Just curious

[Ally66]

Hello, all! I'm enjoying reading and learning and seeing the beautiful pieces that pass through the PS boards! All of my browsing has of course led me to think more about my engagement diamond. It was purchased in 1987, and at that time my now-husband and I went to an established, family-owned B&M store, got some basic diamond education, and purchased my diamond. Our store sold only AGS diamonds at that time, so we learned based on that scale. My stone is 0.43 ct RB and its AGS numbers are 1/3/5. Out of curiosity, I've looked recently at scales that compare AGS to GIA ratings, and was somewhat surprised to see that the 3 equates to J color -- the bottom of the colorless spectrum? Also, what I remember from the time that we made our purchase was that the cut was ideal, the best it could be; but now I see that 0 is actually the best AGS cut grade. So I guess I'm wondering if there have been changes to the grading scale since the 1980s? Did the 0 cut grade exist in 1987? Is my diamond really a J?

This is all just genuine curiosity! My diamond is beautiful and was the best we could afford at the time. It's eye-clean, very white, has great sparkle, and it continues to receive compliments all these years later! It now lives in a 3-stone setting with two 0.33 ct stones of the same grade, so a slightly more than 1 ctw 3-stone ring.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you share!
Allison

 

[TC1987]

Well cut RBs face up very bright and white. So probably it does look white. Don't fret over it. I'm not calling your diamond small, but it's easy to see tint in big diamonds and harder in a moderately-sized one. I don't know the history of the AGS cut grading. I guess the late '80s were when cut started to come to the forefront. The older non-H&A diamonds have a different look but equally, imo.

 

[Ally66]

That makes perfect sense, that size influences face-up color. I *think* that I'd be less likely to seek out a J color stone today, so that's partly why I found it surprising... Without looking it up, I think I would have assumed my stone is a G/H. But it's definitely not important...just interesting. I kind of wish I didn't find diamonds SO interesting!

Thanks for sharing!
Allison

 

[Niel]

The color grade lettering I find to be more of a mental turn off than an actual esthetic turn off. Here is a picture if my Ks, about .8,.3.and. 15 CTS. They look as white as could be most of the time. And other times they look soft, and never would I call them yellowy.

The idea that your buying or have a stone under g is usually off putting to many because of the marketing for diamonds. But I think this is a good example if how a well cut diamond under 1ct can be deceptively white at a range which is often deemed "slightly less desirable"



I agree though one reason it looks whiter is size. Another is cut quality.

 

[Ally66]

Niel -- Your K stones and that ring are absolutely stunning!! I've definitely seen some less-white-than-J stones here that help me know that the letter rating does not tell the whole story. And I find that I'm very intrigued by old cut stones and their personality-filled "lower" colors.

Thanks!
Allison