Should I buy this tiny blue diamond?

[Arkteia]

Maybe I should not chirp in because of my limited experience in diamonds, but the first one resembles me TL''s grey diamonds. The second one may look better but it may be too light IRL, too.

You probably have a lot of yellow diamonds, but the canary one I saw in mine/TL''s thread about colors of chrysoberyl looks so beautiful!

 

[kenny]

Italics is quoting Tourmaline-Lover
This seems like an emotional purchase if you really want to spend a fortune on a tiny blue chip.

I'm not sure I follow.
No diamond is a necessity.
Since you can't eat them, live in them, or drive them wouldn't ALL diamonds, sapphires, garnets and even quartz qualify emotional purchases by that definition?
Sure there is emotion involved in the purchase, but I was referring to how different people's decision making tends to be driven more by either emotion or thinking.
Google the Meyers Briggs personality types.
I'm normally very much a thinking type but I notice emotion bubbling up on this project.

I am married to an engineer and I know a lot of engineers, and IMO, they would probably try to get the best combination of color, cut, clarity and size for their money.
For them, it's like shopping for a car.

Actually, I have spent years looking for "the best combination of color, cut, clarity and size for my money. "
Meanwhile prices are going up.
Both of these stones may have that elusive balance (for me) based on the very limited supply of blue and green diamonds.

This is just what a naturally-deep-pure-blue diamond costs.
I'm not sure either of these two are "the one" or "the best" but I disagree that "the best" is one diamond that is "the best" for all customers, or an engineer would not arrive at one of these two as their personal best. (I sense they would not qualify as your personal best, which is fine.)
Sure, most people want more size for their money so they are not even considering GIA deep, intense or vivid blues with only green for a modifier.

If you appreciate and want to obtain these colors you must accept that this is the cost - so to you they DO become the best because they DO have the color you want.
If you'd rather get a more larger stone for the same price then a less-intense blue then becomes "the best" for you.

In naturally-colored diamonds price is all about the color, which color and how strong it is.
You get what you pay for based on supply and demand.
Unfortunately unlike with white goods, it is near impossible to zero in on what is a "fair" price for colored goods; there are just so few examples with published prices.

Those stones are so small, you can easily make out details in the tweezer grooves. Now THAT's SMALL!

Yes, I know how small the are. . . . . . . but it is naturally deep blue per GIA, with no color modifiers.
That's what you are paying for.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 2:34:50 PM
Author: crasru
You probably have a lot of yellow diamonds, but the canary one I saw in mine/TL''s thread about colors of chrysoberyl looks so beautiful!

Yellow diamonds are not my cup of tea, but buy and let buy.

 

[Kismet]

I like the color of the trillion a lot better than the emerald cut but then I don''t like my stones to be overly dark. Will you set it or just keep it in a box?

 

[kenny]

I''m not sure what I''d do with it.
It is not that important to me.
I may wear it or not.

 

[movie zombie]

kenny, i "get" it. this is a purchase purely for your own joy. you''ve already proven you are white diamond savvy with that prior purchase! you''re not looking for the biggest and the brightest and know that blue diamonds of even a small size [dare i say chip sized?!] command high prices....and you''ve got the budget to afford it. you''re looking to make your heart sing when you look at the stone, not wear it or even show it to anyone else.

it would seem that perhaps your emotional side has reared its head and is going to give your sense and sensibility brain a run for its money! personally, i don''t care for the 2nd one at all. i can see why you like #1....and i''m still rooting for it!

personally, i think all stone purchases are emotional and not necessary....whether that be a white diamond or a color stone. but that would be a discussion for another thread. you were specific in the original posting: which one do each of us prefer. i don''t think you were looking for anything more than that.

mz

 

[T L]

Date: 6/25/2010 2:57:46 PM
Author: kenny
In naturally-colored diamonds price is all about the color, which color and how strong it is.

Not necessarily, a tiny fancy intense blue diamond the sizes you''re looking at won''t be more in price per carat vs a large fancy light pink diamond of five carats. Of course if comparing apples to apples as far as size is concerned, a fancy vivid blue diamond will be more per price per carat than a fancy vivid pink diamond of the same size. It''s all relative, size as well as color are both concerns when shopping for these gems. Clarity doesn''t seem to play as much of an important role, like VS vs SI.

 

[kenny]

Oh yes, certainly granted.
Size affects not only price but price per ct!

Double the weight and the price will much more than double.

 

[Rockit]

Kenny, of the two, I prefer the first EC blue. However, based upon the photo, for that money, I''ve seen blue diamonds that I consider livelier and, well, just plain brighter and prettier overall. Perhaps it is just the photo... are you able to get more photos of this stone? Overall quality would be especially important to me for a collectible diamond, ie, one that may never be set.

The second greenish blue diamond appears too windowed for me to even consider.

 

[kenny]

I''m really glad I posted.

You guys have given me great feedback and I''m not going to rush into this.

 

[dzop]

Kenny, I think you''ve gotten very bad advice on this thread. One of my dreams has always been to have a small (3-3.5mm) natural vivid blue gypsy set in my wedding band when I get married ( my plan is brushed white metal with, hopefully, a tiny round that you wouldn''t notice if you didn''t look carefully). I''ve been eyeing diamond #1 for some time and I think that it''s an exceptional blue- it''s not quite to my taste b/c I think it''s fancy deep and I''d rather pay more-or-less the same for fancy vivid, but it''s exceptionally saturated for a natural blue.

I''m going to guess based on your name that, like me, you''re a man. A blue diamond is a very male stone; it''s not super-saturated, it''s got a good dollop of grey in it, and they lose a lot of the fire you see in other colors (b/c much of the red-side of the spectrum is filtered out, and in incandescent when diamonds show the most dispersion, red light makes up the majority of the spectrum).

And yet, at least among my geologist friends, everyone thought blue diamonds were fanatastic-looking and ogled them from afar. Being told that blue diamonds aren''t vividly colored or super-well cut, it''s a little bit like, "uh, duh, that''s what makes them desirable...the understatedness, the cool color"...

If your budget allows you to spring for the stone, I''d get it.

(Though I don''t like diamond 2...to me, greenish blue naturals just look too much like irradiated stones.)

Date: 6/25/2010 4:04:36 PM
Author: kenny
I''m really glad I posted.


You guys have given me great feedback and I''m not going to rush into this.

 

[T L]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:11:47 PM
Author: dzop
Kenny, I think you've gotten very bad advice on this thread. One of my dreams has always been to have a small (3-3.5mm) natural vivid blue gypsy set in my wedding band when I get married ( my plan is brushed white metal with, hopefully, a tiny round that you wouldn't notice if you didn't look carefully). I've been eyeing diamond #1 for some time and I think that it's an exceptional blue- it's not quite to my taste b/c I think it's fancy deep and I'd rather pay more-or-less the same for fancy vivid, but it's exceptionally saturated for a natural blue.

I'm going to guess based on your name that, like me, you're a man. A blue diamond is a very male stone; it's not super-saturated, it's got a good dollop of grey in it, and they lose a lot of the fire you see in other colors (b/c much of the red-side of the spectrum is filtered out, and in incandescent when diamonds show the most dispersion, red light makes up the majority of the spectrum).

And yet, at least among my geologist friends, everyone thought blue diamonds were fanatastic-looking and ogled them from afar. Being told that blue diamonds aren't vividly colored or super-well cut, it's a little bit like, 'uh, duh, that's what makes them desirable...the understatedness, the cool color'...

If your budget allows you to spring for the stone, I'd get it.

(Though I don't like diamond 2...to me, greenish blue naturals just look too much like irradiated stones.)

Date: 6/25/2010 4:04:36 PM
Author: kenny
I'm really glad I posted.


You guys have given me great feedback and I'm not going to rush into this.

Dzop,
If that's the case, then why not get a blue spinel? If the stone is desaturated and has very little fire, I would get a blue spinel. When cut right, like Barry Bridgestock cuts them in his famous rounds, they can really appear to be diamond like. I purchased a Tunduru violet blue spinel, and my inspiration was a blue diamond that Leon Mege set, and for me, it's the perfect "poor man's" blue diamond. Honestly, I can't see the appeal of these ovelry expensive greyish stones unless you're a rich collector like Laurence Graff. I think most people on this board that have the seen the two most famous blue diamonds, the "Hope" and "Whittelsbach-Graff" were not very impressed. JMO.

If they weren't so incredibly rare, I wonder if they would even be that sought after. They are not the most attractive colors, and I've seen them in person. I personally like the greenish blues better (too bad they do look irradiated, but the synthetic blue diamonds look natural).

 

[dzop]

As someone who has seen all the major blues in person (that are on public display), as well as many more blues at the NY outlets of Graff, HW, and Tiffanys...

Spinels are, indeed, the poor man's blue diamond, but:
(1)diamond blues are....bluer, and they hold their blue better in incandescent light.
(2)diamond blues tend to be have more saturation than blue spinels for the same given tone
(3)diamond blues ARE rarer....and that matters.
(4)many fine diamond blues are NOT greyish in the dark, inky sense that the hope or the wittlesbach are. It's more of a kiss of grey, closer in color to a very very fine aqua than a spinel. If you could find a spinel with the color of a fine aqua, but with better dispersion and brilliance, and also impossibly rare and geochemically improbable then THAT would be a blue diamond substitute.

For whatever reason, women don't really dig blue diamonds...but that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy purchases or hold their value at auction. There's a reason a fine blue goes for $100k/ct even in sub 0.25 carat sizes...

Date: 6/25/2010 4:16:46 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 6/25/2010 4:11:47 PM

Author: dzop

Kenny, I think you've gotten very bad advice on this thread. One of my dreams has always been to have a small (3-3.5mm) natural vivid blue gypsy set in my wedding band when I get married ( my plan is brushed white metal with, hopefully, a tiny round that you wouldn't notice if you didn't look carefully). I've been eyeing diamond #1 for some time and I think that it's an exceptional blue- it's not quite to my taste b/c I think it's fancy deep and I'd rather pay more-or-less the same for fancy vivid, but it's exceptionally saturated for a natural blue.


I'm going to guess based on your name that, like me, you're a man. A blue diamond is a very male stone; it's not super-saturated, it's got a good dollop of grey in it, and they lose a lot of the fire you see in other colors (b/c much of the red-side of the spectrum is filtered out, and in incandescent when diamonds show the most dispersion, red light makes up the majority of the spectrum).


And yet, at least among my geologist friends, everyone thought blue diamonds were fanatastic-looking and ogled them from afar. Being told that blue diamonds aren't vividly colored or super-well cut, it's a little bit like, 'uh, duh, that's what makes them desirable...the understatedness, the cool color'...


If your budget allows you to spring for the stone, I'd get it.


(Though I don't like diamond 2...to me, greenish blue naturals just look too much like irradiated stones.)

Date: 6/25/2010 4:04:36 PM

Author: kenny

I'm really glad I posted.



You guys have given me great feedback and I'm not going to rush into this.

Dzop,

If that's the case, then why not get a blue spinel? If the stone is desaturated and has very little fire, I would get a blue spinel. When cut right, like Barry Bridgestock cuts them in his famous rounds, they can really appear to be diamond like. I purchased a Tunduru violet blue spinel, and my inspiration was a blue diamond that Leon Mege set, and for me, it's the perfect 'poor man's' blue diamond. Honestly, I can't see the appeal of these ovelry expensive greyish stones unless you're a rich collector like Laurence Graff. I think most people on this board that have the seen the two most famous blue diamonds, the 'Hope' and 'Whittelsbach-Graff' were not very impressed. JMO.

If they weren't so incredibly rare, I wonder if they would even be that sought after. They are not the most attractive colors, and I've seen them in person. I personally like the greenish blues better (too bad they do look irradiated, but the synthetic blue diamonds look natural).

 

[packrat]

Of the 2, I prefer the 1st much more than the 2nd, but while reading, I was thinking to post what TL said about blue spinel and having Barry do one of his rounds. Maybe find pictures of blue stones you like and save them to a folder and then you have them for color inspiration for whomever could get rough/cut it. It''s an option anyway, if you''re wanting blue, unless you specifically are wanting a blue diamond.

 

[dzop]

These, to my eye, are good examples of blues:

http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1928/Blue-diamond-Square-048-ct-polished_Diamond
(a little on the lighter side colorwise, but excellent cutting and just the right amount of grey)

http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1909/Blue-diamond-Rectangle-036-ct-polished_Diamond
(blues do very well as radiants---it holds the color well and I think it tends to fit the rough that came out of SA)

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/3722.htm
(very little grey, fabulous saturation for a blue, nice proportions)

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:16:46 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
If that''s the case, then why not get a blue spinel?

Because it wouldn''t be a real diamond.

If glass could be cut to look like a blue spinel, then why pay for a real spinel?
Answer: because glass would not be a real spinel.

People want the real thing because . . . they just want the real thing.
It may not make sense, but there it is.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:34:16 PM
Author: dzop
These, to my eye, are good examples of blues:


http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1928/Blue-diamond-Square-048-ct-polished_Diamond

(a little on the lighter side colorwise, but excellent cutting and just the right amount of grey)


http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1909/Blue-diamond-Rectangle-036-ct-polished_Diamond

(blues do very well as radiants---it holds the color well and I think it tends to fit the rough that came out of SA)


http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/3722.htm

(very little grey, fabulous saturation for a blue, nice proportions)

Color-wise I like them too, but I really want a step cut and the cut of that asscher cut stinks IMHO.
BTW I am a man but not worried about validating my masculinity with the color of my stone.
I'm gay and the whole subject of worrying about always appearing masculine is a huge joke to me.

 

[dzop]

It''s not about validating masculinity. It''s about what appeals to you, and what you can wear without looking ridiculous. A blue diamond on a cufflink or a ring goes with grey or navy suits (which is what I''ll be wearing it with most of the time). It goes with white shirts, blue shirts. OTOH, a man wearing professional clothes would look completely ridiculous wearing a mahenge spinel of any size. Try wearing that at the office.

For women, the whole point of wearing a colored stone is to get the most saturated, flashy stone possible. Mens stones aren''t about that, so you see a lot more appreciation of a different kind of beauty (for example, lots of cats-eye stones, star corundum, etc).

Date: 6/25/2010 4:38:45 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/25/2010 4:34:16 PM

Author: dzop

These, to my eye, are good examples of blues:



http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1928/Blue-diamond-Square-048-ct-polished_Diamond


(a little on the lighter side colorwise, but excellent cutting and just the right amount of grey)



http://www.langerman-diamonds.com/shop/diamond/1909/Blue-diamond-Rectangle-036-ct-polished_Diamond


(blues do very well as radiants---it holds the color well and I think it tends to fit the rough that came out of SA)



http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/3722.htm


(very little grey, fabulous saturation for a blue, nice proportions)

Color-wise I like them too, but I really want a step cut and the cut of that asscher cut stinks IMHO.

BTW I am a man but not worried about validating my masculinity with the color of my stone.

I''m gay and the whole subject of being careful to stay masculine is a huge joke to me.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:44:40 PM
Author: dzop
It's not about validating masculinity. It's about what appeals to you, and what you can wear without looking ridiculous. . . . Try wearing that at the office.


For women, the whole point of wearing a colored stone is to get the most saturated, flashy stone possible. Mens stones aren't about that, so you see a lot more appreciation of a different kind of beauty (for example, lots of cats-eye stones, star corundum, etc).

Your first 3 sentences are contradictory.

I guess we live in different universes.
IMHO, "looking ridiculous" is mostly in the mind and the prejudices of the viewer.
I think it is worse to be ridiculous inside than outside.
I'll wear whatever I damn please at the office, thank you very much.

Some of us do not live in fear of not fitting into narrow societal norms, and are quite quite happy.

"Men's stones" and "women's stones" being "about" this or that?
How absurd.
I didn't realize stones had genitals.

Wear whatever you like, and to hell with all that.
Gender only matters when you want to make babies.

If you like a blue/gray stone because it "goes with" your suit, fine.
But don't tell me what an outie can wear and what is only for innies.
It's not like I'm walking around in drag. . . but even then . . . so what if I was.
Normal is just a number not a measurement of goodness.

It really gets my attention when someone with a chisel thinks they are the sculptor and I am their stone.

 

[delayedreaction]

Another guy here.

I get why you want the real thing, it's just the perspective here is that color is so incredibly important since it's the primary motivating factor for buying a particular gemstone. It's not like someone is running out to buy a tanzanite because a selling point is vulnerability to thermal shock/steam cleaning.

For luxury items, if I don't connect with the item I'm buying, then I won't do it. It doesn't matter if the item fits all the checkpoints because I don't want to compromise on a luxury item. I want exactly what I want, and I can wait until I find it (or special order it or whatever). I'm happy to compromise when it's a necessity where I'll take what features can I get in my price range from the brands that I like. I've made the mistake frequently, where it's prestige brand A, fits the basic description of what I want, and yet there's something that isn't right.

I realize that you're trying to take emotion out of the purchase, but I have to ask, why? This obviously isn't an investment, or a romantic situation, and you're probably not going to set it, so what does that leave? Is truly an intellectual decision to have a tiny blue diamond sitting in a safe? Or is it one that gives you emotional satisfaction to have a good example of a natural blue diamond? I guess I don't understand trying to remove emotion from the decision process when the entire point of the purchase is to feel happier about your collection.

Oh, and given the choice between the two, if I had to pick, I would pick 1. However, my real answer is neither. I don't love either one of them. (Too gray/too windowed.)

 

[dzop]

I mean, if I rolled into work wearing garishly colored jewelry I''d get fired. Or if not fired, it would negatively affect my career. Clients have certain expectations. Dunno what field you''re in, but I dress as much for the outside world as for myself. After all, the outside world pays the bills.

If we''re going to get all post-modern about it, isn''t everything a "societal construct"? The fact that we place value on rare things with pretty colors that come out of the earth? Our preference for things that sparkle over things that are glassy? (Look at the popularity of rose cuts and emerald cuts around 100 years ago.) To say that we''re products of societal context is just...truth.

And I like blue diamonds because they''re attractive but understated, don''t make you look like you''re being flashy or garish just to make a point, and look great with a suit.

Date: 6/25/2010 4:56:51 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/25/2010 4:44:40 PM

Author: dzop

It''s not about validating masculinity. It''s about what appeals to you, and what you can wear without looking ridiculous. . . . Try wearing that at the office.



For women, the whole point of wearing a colored stone is to get the most saturated, flashy stone possible. Mens stones aren''t about that, so you see a lot more appreciation of a different kind of beauty (for example, lots of cats-eye stones, star corundum, etc).

Your first 3 sentences are contradictory.


I guess we live in different universes.

IMHO, ''looking ridiculous'' is mostly in the mind and the prejudices of the viewer.

I think it is worse to be ridiculous inside than outside.

I''ll wear whatever I damn please at the office, thank you very much.


Some of us do not live in fear of not fitting into narrow societal norms, and are quite quite happy and it really gets my attention when someone with a chisel thinks they are the sculptor and I am their stone.


''Men''s stones'' and ''women''s stones'' being ''about'' this or that?

How absurd.

I didn''t realize stones had genitals.


Wear whatever you like, and to hell with all that.

Gender only matters when you want to make babies.


If you like a blue/gray stone because it ''goes with'' your suit, fine.

But don''t tell me what outie can wear and what is only for innies.

It''s not like I''m walking around in drag. . . but even then . . .so what if I was.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 5:07:25 PM
Author: dzop
I mean, if I rolled into work wearing garishly colored jewelry I'd get fired. Or if not fired, it would negatively affect my career. Clients have certain expectations. Dunno what field you're in, but I dress as much for the outside world as for myself. After all, the outside world pays the bills.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, and there are fields/jobs where fear does not reign supreme, and oppressed people just take it.

Clearly you don't mind that you've chosen a field/employer with such intolerance and oppression.

To each his own.

 

[Rockit]

I don't think that suggesting to ask a vendor for more photos is "bad advice" at all. We can only judge what we see through the photos posted here. I've been extremely lucky to have seen several natural blue diamonds IRL as well as on the internet. And, based upon the two photos posted here, I believe that I have seen better, both IRL and in photos. However, the first stone could be quite lovely in person, that is why I suggested asking for more photos. Even so, I'm not convinced it would be worth the asking price. I'd need to see more.

Blue is one of those diamond colors that is usually modified with grey (and the color is very close to grey, and many GIA-graded grey diamonds appear somewhat blue to the eye). Often times, after a point, the more saturated the color in diamonds the more masking comes-with. Also, the less lively the stone. The trick is to find a hue that is pleasing to you while still achieving a bright and lively appearance – characteristics for which diamond is cherished.

Also, as with ANY gemstone, and especially for collectibles, unless you plan to recut, one should ALWAYS seek out a well-cut specimen that pleases the eye. In this regard, a highly windowed stone, whatever color it may be, has inherent problems.

I think most of us here recognize that natural diamond is not a stone known for its bright, beautiful blues (by contrast, compare to sapphire, tanzanite, or paraiba tourmaline for example). However, because it IS rare, blue in diamond is highly coveted. That being said, just because a stone is a rare color, and pricey, doesn't mean that it is truly a collectible, quality gemstone overall. In other words, be picky, regardless of price.

Also, for what it is worth, I've seen the Hope several times and it doesn't float my boat, but, I respect the diamond for its history and rarity (and, yes, I'd squeal with delight if I owned it). Even though I believe there are "better blues" out there in the gem world, I'd love to someday have my own collectible, little blue diamond. However, like any other gemstone, I'd want the gem to enchant me each time that I see it because the gem is beautiful and tantalizing to the eye, not because I paid a pretty penny for it simply because there aren't many out there...

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Kenny,

I like blue diamonds too. My concern is that it is very little. Save up some more dough and aim for a larger stone. I don''t think this small a stone will satisfy you in the end. Besides it so much fun looking. I think you will find something better.

Our TL on here is much the same as you. She wants the real thing when she collects. She is a purist. Only this is itty bitty. Your personality usually makes a statement. Let your gems as well.

I prefer #1.

Thanks,
Annette

 

[T L]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:26:33 PM
Author: dzop
As someone who has seen all the major blues in person (that are on public display), as well as many more blues at the NY outlets of Graff, HW, and Tiffanys...

Spinels are, indeed, the poor man's blue diamond, but:
(1)diamond blues are....bluer, and they hold their blue better in incandescent light.
(2)diamond blues tend to be have more saturation than blue spinels for the same given tone
(3)diamond blues ARE rarer....and that matters.
(4)many fine diamond blues are NOT greyish in the dark, inky sense that the hope or the wittlesbach are. It's more of a kiss of grey, closer in color to a very very fine aqua than a spinel. If you could find a spinel with the color of a fine aqua, but with better dispersion and brilliance, and also impossibly rare and geochemically improbable then THAT would be a blue diamond substitute.

For whatever reason, women don't really dig blue diamonds...but that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy purchases or hold their value at auction. There's a reason a fine blue goes for $100k/ct even in sub 0.25 carat sizes...

I disagree with you on #1 and #2, having seen blue diamonds in person. There are dark grey inky blue spinels, but there are more saturated ones as well. I would never compare a blue diamond to a fine aqua. To me, a fine very saturated blue aqua will be much bluer than a blue diamond (maybe there's a rare rare exception here & there). However, many aquas are really very grey, so I can see the comparison of a blue diamond (purely color only) to a typical blue aqua that has medium tonality.

Again, JMO

 

[T L]

Date: 6/25/2010 4:36:52 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/25/2010 4:16:46 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
If that''s the case, then why not get a blue spinel?

Because it wouldn''t be a real diamond.

If glass could be cut to look like a blue spinel, then why pay for a real spinel?
Answer: because glass would not be a real spinel.

People want the real thing because . . . they just want the real thing.
It may not make sense, but there it is.

True, I guess for me, it comes down to value over rarity. I cannot, in my wildest dreams, even if I were a millionaire, spend so much money on such a teeny tiny unattractive desaturated gem. Diamonds are also known for their fire, and if a dark blue has no fire, and desaturated color, what''s the point, unless you''re a rich collector? I will say that if I were a rich collector, I would probably get a larger one, over a carat, just to have for my collection, but I don''t see the point of spending all that money on a tiny chip of a stone. It almost defeats the purpose to me. It''s like buying a Ferrari with cloth upholstery. If you can''t go all out, why bother with such a rare gem? I would love to have a fine Burmese ruby, but if I can only afford one that is the size of the tip of a pin, why bother, especially if it''s so expensive.

 

[iLander]

Have you seen this blue diamond?

http://www.fancycolordiamond.net/search/fancy_colored_diamond_details.cfm?id=6043

Or this one?

http://www.fancycolordiamond.net/search/fancy_colored_diamond_details.cfm?id=6043

I like the cut on this one:

http://www.fancycolordiamond.net/search/fancy_colored_diamond_details.cfm?id=5920

They seem to have decent pricing, since Rockhugger called and found out this one was only $1.6 mil. :

http://www.fancycolordiamond.net/search/fancy_colored_diamond_details.cfm?id=6104PP (see Mariah Carey threads)

For that size of pink, I think it''s a bargain. It may be worth calling them, anyway.

 

[kenny]

Thianks iLander.
That $1.6 Mil may be just a tad over my budget.

Did you notice the first two links are the same?

I don't want a radiant, oval, pear or cushion.
I don't like the zillions-of-small-facets look especially for such a small diamond.
I really prefer a step cut.
I'd kill for a light blue or pinkish-Orange (salmon or apricot hue) Octavia.

That trillion only caught my eye because of the extraordinary color and the personality of the stone, as Danny said.

I'll probably be shopping for years . . . watching prices go up.

 

[RockHugger]

ilander, I LOVE the 3d link you posted. If I havnt harrassed that store enough already I would call and find out the price LOL.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/25/2010 6:08:32 PM
Author: RockHugger
ilander, I LOVE the 3d link you posted. If I havnt harrassed that store enough already I would call and find out the price LOL.

Maybe you won't need to.
I believe that Ishay Ben-David Corp. (aka fancycolordiamond.net) is the NY office of Israel's Leibish Co. (aka fancydiamonds.net).

Leibish just saw fit to replace most of their "call for price" listings with prices after I presented an argument for doing so.
(Perhaps IBD will follow suit.)

Here's the recent RT thread where this was discussed.

Link