in the face up view than the table down grade determined.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

https://www.pricescope.com/blog/sothebys-auction-light-golconda

I saw one once at an auction preview, all you can say as someone who doesn't see them often, er, ever, is that it looked totally tranparently colorless. It was about 4-5 carats and went extra high because of the Type IIa designation. Sometimes museums have some in their collections. The kids know Mom needs an hour in any gem/mineral portion of a museum!

 

[Karl_K]

While it is often done I think calling any diamond Golconda that did not come from there is flat out wrong but because it makes a great story some want to apply it to "Golconda type" diamonds from elsewhere.
It is marketing garbage.

 

[Karl_K]

One interesting point a IIa diamond can be D colorless from the side and brown or pink from the top.
The color comes from deformation in the crystal structure and banding is very possible.
The optimal conditions and growth time made some diamond crystals from Golconda near perfection.
There were also many many more not so perfect stones found but over the years only the perfect ones get remembered.

 

[AGBF]

While it is often done I think calling any diamond Golconda that did not come from there is flat out wrong but because it makes a great story some want to apply it to "Golconda type" diamonds from elsewhere.
It is marketing garbage.

Yes!

Deb

 

[gemmyblond]

Hi All - After lurking for (way too many) years, finally decided to make my first post. (Please be gentle!) I’m not an expert or in the trade; just a decades-long student of diamonds, espec estate/antique/vintage jewelry & stones.
As others have mentioned, Type IIa refers specifically, and only, to the lack of nitrogen in the crystal structure.
This lack of N makes the stone more transparent, crisper, looking kind of like a very pure mountain spring. In the trade, the term most often used to describe Type IIa diamonds is ‘limpidity’; the crystal is said to possess a limpid quality or be ‘of first water’.
I’ve been fortunate enough to see several Type IIa diamonds IRL (from D color (most) down to an H). All were just clearer and more ‘see-through’, regardless of color. Hard to describe, but you know it once your eye’s tuned; you can spot it (or suspect it). It’s like the difference between a completely clear ice cube vs. one that’s not; they’re both the same color, perhaps, but one is more clear, crisp, transparent, calmer .
For me, it’s less about a Type IIa being super-white, or ‘2 shades whiter than a D’ (it’s not, imho). Instead, the stone just looks more transparent, more peaceful, somehow (the so-called ‘limpid’ factor).
As others have noted, not all Type IIa stones are Golconda, which used to refer only to those Type IIa stones that came from a specific mine(s)/area AND which were cut in a certain manner – typically with larger culets and certain distinctive faceting, often larger stones.
But lately, as marketing hype has proliferated, some have taken to calling ANY Type IIa certified stone a “Golconda’ – even if it’s a new stone, not from Golconda, and not cut in the old style of a legit Golconda. People are using the 2 terms interchangeably, and generic-izing the word Golconda to apply to any Type IIa diamond. Not so!
One can find new Type IIa stones in modern cuts, mined in Africa and Brazil. GIA will certify them as Type IIa – but the cutting style and overall look has nothing to do with Golconda, and the designation just means the stone has no N. To my eye (I’ve seen a couple of these new stones as well), they look quite clear and crisp but are totally different in look and style than a true old stone that likely is a Golconda. (I guess some might say it’s a bit like the difference between a genuine old OEC/OMC vs. a new stone cut to look old-ish.)
Just my .02 and again, I’m not an expert – just an ongoing student of all this who wanted to chime in and share some of what I’ve absorbed about one of my favorite topics! Thanks for listening.

 

[AGBF]

Hi All - After lurking for (way too many) years, finally decided to make my first post. (Please be gentle!) I’m not an expert or in the trade; just a decades-long student of diamonds, espec estate/antique/vintage jewelry & stones.

There's no need for anyone to be gentle with you, gemmyblond. You made your début with a very interesting posting. You have more expertise than most of us with type IIa diamonds and I appreciate your sharing your insights. Please keep posting!

Deb/AGBF

 

[msop04]

gemmyblond, you have explained more about Golconda diamonds in one post than anyone has done on this entire thread -- BRAVO!!! Thanks for contributing!!!

 

[gemmyblond]

Thanks so much for responding, AGBF and msop4...you're making me blush! (And making me feel welcome after all the lurkdom time!).
I've learned so so much after spending zillions of hours on PS. This time, I felt like I could return a little of the knowledge, so I took the posting plunge before I even knew how to do it (talkin' about the emoticons, avatar...much less posting pics, that'll take me a bit to sort out).
I'm just kind of a diamond nerd and so hope to keep sharing what I've learned with others who find it as interesting and fascinating as I do. See ya!

 

[AGBF]

Thanks so much for responding, AGBF and msop4...you're making me blush! (And making me feel welcome after all the lurkdom time!).
I've learned so so much after spending zillions of hours on PS. This time, I felt like I could return a little of the knowledge, so I took the posting plunge before I even knew how to do it (talkin' about the emoticons, avatar...much less posting pics, that'll take me a bit to sort out).
I'm just kind of a diamond nerd and so hope to keep sharing what I've learned with others who find it as interesting and fascinating as I do. See ya!

Yes, you're doing beautifully, gemmyblond. Keep up that momentum by continuing to post so that you don't lapse back into lurkdom (or lurkerdom or whatever one calls it). We are truly delighted to have you posting! You know so much and have been here for so long in silence. Please, please, stay with us as an active poster!!!

Hugs,
Deb/AGBF