How did the "cultural" preference for high color/clarity begin?

[skypie]

Curious why some cultures seem to value high color and/or clarity grades that might not be visible. I get "mind-clean" but it seems silly to me to pay huge premiums for differences that aren't visible IRL.

Seems like there are a lot of first time posters on this site that come seeking D-F color and VVS-IF clarity grades.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I wonder about this as well, so I hope someone can shed some light on it.

 

[BlingDreams]

My guess would be because it’s the best and rarest. Buying that level of quality carries a message, intended or otherwise. Image and intentions are super important in some cultures, so buying “sub-par” translates into either what you can afford or what you think your partner is worth.

 

[Lorelei]

I think it's all of the above mentioned things and certain mighty diamond purveyors success in convincing buyers that colourless IF/ VVS/ VS is the only way to go. Now with the wealth of education available and the huge crowd of very happy buyers with well cut stones in warmer SI clarities and lower still, times are changing. But even a few short years ago, there simply wasn't the education available to the consumer, you learnt what the industry wanted you to learn, hence the title.

In some cultures, the colourless high clarity stones are still highly prized for purity reasons and there's nothing wrong with that. The trick is to read up and understand your choices before you part with your money so you know you got the best diamond for you and very importantly, that you REMAIN happy with it with no buyer's remorse. But again with the upgrade policies offered by many vendors, even buyer's remorse isn't necessarily permanent nowadays!

 

[Austina]

Funny because I was talking to my Asian dentist the other day. She was telling me what she’d been shown for an engagement ring. I told her, then showed her some ACA’s and she was really surprised at what she could get for the money. She actually said that she wanted bigger and blinging than she’d been shown and was going to show her fiancé WF website

She had no idea what was available elsewhere.

 

[Lorelei]

Funny because I was talking to my Asian dentist the other day. She was telling me what she’d been shown for an engagement ring. I told her, then showed her some ACA’s and she was really surprised at what she could get for the money. She actually said that she wanted bigger and blinging than she’d been shown and was going to show her fiancé WF website

She had no idea what was available elsewhere.

I think tradition and the old fears about buying online still prevail. Some are only comfortable with going to a family jeweller and if they've thought about buying online at all, they've discounted it because of fear mongering about the jeweller actually existing at all.

Buy the seller as well as the diamond and all will be fine if buying online.

 

[ChristineRose]

I think it's pretty straightforward. Diamonds used to be about showing your girl that you were serious, but now they are mostly symbolic. You want your marriage to be flawless and pure, just as you want a perfect dress, a sunny day, and to not have uncle Ferdinand to get drunk and fall down at the reception.

 

[TreeScientist]

While some of the focus on color and clarity does have a cultural aspect, I think a lot of it comes from misinformation out on the internet that gets perpetuated on various wedding boards (One that rhymes with Wedding Tree comes to mind here ). You wouldn't believe how many people post things like:

"It's so sparkly and shiny! It must be a D/VVS!" Or

"My husband really spoiled me. He wanted the most brilliant and firey stone, so he got me a D/IF. You know what they say, quality over quantity."

Little do they know that color and clarity mostly* have little to no effect on the sparkliness or fireyness of a diamond. That's mostly due to cut. But it doesn't stop people from placing way too much importance on the other two Cs.

I feel like 90% of the advice posted by the long-time members here on PS comes down to convincing new members that they don't need to get a D-F color or VVS clarity diamond, and that their money would be better spent on getting a larger stone.


*I say mostly, because an I1 diamond with clouds as the grade-setting inclusion will likely have reduced optical performance, and an M-color diamond may look a little more dull than a D color. But within reasonable limits, color and clarity have little to no effect. Diamonds in the G-I and SI1-VS2 range will, for the most part, have just as much sparkliness and fireyness as a D/IF with the same cut.

 

[LLJsmom]

I come from an Asian culture. @TreeScientist makes a good point about misinformation. Many in Asian cultures think higher clarity and color equals more beautiful. They aren’t aware of the cut factor. Also rarity comes into play. I think IF stones are more rare than those with inclusions within the grading definition. More rare equals more exclusive which equals more expensive which equals your fiancé thinks you’re worth it. I think mind clean is big among Asian cultures. I’m admit I’m subject to it. Just based on my observation offerings of my family members in Asia.

 

[Mixtress]

I am SE Asian, it is a common belief in my circle that a diamond must be D-F in colour and of VVS clarity and above. They are looked upon as being more superior, rare, and expensive (in a good way). For most of my friends, the idea of "quality over quantity (in this case, size)" is what matters. Recently, I told one of my close friends about my plan to upgrade my ring later this year, that I would like to get something that is G/H in colour and VS clarity. Her response: "You're brave".

 

[fluffboll]

Well, as a European I am fascinated and puzzled by the cultural bias on mostly American online forums where the general recommendation is to go down in colour and clarity in order to get a LARGER DIAMOND!!!! Here's the thing though: in some parts of the world, there is no pressure regarding the size of a stone in an engagement ring. In my neck of the woods (Scandinavia) the traditional engagement ring is a plain gold band. Lately solitaire diamond rings have become a somewhat popular alternative to a plain band, but the jeweller who made my engagement ring told me that the average diamond size for a solitaire engagement ring in Sweden is 0.20 carat. Yes, that's right - 0.20! A 1 carat ring is a very rare thing indeed. I chose high clarity, colour and excellent cut because that mattered more to me than size when I picked my diamond. Sorry for the rambling post, I just wanted to give another perspective.

 

[fluffboll]

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

 

[naivemelody]

I think it's only reasonable for the average person to assume that these grades refer to important and perceptible distinctions - otherwise why would they exist, right? The fact that that's not the case is actually pretty weird. I can see why someone might not believe it unless they'd tried to sort a few stones by specs (face-up, unmagnified) and seen just how wrong they could be.

 

[LLJsmom]

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

Practicality purposes. As we get older we get smarter. Eyesight deteriorates as we age, which requires bigger and more sparkly diamonds for us to see it. That’s my reason and I’m sticking to it.

 

[Gussie]

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

I am from Texas. Less is less and more is better!

 

[fluffboll]

@ceg+LLJsmom: Too funny!!! Ceg, I share your view that more is better, but in my case not when it comes to size, but rather variety. I have diamonds ranging from D to M (faint brown), a pink-brown diamond, a brownish yellow diamond, rose cut, ACC, modern round, modern cushion, and a couple of sapphire rings as well. Variety is the spice of life!
@naivemelody: I did a lot of homework and looked at plenty of different types of diamonds in order to figure out my personal prefrences before choosing a diamond.

 

[skypie]

Size is something that is easily discernible by the naked eye (unlike differences between high color and clarity grades)! So if you're paying for "more" of something you and others will actually be able to perceive a difference!

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

 

[marymm]

Admittedly I cannot see a difference between, say, VS1 and IF ... but I *can* see a difference between D/E and G/H/lower ... and yes, I'm talking super-ideal-cut rounds as well as other shapes. Mine is not a cultural preference but just a personal one; turns out, I prize D/E on my finger over other colors/larger sizes. I'm okay with that, since a diamond is a luxury for my own (and DH's) enjoyment. And I'm okay with other people having other diamond preferences. Plenty of rocks for everyone...

 

[ringo865]

I prefer near colorless, so yay for my Wallet!! Colorless stones seem so cold and icy (to me) I don't care if they're more rare. I prefer a larger size to smaller (though my "largest" diamond is 7.14 mm). And I can't see inclusions that readily, but I do loupe my stuff regularly. So eye clean (by gemologist observation) is fine by me. Again, yay for my wallet (and husband).

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

My theory is related to sound bites. Attention span. Colollary: no one in the general public is truly interested in listening to your story and that no one really cares about your stuff as much as you do.

If you have 5 seconds to convey what you have, you say:

D IF
Harry Winston
Graff
Justin Bieber.

cheers--Sharon

 

[newjourney]

I believe it has to do with the best that nature has to offer before the human touch. Modern consumers are more practical and pragmatic so it's difficult to reconcile buying things one can't see with the unaided eye. Precision cut greatly enhances the beauty of a stone, but it can't substitute for the knowledge of owning an extremely rare and precious gemstone. It's a romantic sentiment and offer gesture.

 

[bludiva]

I would like to ask U.S. Pricescope members how the cultural preference of "bigger is better" started.

I feel like there's been size creep in the US as far as what = a substantial ring...1ct was considered big when I was younger. I do remember hearing people gossip about how much a ring cost more than the size (either of course is rude!)

I think it's a mix of celebrity culture, social media, availability of improved alternatives to traditional diamonds, and marriage age trending up.

All that being said, people in my day to day life don't seem to notice each other's jewelry at all so I think most people just wear what makes them happy.

 

[rockysalamander]

I think this may come out of the history of diamonds. Diamonds were originally only known from India. But, they did not find their way to China until the early 1800s. At that time, the Golconda mines were nearly depleted. Yet, they were the purest and best diamonds. They are among the very rare type IIa diamonds, which have no measurable nitrogen or boron impurities. They are exceptionally transparent; making one think of water, clarity, eternity and purity -- all attributes of importance in marriage. Golconda diamonds were the standard of beauty and perfection in diamonds; and sold for an incredible cost even for their time (and even now!). Golconda were the diamonds given to royalty and the super-wealthy. So, the visually "perfect" diamond was very clear and transparent. But, 98% of diamonds are Type I and don't have that transparent nature. So, if you want to have something that looks akin to that, you need to be looking at very high color and clarity to eliminate any yellow (that is very common in Type I diamonds). Over time, that kind of visual preference gets embedded in culture. I will say that in my last trip to China in 2010, among the wealthy, there was more of a "more is better" approach with diamonds. Most I encountered discussed the size of their diamonds, sometimes color and rarely cut quality. There was quite a bit of interest in my mom's super-ideals.

American always wants more and bigger in everything. Its a consistent cultural bias here. Again, it comes from history. Early settlers came from Europe that was very tight quarters. They arrived in what would become the US to seemingly endless forests, mountains, lakes, and views. Being able to see far and have space form one's neighbors became the preference over living on top of each other (not least of which it was more sanitary given the lack of plumbing at the time). You had to grow all your own food, animals, and fiber. You needed space if you wanted to do that and have enough to sell. When the west opened up, that feeling of space and endlessness also expanded. Farming and mining and living...pretty much everything in the early US was risky and you were taking great chaces in those early times. So, it became about taking big risk..."go big or go home" became the unwritten motto. That cultural bias sticks with American's today.

Sarah Wexler wrote a very readable book about the american "go big" phenomena and its history. https://www.amazon.com/Living-Large-Double-Ds-Why-Bigger/dp/B0068EPSMC

 

[cmd2014]

Well, as a European I am fascinated and puzzled by the cultural bias on mostly American online forums where the general recommendation is to go down in colour and clarity in order to get a LARGER DIAMOND!!!! Here's the thing though: in some parts of the world, there is no pressure regarding the size of a stone in an engagement ring. In my neck of the woods (Scandinavia) the traditional engagement ring is a plain gold band. Lately solitaire diamond rings have become a somewhat popular alternative to a plain band, but the jeweller who made my engagement ring told me that the average diamond size for a solitaire engagement ring in Sweden is 0.20 carat. Yes, that's right - 0.20! A 1 carat ring is a very rare thing indeed. I chose high clarity, colour and excellent cut because that mattered more to me than size when I picked my diamond. Sorry for the rambling post, I just wanted to give another perspective.

A 1 carat ring is considered very large here too, and most people who have them are either quite a bit older (as in their 60's or 70's) and very well established, or have visibly sacrificed colour and clarity in order to get one. My (just under) 0.5 carat solitare was considered overly large when DH bought it for me. My mother privately suggested to me that I might have been a bit greedy when she saw it, as hers is probably 0.20, and my older sister's is probably somewhere in the 0.30 range. From that point on we took to calling it "my big ring." I still have people who comment on "how much bling" I have (it's the only thing I wear other than a simple 0.25 ct pave wedding band).

 

[Niel]

It’s a tad rude to call something “silly” just becuase you don’t understand it.

@arkieb1 is a good person to explain this. Maybe she’ll pop over.

 

[baby monster]

My understanding is that D/IF = purity which is a desirable quality in a marriage partner in traditional cultures in which couples tend to marry at a young age. Now that marriages occur later on in life when both partners have established careers and some baggage, bigger is better!

 

[cflutist]

It’s a tad rude to call something “silly” just becuase you don’t understand it

I agree with @Niel here.

I happen to be a 2nd generation Asian American but I also hold a Gemologist Diploma (GIA) that I earned in 1989 from the GIA. I have plotted and graded diamonds (but retired as a VP Software Engineering).

For me it isn't my ethnic culture but rather that I just like colorless diamonds and am willing to sacrifice size for them.
I can see the difference between a D and an F, and can definitely see the difference between a F and a K.

Until recently, all of my diamonds have been F or above (colorless range).
1.50 F-VS1 marquise now in a RHR
2.05 D-VS2 Oval that I traded in locally for my 3.01 F-SI1 pear 20+ years ago (my main ering)
2.21 F-SI1 CBI that is in a 3-stone ring with .53 F-VS1 and .53 F-VS2 CBIs.
2.79 F-VS1 CBI that is in a solitaire pave ring (my favorite MRB)

Then I bought a 2.31 Q-VVS2 CBI, yes it is a Q, because I was intrigued with its warm color and high clarity. I even went as crazy as setting it in my very first halo too.

Bottom line, we all have different value propositions, some like high color and or clarity, some like size and are willing to compromise on color or clarity, some like warm, and some like icy white. Isn't it wonderful that there are diamonds in all sizes, color, clarity, and cut for everyone.

I hope that PSer who is having a 3+ D-IF CBI cut to order as an earring comes back and shows us his diamond.

 

[skypie]

Deepest apologies to all I offended with the word "silly".

 

[arkieb1]

I'm part Asian and I think it's a mix of things mentioned above, the historical aspects, the rare aspect, the purity aspects, and to be blunt when you walk into a room full of girls wearing diamonds you can actually see the I or the J or lower stones stick out like a sore thumb colourwise when put next to 10+ hands all wearing E and D coloured stones. Asians like to "save face" in general they don't want to be the lady with the boyfriend that cannot afford to provide them with the white diamond when that is what everyone else is wearing.

I see colour in fractions of shades, you can't say if other people have that ability too unless you test it out in person. A lot of people cannot tell the difference in diamond colour less than 2 to 3 shades difference, I can and so can a number of other people.

There is this notion (from things like advertising and history and tradition combined) no doubt perpetuated by jewellery shops that small and the very best (D E and flawless or as close to flawless as possible) equals the very best, bridal magazines sell young women the same story, and people in general have been slower every where, not just Asia, to understand the importance of cut, as noted by one of our posters above.

And as to "bigger is better", blame the media, blame the internet, blame the Kardashians, blame celebrities and sporting stars and their partners for promoting lifestyles of the rich and the famous. I wear a 5.34 carat stone. I can attest bigger IS better.

 

[cflutist]

@arkieb1

Very true about Asians saving face . My late mother and aunts also had colorless diamonds.

As far as testing out, here is a quick Munsell hue test that other PSers can take.
http://www.colormunki.com/game/huetest_kiosk

I didn't miss any of them but my hubby missed 25. I am sure that @arkieb1 will also score as high as I did.