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

[Gussie]

@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.

I missed 23 on this test! That along with presbyopia is the only way I have a 3 ct ACA!!!! Yay for crappy eyes, lol!!!

 

[arkieb1]

@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.

I've done that test before once very late/early in the am when I was tired and I got 2 wrong, and again twice during the day, after a decent nights sleep - I didn't get any wrong.

 

[angeljosephy]

I'm Chinese and I do admit that part of the obsession with D IF is the need to 'save face' by showing others that your fiance cares enough to 'give you the best'. Put in other words, it's simply the shallow need to show off wealth. This 'face-saving' mentality also applies to carat weights, whereby 0.99 carats is seen as inadequate and hitting the full 1.00 carats is much more desirable. People generally try to purchase at least 1.01 or 1.02 carats, as there is less risk that the diamond will drop below the critical carat weight should the diamond need polishing out minor chips etc.

My engagement ring is a 1.52 D VVS2 just slightly outside the ideal range (CA 35 PA 41) bought before PS days. I'm hoping to upgrade to a bigger ACA or a CBI later (hopefully in the 2.5 or 3 carats range), but I still hope to stick with D/E/F and VS1 and above! (Call me weird but after having a D VVS2 it feels odd to be 'upgrading' to 'lesser' specs, but not compromising on the specs while upping the carat size might just about kill my bank account. I've also noticed that the SuperIdeal vendors don't tend to stock many D colors or even E colors in the larger carat sizes for some reason.)

 

[the_mother_thing]

I appreciate those with/from Asian cultures sharing & explaining this preference or desire, as it’s always piqued my curiousity when I’ve read the ‘cultural reasons’ being attributed to such requests, so thank you to everyone who contributed their perspective or experience in this regard.

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.

This ‘blanket statement’, however, I kinda object to. In most scenarios I can conjure up, size (e.g., ‘bigger’) is a matter of preference and/or budget.

• Some people can afford bigger, but don’t want bigger (I happen to fall in this category).
• Some want but cannot afford bigger.

The statement reads somewhat ‘elitist’ and comes across as if anything less than ‘huge’ isn’t good enough. I don’t personally subscribe to media/society/celebrity lifestyle norms, and I’m not saying that’s what you (Arkie) intended, but I think it’s easily perceived that way.

IMO, ‘better’ is really subjective - for me, something isn’t “better” if I don’t feel comfortable wearing it and thus it languishes in my safe; I’d consider it a waste of my money. But if you or someone else IS comfortable/enjoys wearing it, it’s likely (your) money well spent and perhaps ‘better’ for you.

As Kenny says, people vary ... and so do their ideas of what is ‘better’.

 

[skypie]

Curious - for those Asian posters, are your husbands also Asian? If not, do they share the same "face saving" values that you do?

 

[angeljosephy]

Curious - for those Asian posters, are your husbands also Asian? If not, do they share the same "face saving" values that you do?

I'm 100% Chinese and so is my husband. I could have gotten a 2.5 J VS2 ACA from what DH spent on my 1.5 D VVS2. Sometimes I do wish I'm not so hung up on mind-cleanliness so that I could go bigger, but I'm not complaining! My setting is a very simple 4 prong peg head with a completely open side profile, and I do love seeing how white and clear it is from the sides. Always nice to be accompanied by rainbows even when I'm typing on the computer and not looking at my ring from the top!

 

[CareBear]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S diamonds shrink over time, or at least mine does. So I (we) must go bigger and bigger for it to look the same size year after year

 

[angeljosephy]

http://www.sothebys.com/zh/news-vid...-glitters/2018/04/two-white-hot-diamonds.html

Now these 2 would satisfy all need for Asian cultural preferences! Wonder if the cut is good enough for PS-ers though?

 

[baby monster]

http://www.sothebys.com/zh/news-vid...-glitters/2018/04/two-white-hot-diamonds.html

Now these 2 would satisfy all need for Asian cultural preferences! Wonder if the cut is good enough for PS-ers though?

Now that's knuckle to knuckle coverage

 

[the_mother_thing]

Now that's knuckle to knuckle coverage

Only 4 prongs on those puppies?

 

[denverappraiser]

It’s a plot.

Really. Richard Liddicoat invented the scales we are accustomed to back in the 30’s, and the reason that he built a scale where half of the grades are invisible to the naked eye is that it increased demand for those higher grades. If he had just done a good-better-best type of deal, IFs wouldn’t cost twice as much as otherwise similar VS2s. A similar game happens with color. By making a scale with 23 grades that are barely distinguishable (now it’s only 17 because of split grading in the lower colors), N becomes the middle of the scale. That's really good for pointing out that G is pretty good, and D carries a huge premium. If there were only, say, 6 grades that were relatively easy to separate, no one would buy D's, or at least they wouldn't pay as much for them.

 

[Austina]

I think the desire for larger may also have something to do with finger size. A 2ct round or princess looks tiny on me whereas my friend with dainty fingers, wear a half carat, which looks pretty sizeable on her.

 

[BlingDreams]

@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.

I got them all too. No wonder I start seeing tint at G

 

[Johnbt]

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

Maybe some of them are like me and know what they want. I'm 67 and bought my first engagement ring in the early '70s. People had preferences about size, color and clarity back then too. Jewelers used lots of lights on the display cases and the nice ones would show you the inclusions that were hidden under a prong and take you outside to see a ring in the sunlight. Or they'd sell you a big icy rock for a lot of money. At the end of the day, it's still retail sales.

Me, I like looking at the numbers, but I really like looking at videos on line and counting how many long flashes of each color there are per rotation. For me buying a diamond is sort of like buying a car... once you understand the basics of the marketplace you go to the dealer and pick one that looks good. Then you write the check for it and take it home. In my case I took my girlfriend back to the dealer 3 days later and let her pick one out. They wanted to know if I had any other friends that needed cars and if I had any checks left. I did end up buying my last aunt and uncle a car and a John Deere X380, but they live out of town.

What were we talking about? Oh yeah, why people like nice stuff. Because they do for some reason or other is my guess. I don't know that it's cultural for the most part. And what constitutes nice stuff is just personal preference.

 

[LLJsmom]

I'm 100% Chinese and so is my husband. I could have gotten a 2.5 J VS2 ACA from what DH spent on my 1.5 D VVS2. Sometimes I do wish I'm not so hung up on mind-cleanliness so that I could go bigger, but I'm not complaining! My setting is a very simple 4 prong peg head with a completely open side profile, and I do love seeing how white and clear it is from the sides. Always nice to be accompanied by rainbows even when I'm typing on the computer and not looking at my ring from the top!

I am too. So is my DH. I started with an F VS1. I’m down to a K VS1. But I do love the stone more than the F. And the K is on OEC so it’s by like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Dancing Fire]

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!

D IF stones = only for virgins ...

 

[Dancing Fire]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S diamonds shrink over time, or at least mine does. So I (we) must go bigger and bigger for it to look the same size year after year

About .20mm per yr..

 

[Alexiszoe]

A part of me wonders the whole "high color / high clarity" preference amongst Asian cultures holds true once we go up to very large carats.

I work in the Hong Kong / China markets a fair bit, and notice that in stores over there that sells large diamonds, as it gets bigger the color and clarity goes down. About 80% of the stones I have seen between 7 to 20 carats are between H - J color. Like @rockysalamander mentioned, it feels as if size matters more amongst the wealthy.

 

[WinkHPD]

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

Many, many years ago, when I was a fairly new Crafted by Infinity retailer I had two fairly large diamonds Crafted to Order. One was a D-IF and the other a J-SI1 that was over a carat larger than the D-IF. Both came into my office about the same time, and I was astonished at how incredible the J looked when next to the D.

For the week or two that I had both diamonds in my office I showed them, on a slotted tray to everyone that came into the office. What amazed me was that when I said nothing about which diamond is which nineteen out of twenty ladies expressed that they wanted the larger diamond. One even said that she wished she could possibly afford the larger one, but knew she would have to be satisfied with the smaller.

She was shocked to find out that the smaller diamond was more than $50,000 more than the larger diamond.

I was also fascinated with the reaction of the men. Only about half of them wanted the larger diamond. Why, because they picked up the tray, tilted it and looked at the color of the gem and then said, well this one is too yellow, I want the good one. If I pushed them for how did it look from the top many were all, "Well it looks great from the top, but I don't like the yellow I can see from the side." The others said, "Bigger and cheaper, HECK YEAH!"

I too thought that there was something special about the larger diamond, so I spent hours looking at the two diamonds. This is what I quickly came to realize. Both were incredibly well cut diamonds, having been Crafted to Order for my clients. The larger diamond had larger flashes of both white and colored light. Seems pretty obvious now, but at the time it was a revelation to me. Cut is KING. Size is also King as bigger flashes of light means that more fire can be discerned along with that white light, and the human eye really appreciates lots of SPARKLE and bigger SPARKLE is more fun than smaller SPARKLE.

As my visual palette has grown, I am now able to see how cut affects even smaller diamonds, but I really think that many of us have just become size conscious since cut plus size equals more of a light show. Still, if I had to choose between a poorly cut large stone and an incredible cut half carat, I would take the half carat every time.

Just some thoughts late on a Friday night. I am going to bed now...

Wink

 

[LLJsmom]

D IF stones = only for virgins ...

Now that is hilarious!!

 

[Niel]

I appreciate those with/from Asian cultures sharing & explaining this preference or desire, as it’s always piqued my curiousity when I’ve read the ‘cultural reasons’ being attributed to such requests, so thank you to everyone who contributed their perspective or experience in this regard.



This ‘blanket statement’, however, I kinda object to. In most scenarios I can conjure up, size (e.g., ‘bigger’) is a matter of preference and/or budget.

• Some people can afford bigger, but don’t want bigger (I happen to fall in this category).
• Some want but cannot afford bigger.

The statement reads somewhat ‘elitist’ and comes across as if anything less than ‘huge’ isn’t good enough. I don’t personally subscribe to media/society/celebrity lifestyle norms, and I’m not saying that’s what you (Arkie) intended, but I think it’s easily perceived that way.

IMO, ‘better’ is really subjective - for me, something isn’t “better” if I don’t feel comfortable wearing it and thus it languishes in my safe; I’d consider it a waste of my money. But if you or someone else IS comfortable/enjoys wearing it, it’s likely (your) money well spent and perhaps ‘better’ for you.

As Kenny says, people vary ... and so do their ideas of what is ‘better’.

I’m surprised you couldn’t tell that was clearly tongue in cheek.

Arkie was being far from elitist there- and I don’t think it’s particularly fair to throw that term out on a diamond forum. All diamonds are a frivolities- no reason to try and make someone feel badly about the size of theirs. Big or small.

 

[missy]

Simply put I think the cultural preference for high color and clarity came about because higher colors and higher clarity diamonds are rarer and therefore viewed as more valuable. Rightly or wrongly that is generally how people think. Rarer=More expensive=Better.

But as Pricescopers we have evolved and know that cut is king but as far as color and clarity etc. IMO there is no right or wrong. It's what *you* prefer. Some people value color and clarity almost as much as cut and some don't. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.







They are a girl's best friend.
(Of course we can have more than one best friend)



and total agreement with @Niel

All diamonds are a frivolities- no reason to try and make someone feel badly about the size of theirs. Big or small.

Exactly.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I’m surprised you couldn’t tell that was clearly tongue in cheek.

Arkie was being far from elitist there- and I don’t think it’s particularly fair to throw that term out on a diamond forum. All diamonds are a frivolities- no reason to try and make someone feel badly about the size of theirs. Big or small.

On your first point, there is no indication the comment was ‘tongue in cheek’ ... no smiley, no ‘lol’, etc. Just a direct statement that “bigger IS better” which followed the qualifier “I own a 5.xxx ct stone”. I also said in my post that I don’t think Arkie intended to project that perception, but that it was easy for readers to draw that conclusion. If Arkie wishes/ed to clarify his/her intent, he/she is/was free to do so.

Your second statement actually reinforces the very point I made in my post, so thank you!

 

[Niel]

On your first point, there is no indication the comment was ‘tongue in cheek’ ... no smiley, no ‘lol’, etc. Just a direct statement that “bigger IS better” which followed the qualifier “I own a 5.xxx ct stone”. I also said in my post that I don’t think Arkie intended to project that perception, but that it was easy for readers to draw that conclusion. If Arkie wishes/ed to clarify his/her intent, he/she is/was free to do so.

Your second statement actually reinforces the very point I made in my post, so thank you!

I suppose that’s the problem with the written word. It’s easy to read people’s writing as
Ah ok. Because it seemed like your point was not to make people feel bad about having small stones. Good we agree it’s equally as rude to try and make people feel bad for being able to buy large ones.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Ah ok. Because ase seemed like your point was not to make people feel bad about having small stones. Good we agree it’s equally as rude to try and make people feel bad for being able to buy large ones.

I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion when I also said (in the same post):
“IMO, ‘better’ is really subjective - for me, something isn’t “better” if I don’t feel comfortable wearing it and thus it languishes in my safe; I’d consider it a waste of my money. But if you or someone else IS comfortable/enjoys wearing it, it’s likely (your) money well spent and perhaps ‘better’ for you.”

 

[Niel]

I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion when I also said (in the same post):
“IMO, ‘better’ is really subjective - for me, something isn’t “better” if I don’t feel comfortable wearing it and thus it languishes in my safe; I’d consider it a waste of my money. But if you or someone else IS comfortable/enjoys wearing it, it’s likely (your) money well spent and perhaps ‘better’ for you.”

Ok.

 

[arkieb1]

On your first point, there is no indication the comment was ‘tongue in cheek’ ... no smiley, no ‘lol’, etc. Just a direct statement that “bigger IS better” which followed the qualifier “I own a 5.xxx ct stone”. I also said in my post that I don’t think Arkie intended to project that perception, but that it was easy for readers to draw that conclusion. If Arkie wishes/ed to clarify his/her intent, he/she is/was free to do so.

Your second statement actually reinforces the very point I made in my post, so thank you!

The wavey or any other icons don't work on my computer unless I use my keyboard keys, since the PS site got upgraded for some reason, but that's my Aussie tongue in cheek poke at the Kardashians and my sense of humour at play. So anyone that knows me on here, would know it was meant to be funny because seriously we don't talk about the cost of stones and what people can and can't afford here, unless someone comes here asking us dumb questions about it, and honestly half of the people answering you nicely have collections worth more than the cost of my stone anyway.

There are a number of people here who have purchased some big honking stones and have downgraded to smaller, whiter, or better cuts, or just smaller stones that they feel more comfortable wearing.

Here's another quip, if you have big honking stones if you are like me and have old eyes you see the facets better and unless you are Paris Hilton in a nightclub you are less likely to lose your ring....

I edited the swear words and sarcasm out of this reply because if I'd have left them in I'd have probably earned myself a time out... (insert funny icon that doesn't work on my computer here).

 

[the_mother_thing]

The wavey or any other icons don't work on my computer unless I use my keyboard keys, since the PS site got upgraded for some reason, but that's my Aussie tongue in cheek poke at the Kardashians and my sense of humour at play. So anyone that knows me on here, would know it was meant to be funny because seriously we don't talk about the cost of stones and what people can and can't afford here, unless someone comes here asking us dumb questions about it, and honestly half of the people answering you nicely have collections worth more than the cost of my stone anyway.

There are a number of people here who have purchased some big honking stones and have downgraded to smaller, whiter, or better cuts, or just smaller stones that they feel more comfortable wearing.

Here's another quip, if you have big honking stones if you are like me and have old eyes you see the facets better and unless you are Paris Hilton in a nightclub you are less likely to lose your ring....

I edited the swear words and sarcasm out of this reply because if I'd have left them in I'd have probably earned myself a time out... (insert funny icon that doesn't work on my computer here).

Thanks for clarifying that, Arkie! As I said in my original post, I don’t think you intended ‘judgment’ with your statement, and I know you’re “good people” round these parts. I think this (original) thread topic just specifically touches on a lot of ‘sensitivities’ for people regardless of their culture, and that is what I was trying to address with my comments.

As an aside, are you able to see the smileys when others post them (since you can’t add them)? Just curious because, on occasion, they disappear from being an option in some posts as I’m writing, then reappear the next time. Strange, indeed!

 

[doberman]

I am a carrier of color blindness, and as such I have an extra cone which assists in color discernment. I've taken those tests numerous times and have always scored 0. So I can tell the difference easily between colorless and near-colorless diamonds. But VVS graded diamonds are sought out for mind-clean reasons, which is fine. The relative rarity of D color diamonds that are IF or VVS makes some people think they are superior. And who doesn't want to be superior?

It's actually more interesting to look at the history of fluorescent diamonds and how they are perceived.

 

[natasha-cupcake]

I am a carrier of color blindness, and as such I have an extra cone which assists in color discernment. I've taken those tests numerous times and have always scored 0. So I can tell the difference easily between colorless and near-colorless diamonds. But VVS graded diamonds are sought out for mind-clean reasons, which is fine. The relative rarity of D color diamonds that are IF or VVS makes some people think they are superior. And who doesn't want to be superior?

It's actually more interesting to look at the history of fluorescent diamonds and how they are perceived.

Wow, that's interesting! I, too, am a carrier of color blindness. I've taken the color test a number of times. I always score 0 and I can do the test very quickly. I actually see a teeny, teeny tint in my (low, I think) AGS E diamond. When I was looking at diamonds in the jewelry store my daughter works in, I tried guessing the colors of six stones. I got five right and was off by one in the sixth. i tried to get them to agree to give me a free diamond if I could guess ten in a row, but they wouldn't go for it.