When a diamond gets ugly

[diagem]

After a few days of reading some of the advice given to people who are asking for it, i would like to hear some oppinions on when a diamond becomes a BAD diamond.

Please, I am very interested and i think this topic can show some light on the average knowhow of appreciating diamonds.

 

[strmrdr]

My biggest turn offs are:
eye visible inclusions.
Lifeless diamonds.

A point I like to make is that there is usualy no premium for an ideal cut diamond online compared to the average cut diamond at a b&m and it will blow it away.
The lower margins online offset the higher premium of the ideal cut.
Also I think ideal cut diamonds are safer buying online vs. others.

For example a friend of mines wife's wedding ring has a very wide table and is fairly shallow.
Not a good recipe for light return but it has a wagon wheel pattern that is way kewl that Iv never seen in another diamond.
It isnt that bright but it is kewl in the same way asschers are with a very pleasing kewl looking pattern.
But finding something like that online... well forget about it.

 

[perry]

Since I have only been looking at diamonds for a couple of months, both in stores and on peoples hands I have the following list of items that make a "Bad" diamond.

1) No life in normal lighting (be it brillinace or fire). There are some really dead stones out there (in fact- it appears that there are a lot of really dead stones out there).

2) Obvious to the unaided eye flaws that infringe upon the corner or face of a diamond (diamond may not be structurally sound). I would seek the advise of an expert for other crack like flaws on the structural integrity of the diamond. Note that I seem to be able to see without magnification the larger flaws in the VS2 range of stones, and see the flaws in VS1 if I know where they are (my eyes typically test to a better tha 20/20 with my glasses).

3) Cloudy stones (I can''t beileve the one store was really selling them, but they apparently sold a lot of them as they were cheap).

4) Obviously "yellowish" to my eyes against a white background (as I am looking for a clearer stone).

5) Way overpriced. I understand that a store has to have some markup, and am not upset at the store when they have prices that are 25%- 50% above internet prices. However, one store I was in had a $63,000 round 2 carat classic tifiny setting style ring - and the stone had flaws visable under 10x magnification. While I do not know the exact spec''s, this is rediculous. They had other equally rediculus prices, something like $15,000 for a round 1 carat H VS1. Needless to say, I have not returned to that store to look at more diamonds.

That is my "Bad" list - clearly rejected with no further thoughts.

However, another thing that I do not like (although you cannot call it exactly a "bad" diamond) is the assemblage of 4 small princess cut diamonds into what at first glance looks like a much larger princess cut diamond."

Please note that when I started my search, and after the first few days my target stone (round brilliant) was G VS1. After more research I have lowered that to H VS2. Further compromises will have to be stone specific. Awsome cut is of course the first requirment.

 

[valeria101]

"BAD" can mean so many things... to each his own.

To me a diamond failure is one that does not show off the properties of the material: what''s the use if the appearence of the gem looks dark and muddy or matches white sapphire for lack of fire ?. Whenever inclusions or dark color (ex: dark brown or gray) reduce brilliance so much that the piece doesn''t look brilliant anymore, I would start wondering what''s the use.

Otherwise, anything goes - there is some conceivable shape and cut that could show off anything of the broadest range of diamond material as long as some phisical flaw makes brilliance and fire impossible to achieve. Visible inclusions, whatever color grades and tint, nigh-club style fluorescence would not be serious detractions from great shape and optics, IMO. In a perfect world each piece would be shaped to it''s best advatange instead of given a conventional shape. I can dream, can''t I

Prices do not enter this picture at all. As far as I understand, the price tag plays no part at all in the looks of a diamond. If any historic correlation applies, it does not make a diamond "good" or "bad" just "cheap" or "expensive" - relatively.

 

[diagem]

" In a perfect world each piece would be shaped to it''s best advatange instead of given a conventional shape. I can dream, can''t I

Prices do not enter this picture at all. As far as I understand, the price tag plays no part at all in the looks of a diamond. If any historic correlation applies, it does not make a diamond "good" or "bad" just "cheap" or "expensive" - relatively.

"






This quote is one for the books....., Very nicely said, finaly someone who understands.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/30/2004 5

9:14 PM
Author: diagem
This quote is one for the books....., Very nicely said, finaly someone who understands.

Yeah... It helps that there is no preassure to buy and show off that e-ring or anything. There is no need to find someone who understands.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ana said: In a perfect world each piece would be shaped to it''s best advatange instead of given a conventional shape. I can dream, can''t I

Well Ana, that is one goal for the group of researchers that I am a member of. Our approach to cut quality grading is to establish the DiamCalc approach so that cutters can plan a piece of rough on the fly, into any shape that yileds maximum return and optimum appearance.

DiaGem we will do that through an comparitive study that you can read about at this Rapaport news story.

We envisage the capacity to make non symmetrical and "art" cuts that reflect the shape of a piece of rough and are ehn truly one off pieces of individuality

 

[diagem]

"DiaGem we will do that through an comparitive study that you can read about at this Rapaport news story."



Garry, I tried to open the link, but i was unsuccesfull

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/30/2004 5:36:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

We envisage the capacity to make non symmetrical and 'art' cuts that reflect the shape of a piece of rough and are ehn truly one off pieces of individuality

I know !

Actually, I was wondering if some alternative model could ditch the requirement of symmetry altogether (like native cutting does) and construct optical effects without some CW Complex in the background. Oh well... More dreaming from my part.

 

[windowshopper]

flat looking................