POLL: Larger Carat/Poor Quality vs Smaller Carat/Better Quality

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

Smaller Diamond, Better Quality. What's your preference & why?

 

[nojs]

Well it depends a lot of what classifies as bad quality and how large the price difference is, and what carat sizes we are talking about.

I have two very similarly cut cushions. One is a 0.5 ct D VVS1 and the other is a 0.74 ct G I1(!). Both beautiful diamonds, but if I could choose only one, I’d choose the 0.74 ct (right in the picture).

 

[MamaBee]

It depends. I prefer higher clarity, high color diamonds..BUT..there are gorgeous lower clarity diamonds out there that I wouldn’t pass up. My emerald cut in my avatar is a VVS1..but I also have a SI2 cushion. The cushion is gorgeous and completely eye clean. In a case where I could get a larger diamond that’s like my cushion..I would pick that over a smaller diamond that’s higher clarity. I have to say that it would not be for my engagement ring diamond as it would be a mind clean thing for me. For any other piece of jewelry..it just depends.

 

[nojs]

Well it depends a lot of what classifies as bad quality and how large the price difference is, and what carat sizes we are talking about.

I have two very similarly cut cushions. One is a 0.5 ct D VVS1 and the other is a 0.74 ct G I1(!). Both beautiful diamonds, but if I could choose only one, I’d choose the 0.74 ct (right in the picture).

I’ll add that the 0.74 ct one was an incredible find and around 30 % cheaper than the 0.5 ct.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I would always choose a smaller diamond that's better quality. It's just my personal preference. I believe everyone should choose what speaks to them regardless of specs.

 

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

This is what I'm up against. I will add the attachments here in a moment. I'm comparing these 2 stones.

 

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

 

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

 

[ecf8503]

No on the Vera Wang, and we need to see the rest of the GIA with the angles and such

 

[Cerulean]

High quality versus low quality isn’t really a binary. I do think there are some objectively poorly cut diamonds, but it in terms of cut, color, clarity, and carat…that’s up to the individual and their preferences. Even now some people are buying and enjoying “salt and pepper” or “galaxy” diamonds (nice marketing terms for highly included) diamonds. And they love them! And there’s nothing wrong with that!

I’d rather sacrifice some clarity for size, as long as the stone is roughly eye clean. I’ve bought 2 SI1s.

For example, I also enjoy colorless stones, as well as very low colored stones. Someone may consider anything below and K/L intolerable if they prefer a stone this is white in appearance! And I’d tend to agree!

My point is that the way to pick a stone is based on your personal priorities. If you are looking for help, maybe be clearer about what matters to you and your order of priorities.

 

[LilAlex]

It's hard to go wrong with poor quality.

 

[RetroQT]

I voted for smaller in this scenario. The reason being that you can have a larger diamond that is poorly cut, has dead spots and doesn't perform well or you can have the well-cut smaller one that is a fireball and beautiful.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

It depends. I don’t know how to answer this question because we’re short on info. I would try and balance the specs to get to a desired size. Carat is the most important C for me, followed closely by Cut, Colour and Clarity in that order.

 

[Karl_K]

Define the terms,
I would love a well cut stone in MNO color, eyeclean si
Even an s-t.
Either yellow or brown.

What would you call that?

 

[Ionysis]

I find it easier to answer this question a bit differently. If you’re evaluating the four Cs I would put them in this order of preference for modern rounds

1. cut (has to be min GIA triple ex)
2. clarity (absolutely no carbon spots and eye clean from 6 inches)
3. colour - warmer diamonds don’t bother me

So for modern rounds I’d go for the biggest I could afford based on the above criteria.

For all other fancy / antique cuts I’d just choose a diamond I loved the look of.

 

[Karl_K]

ssssssshhh let me tell you a secret.......
There is nothing inherently better D/IF vs N/eyeclean.
Woops the diamond industry has spent billions of dollars trying to convince people otherwise.
The diamond cops might get me, I gotta run!!! :}

 

[emmy12]

Concur with what @Ionysis and @Karl_K said. The most important thing to me is "does it look great and sparkle without any dead spots" aka is the cut good. If the cut is crap I would never even look at the diamond.

Next thing I care about is are there are obvious inclusions (especially black ones) and are the inclusions in the table area. If are they white or small inclusions on the edge of the stone that can be hidden by a prong or something similar I don't care as much about those. After that, in my opinion the colour doesn't matter that much to me (im not colour sensitive) because a beautiful stone is a one that looks pretty and visually interesting to my eye. Sure colourless diamonds are pretty, but my favourite stone I've ever seen was a vintage OEC, L and SI1 because the cut was just stunning and it was so lively and active.

So I guess the answer to your question is neither of the options, I'd choose the best cut stone in my budget.

Edit: typo

 

[dk168]

It depends the "mind clean" level of an individual IMHO.

In some cultures, nothing is good enough except for D/IF diamonds.

Personally, I am happy to sacrifice colour and clarity for a bigger diamond as long as it is the best cut I could afford, as cut really is king in my book.

For a modern round brilliant (MRB) over 0.5ct, it means G/H or even I colour in VS or SI quality as long as it is eye clean.

For an emerald cut (EC), it would be E/F and VS.

For an Old European Cut (OEC) which is the second cut I love most after ECs, I prefer the wonky look and warmer colours for their old cut charms.

DK

 

[MamaBee]

It depends. I prefer higher clarity, high color diamonds..BUT..there are gorgeous lower clarity diamonds out there that I wouldn’t pass up. My emerald cut in my avatar is a VVS1..but I also have a SI2 cushion. The cushion is gorgeous and completely eye clean. In a case where I could get a larger diamond that’s like my cushion..I would pick that over a smaller diamond that’s higher clarity. I have to say that it would not be for my engagement ring diamond as it would be a mind clean thing for me. For any other piece of jewelry..it just depends.

I forgot to write cut! Don't throw me out! Since we’re on PS I just assumed it was understood cut is first!

 

[Kim N]

I'm not loving the proportions on the 0.70 either.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

There's an old thread on here called, "Show me your under one carat diamonds" or words to that effect. I spent weeks going thru all 15 years of that post, riveted, because I saw so many absolutely beautiful diamonds that seemed to perform so well, small diamonds that seem to eclipse the giant whoppers in evidence lately. I don't know if it's just the photography methods or what but I stopped feeling bad about what I have.
Plus there's an old post from Karl about finding the 2nd hand diamond he gave his wife. I'd pay money to see good photos of that stone.
Karl, do you take paypal?

 

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

I'm not loving the proportions on the 0.70 either.

May I ask why (in comparison to the 1.04ct)? Thanks.

 

[Karl_K]

I'm not loving the proportions on the 0.70 either.

steep/deep and the crown is disaster.
Who would put 55stars on a 57table 36 degrees crown???????
nuts......
si2 and crystal listed first means 95% chance its not eyeclean.

 

[DreamingOfDiamonds]

steep/deep and the crown is disaster.
Who would put 55stars on a 57table 36 degrees crown???????
nuts......
si2 and crystal listed first means 95% chance its not eyeclean.

In that case is the 1.04ct the lesser evil of the 2?

 

[Karl_K]

In that case is the 1.04ct the lesser evil of the 2?

The 1.04 has limited info and what is there isn't good.
I would skip it also.
There is a wide selection of diamonds out there.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If that is the worse quality it would be a good pick.
G is a good color, SI2 in that size will be hard to see and with no clouds or internal graining - it should be good, but may be a bit deep?
HCA score?

 

[danielsetton]

This might not be the most popular opinion and I too voted for higher quality and a smaller stone.

But.... I'm also an advocate for paying for quality you can see. Not just on paper, but with your own eyes. Now, this can be naked eye or under magnification, and you should decide your personal preference here.

On the basic level, this would be your preference of carat weight, then cut for brilliance, color and clarity towards the lower end of the scale whereby you're happy with the appearance and finally fluorescence.

So to your question, if the 'low' quality is something you can't differentiate from the high quality stone to the naked eye (eg. an eye clean H-SI2 vs. F-VVS1), but the size difference is visible; then it's something you may want to consider. It's not wrong to go that route either.

 

[glitterbomb]

It depends. I usually always prefer the highest color & clarity possible (ie within my current budget), but the shape of the diamond makes a difference as well.

I have a 11.47ct H color radiant and it is a tad too warm for me. I sometimes wish I went for a 10ct F color or maybe even an 8ct E color or 7ct D color, although I do love the size of the 11.47ct. However, radiant cuts are known for showing color more than other shapes.

I also have a G/VS1 10ct EC and the specs are perfect for me. EC show color less. I have a G color 10ct oval that I love and an E color 6ct oval...if I could have the 10ct in a D or E color I know I would love it even more than I already do.

Super ideal MRB also show color less. They hide color very, very well at least face up. I have various MRB stones in studs, tennis bracelets, tennis necklaces, solitaires, etc and I don't see an obvious difference between D/E and G unless you compare them literally right next to each other. For super ideal MRB I think it makes sense to sacrifice on color / clarity to go for a larger size, if you are comfortable with that.