WHY do people want whiter diamonds?

[Smith1942]

Ashleigh, next time you see one on JA with a grey hue, would you mind at all giving me a heads up? I'd love to see what they look like.

 

[Karl_K]

Do you think that might be responsible for the mish mash of virtual facets on the lower edge of the green arrow at 3 o'clock? Do you remember the "official" cut grade of that diamond?

Wink

I want to say its an AGS0/GIA ex. I do recall that the h&a images looked pretty good as the scopes don't show split mains.

I do not have enough samples to say for 100% certain so this is my opinion not a fact.
I believe it was responsible for part of it. They aligned well enough to show as solid in a h&a scope which shows them with low resolution and broad strokes but under Marty lighting it shows the mains are not perfectly aligned but tilted across the face from each other therefor split.

 

[Ashleigh]

Ashleigh, next time you see one on JA with a grey hue, would you mind at all giving me a heads up? I'd love to see what they look like.

Sure, I'll link you the next time I see them.

 

[Ashleigh]

Do you think that might be responsible for the mish mash of virtual facets on the lower edge of the green arrow at 3 o'clock? Do you remember the "official" cut grade of that diamond?

Wink

I want to say its an AGS0/GIA ex. I do recall that the h&a images looked pretty good as the scopes don't show split mains.

I do not have enough samples to say for 100% certain so this is my opinion not a fact.
I believe it was responsible for part of it. They aligned well enough to show as solid in a h&a scope which shows them with low resolution and broad strokes but under Marty lighting it shows the mains are not perfectly aligned but tilted across the face from each other therefor split.

If the cut is AGS0/GIA excellent and the scan looks pretty good to me, how can I as a consumer know that this diamond isn't as well performing?

 

[distracts]

I find D/E/F too icy in main stones - I'm okay with it for sidestones though. I like G/H/I in pretty much every cut. Below that, it depends greatly on the individual diamond - there are some diamonds I like in lower colors and some I don't. I would imagine most of this is due to marketing/cultural preferences, with the quirk that I like white but not "too white." At D/E it just looks like it belongs on the ice queen from Narnia. G/H/I looks "friendlier." With old cuts, J/K is where it's at, imo. With that said, with cuts that look "mean" to me like the asscher or spiky cuts like pear and marquis, I think D/E can be appropriate. idek what this talk is about their attitudes but that's how I think of it.

My husband interprets any hint of color as "dirty," so the chances of me owning a stone lower than a J or K are pretty much nil!

Reading Smith's post was eye-opening - a good number of her reasons for loving her Ds and Es are exactly the things I object to Guess people vary after all

This. She was saying she likes their iciness and I was just like "NNOOOOO THEY LOOK SO MEAN!" idk this one girl I had a class with had a D/IF ideal cut diamond and it was beautiful, sure, but I couldn't stand it for some reason. It just rubbed me the wrong way. otoh I adored the setting it was in. hah.

 

[Smith1942]

I find D/E/F too icy in main stones - I'm okay with it for sidestones though. I like G/H/I in pretty much every cut. Below that, it depends greatly on the individual diamond - there are some diamonds I like in lower colors and some I don't. I would imagine most of this is due to marketing/cultural preferences, with the quirk that I like white but not "too white." At D/E it just looks like it belongs on the ice queen from Narnia. G/H/I looks "friendlier." With old cuts, J/K is where it's at, imo. With that said, with cuts that look "mean" to me like the asscher or spiky cuts like pear and marquis, I think D/E can be appropriate. idek what this talk is about their attitudes but that's how I think of it.

My husband interprets any hint of color as "dirty," so the chances of me owning a stone lower than a J or K are pretty much nil!

Reading Smith's post was eye-opening - a good number of her reasons for loving her Ds and Es are exactly the things I object to Guess people vary after all

This. She was saying she likes their iciness and I was just like "NNOOOOO THEY LOOK SO MEAN!" idk this one girl I had a class with had a D/IF ideal cut diamond and it was beautiful, sure, but I couldn't stand it for some reason. It just rubbed me the wrong way. otoh I adored the setting it was in. hah.

My D diamonds are not mean, they are very friendly! They say that no one wants to talk to them and they never get asked to parties with the other diamonds because everyone thinks they're cold. They tell me it's a lonely old life at the top of the colour scale! They say everyone thinks they are like this:

 

[Smith1942]

When in fact they are more like this:

 

[Laila619]

It really depends on the individual diamond...I used to own an AGS 000 H color that I swear had a very obvious peachy/yellow/beige hue to it and you can easily see it in photos ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/[/URL]). I now have a GIA 3ex I color with medium blue fluor and it is blindingly icy white to me. If I had only owned that AGS H, I might assume that H is too yellow for me and that all H color diamonds look like that, which would be false of course.

Smith, I suspect the same thing is going on with your I color e-ring stone...maybe there's some beigey undertone and it is very noticeable to you.

 

[Smith1942]

It really depends on the individual diamond...I used to own an AGS 000 H color that I swear had a very obvious peachy/yellow/beige hue to it and you can easily see it in photos ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/[/URL]). I now have a GIA 3ex I color with medium blue fluor and it is blindingly icy white to me. If I had only owned that AGS H, I might assume that H is too yellow for me and that all H color diamonds look like that, which would be false of course.

Smith, I suspect the same thing is going on with your I color e-ring stone...maybe there's some beigey undertone and it is very noticeable to you.

Yes, this does seem to be a distinct possibility - some kind of other hue or undertone. How fascinating. I must admit, I have I melee in jewellery and it doesn't look anything like as tinted as my stone.

 

[Laila619]

It really depends on the individual diamond...I used to own an AGS 000 H color that I swear had a very obvious peachy/yellow/beige hue to it and you can easily see it in photos ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-setting-for-1-8-ct-round-finger-coverage-galore.166116/[/URL]). I now have a GIA 3ex I color with medium blue fluor and it is blindingly icy white to me. If I had only owned that AGS H, I might assume that H is too yellow for me and that all H color diamonds look like that, which would be false of course.

Smith, I suspect the same thing is going on with your I color e-ring stone...maybe there's some beigey undertone and it is very noticeable to you.

Yes, this does seem to be a distinct possibility - some kind of other hue or undertone. How fascinating. I must admit, I have I melee in jewellery and it doesn't look anything like as tinted as my stone.

Well that's a whole other can of worms, as melee always tends to look whiter than larger diamonds of the same color.

 

[WinkHPD]

Do you think that might be responsible for the mish mash of virtual facets on the lower edge of the green arrow at 3 o'clock? Do you remember the "official" cut grade of that diamond?

Wink

I want to say its an AGS0/GIA ex. I do recall that the h&a images looked pretty good as the scopes don't show split mains.

I do not have enough samples to say for 100% certain so this is my opinion not a fact.
I believe it was responsible for part of it. They aligned well enough to show as solid in a h&a scope which shows them with low resolution and broad strokes but under Marty lighting it shows the mains are not perfectly aligned but tilted across the face from each other therefor split.

If the cut is AGS0/GIA excellent and the scan looks pretty good to me, how can I as a consumer know that this diamond isn't as well performing?

There really is only one way. While photos and videos will give you a tremendous leg up, the final proof is in the viewing. You must see the diamond to believe the diamond. Be sure you are buying from a vendor with a strong return policy and do not be embarrassed to use it if you do not like the diamond.

When you get it, take it outdoors, take it into a corner and block most of the light by yourself facing into the corner, take it indoors under fluorescent light, under incandescent light and in the shade of a green leafed tree if possible. If it is a top performer it will SHOW you so.

Wink

 

[msop04]

Here is my D-colour GIA ideal-cut stud on the left and my I-colour HoF on the right. All pix are taken in fading afternoon natural daylight, no flash.

In the first pic, the shot is taken with the two diamonds face up. They don't look so different, do they?

I see what you mean, in that they don't look different in the first photo.

However, look at the next two shots with my I colour ring from a slight side angle. Suddenly the I colour piece looks a lot more tinted.

Then, see the two diamonds next to each other in the fourth and fifth shots that I'll post in a second. Again,with a slight side angle, you can see the difference.

The final two shots that I am just about to post are with the two diamonds face-up again from a slight distance. Again, the colour difference is somewhat less obvious.

I can definitely see tint in the stone, however, you can't really compare the two in that sort of environment. One of the other posters (Karl maybe??) explained that you must have a completely white background and very specific lighting (similar to the videos on the GOG website ) to really compare the two. I do agree that a D and an I color will look different... especially from the side.

This what I meant when I said that just because my stone faces up quite white, that doesn't mean it's white - it's still lemony, as the side view pics of the ring alone show, below.

Well... of course it's not going to look as white/colorless when compared to the D -- that's why it's been graded 5 shades lower. LOL That said, I don't think a GIA I is supposed to have anything close to a "lemony" look... maybe it's got a yellow or brownish undertone like others have mentioned? I have a GIA J and even unmounted it doesn't look lemony yellow -- it has some tint, true enough, but definitely not a lemon yellow by any stretch of the imagination. The photo of your I does look pretty dark (darker than any I or J that I've seen IRL), but again, I think the environment in which the photo was taken has a lot to do with it.

But to answer the original question as to why people want whiter diamonds... I don't think everyone wants "whiter" diamonds, just the same as not everyone wants pink undertones in their diamonds. I do think people want "brighter" diamonds -- they want their diamond to sparkle and give them a "light show." So, I think the question can be answered using two words... personal preference.

 

[distracts]

My D diamonds are not mean, they are very friendly! They say that no one wants to talk to them and they never get asked to parties with the other diamonds because everyone thinks they're cold. They tell me it's a lonely old life at the top of the colour scale! They say everyone thinks they are like this:

Don't worry, Smith, if I ever come across a cache of D diamonds that are too mean for me, I know they'll get plenty of loving at your place.

 

[msop04]

My D diamonds are not mean, they are very friendly! They say that no one wants to talk to them and they never get asked to parties with the other diamonds because everyone thinks they're cold. They tell me it's a lonely old life at the top of the colour scale! They say everyone thinks they are like this:

Don't worry, Smith, if I ever come across a cache of D diamonds that are too mean for me, I know they'll get plenty of loving at your place.

HA!

 

[Smith1942]

My D diamonds are not mean, they are very friendly! They say that no one wants to talk to them and they never get asked to parties with the other diamonds because everyone thinks they're cold. They tell me it's a lonely old life at the top of the colour scale! They say everyone thinks they are like this:

Don't worry, Smith, if I ever come across a cache of D diamonds that are too mean for me, I know they'll get plenty of loving at your place.

HA!

They WILL get plenty of loving! From the way some PSers talk about D diamonds, I'm beginning to feel that I should open a home for unwanted D diamonds!

 

[Smith1942]

Here is my D-colour GIA ideal-cut stud on the left and my I-colour HoF on the right. All pix are taken in fading afternoon natural daylight, no flash.

In the first pic, the shot is taken with the two diamonds face up. They don't look so different, do they?

I see what you mean, in that they don't look different in the first photo.

However, look at the next two shots with my I colour ring from a slight side angle. Suddenly the I colour piece looks a lot more tinted.

Then, see the two diamonds next to each other in the fourth and fifth shots that I'll post in a second. Again,with a slight side angle, you can see the difference.

The final two shots that I am just about to post are with the two diamonds face-up again from a slight distance. Again, the colour difference is somewhat less obvious.

I can definitely see tint in the stone, however, you can't really compare the two in that sort of environment. One of the other posters (Karl maybe??) explained that you must have a completely white background and very specific lighting (similar to the videos on the GOG website ) to really compare the two. I do agree that a D and an I color will look different... especially from the side.

This what I meant when I said that just because my stone faces up quite white, that doesn't mean it's white - it's still lemony, as the side view pics of the ring alone show, below.

Well... of course it's not going to look as white/colorless when compared to the D -- that's why it's been graded 5 shades lower. LOL That said, I don't think a GIA I is supposed to have anything close to a "lemony" look... maybe it's got a yellow or brownish undertone like others have mentioned? I have a GIA J and even unmounted it doesn't look lemony yellow -- it has some tint, true enough, but definitely not a lemon yellow by any stretch of the imagination. The photo of your I does look pretty dark (darker than any I or J that I've seen IRL), but again, I think the environment in which the photo was taken has a lot to do with it.

But to answer the original question as to why people want whiter diamonds... I don't think everyone wants "whiter" diamonds, just the same as not everyone wants pink undertones in their diamonds. I do think people want "brighter" diamonds -- they want their diamond to sparkle and give them a "light show." So, I think the question can be answered using two words... personal preference.

At last! Someone who sees what I mean about my diamond! Environment or not, that image is what it really looks like.

 

[Smith1942]

Here is my D-colour GIA ideal-cut stud on the left and my I-colour HoF on the right. All pix are taken in fading afternoon natural daylight, no flash.

In the first pic, the shot is taken with the two diamonds face up. They don't look so different, do they?

I see what you mean, in that they don't look different in the first photo.

However, look at the next two shots with my I colour ring from a slight side angle. Suddenly the I colour piece looks a lot more tinted.

Then, see the two diamonds next to each other in the fourth and fifth shots that I'll post in a second. Again,with a slight side angle, you can see the difference.

The final two shots that I am just about to post are with the two diamonds face-up again from a slight distance. Again, the colour difference is somewhat less obvious.

I can definitely see tint in the stone, however, you can't really compare the two in that sort of environment. One of the other posters (Karl maybe??) explained that you must have a completely white background and very specific lighting (similar to the videos on the GOG website ) to really compare the two. I do agree that a D and an I color will look different... especially from the side.

This what I meant when I said that just because my stone faces up quite white, that doesn't mean it's white - it's still lemony, as the side view pics of the ring alone show, below.

Well... of course it's not going to look as white/colorless when compared to the D -- that's why it's been graded 5 shades lower. LOL That said, I don't think a GIA I is supposed to have anything close to a "lemony" look... maybe it's got a yellow or brownish undertone like others have mentioned? I have a GIA J and even unmounted it doesn't look lemony yellow -- it has some tint, true enough, but definitely not a lemon yellow by any stretch of the imagination. The photo of your I does look pretty dark (darker than any I or J that I've seen IRL), but again, I think the environment in which the photo was taken has a lot to do with it.

But to answer the original question as to why people want whiter diamonds... I don't think everyone wants "whiter" diamonds, just the same as not everyone wants pink undertones in their diamonds. I do think people want "brighter" diamonds -- they want their diamond to sparkle and give them a "light show." So, I think the question can be answered using two words... personal preference.

You'd think, but people often discuss how white I diamonds are, and I'm thinking, well mine's definitely not, so I wanted to show it next to a whiter stone.

 

[WinkHPD]

Karl,

I agree. The virtual facets can tell you a lot about a diamond and its cut.

Many times in a round brilliant cut diamond it is possible to see one, two or even three narrow virtual facets on either side of the "arrow" in a hearts and arrows cut diamond. These narrow virtual facets are result of lack of precision in cutting the hearts and arrows pattern and because the flashes of light and dispersion from them will be smaller and less noticeable, they have the effect of "robbing" the diamond of some of its brilliance.

Of course, the diamond cut grade report will not be affected by these small "extra" virtual facets, even though the appearance will be affected.

Wink

I received an email from Paul Slegers of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds who has an issue with my comments as he doubts that technically the diamond is in fact robbed of its brilliance. He suggests two corrections, ", 1. The virtual-facet-thing has far more consequence in the observation of fire and scintillation.

2. With a standard round-brilliant having over 16,000 virtual facets (Wow, I forgot that AGSL communicated that incredibly high number to us!), what I am trying to show in this photograph is nice to understand the theory, but I think that we need to agree that even the best photography does not succeed in capturing the distinction between all those virtual facets. Most probably, our eyes cannot either, but they surely can catch the delta between on and off (scintillation) or between colors (fire) being more dramatic (attractive?) when the borderline is not disturbed by fuzziness, caused by extremely small extra virtual facets."

Paul has, for many years, been a tremendous mentor to me. When he talks, I listen and ask questions and usually find that he is correct I have to agree with him, that technically, rather than robbing brilliance in the scientific sense that it really does have more affect on the observance of dispersion and white light. In order for dispersion to be discerned by the human eye the ray of light that is dispersed must be wider than the pupil of the eye when it is seen. If it is not, all of the colors will enter the eye and be perceived of as white light. (This is true of cameras too, which is why if you want to show dispersion in a diamond via camera it is necessary to use a smaller aperture for the same reason.) So, when you get a dispersed ray from a tiny virtual mirror, it stands to reason that it will be a small ray with a great chance of being too small to only partially enter the pupil of the eye, thus its rays will be discerned as white light, not colored. And since the rays are smaller they may not appear as bright as they would if they were larger more commanding rays. In fact, many of them will be so small as to not be discernible to the human eye.

As for item 2, the words "The Delta" are bolded by me, as this is an important concept and should also be more thoroughly explained.

Here again I will quote Paul, as his explanation to me asking what he meant by "the delta" was incredibly concise and clear and deserves to be quoted rather than paraphrased.

"‘Delta’ is a scientific word to describe ‘change’. The delta between 1 and 7 is 6.

In a diamond’s case, I will explain it for the biggest virtual facet, the arrow-shaft.

- When moving the stone, light source or the observer, the size and shape of that big virtual facet changes, but that is not terribly important as it will remain big.

- Scintillation is when a dark virtual facets turns to bright, in this case the arrow shaft.

- To date, even the best lab (AGSL) studies scintillation by counting the number and size of virtual facets being bright.

- My theory is that they should study the ‘delta’, meaning how fast and undisturbed the VG changes from dark (0) to bright (100).

- Before, I have explained this as ‘crispness’, but possibly ‘delta’ is a better explanation. Even AGSL does not study or did not succeed in studying that delta.

- The fuzziness of extra virtual facets creates a delta that does not go instantly from 0 to 100, but from 0 to 30 for a split-second, then to 70 for another split-second, back to 50 for a split-second, then to 100 (if it even reaches 100?). Human eyes and brains detect that, photography, even video probably does not.

- The same delta is present in observing Fire.

- The observation of more pure spectral colors is due to the ‘delta’ being undisturbed by extra virtual facets."

I must admit that this concept is new to me, but now that it is opened to my eyes it makes incredible sense. Stones with larger virtual facets that are unhindered by myriads of small virtual facets reducing their size are going to have a more noticeable pop and pizzazz than those that do have the smaller virtual facets "muddying things up". That I already knew. What I did not think of before was that they might change the manner in which scintillation is observed with their less than 100% success rate in turning to the bright side.

And this leads me again to the concept that I have held to for many many years. Ya gotta buy the diamond, not the paper.

Wink

 

[msop04]

But to answer the original question as to why people want whiter diamonds... I don't think everyone wants "whiter" diamonds, just the same as not everyone wants pink undertones in their diamonds. I do think people want "brighter" diamonds -- they want their diamond to sparkle and give them a "light show." So, I think the question can be answered using two words... personal preference.

You'd think, but people often discuss how white I diamonds are, and I'm thinking, well mine's definitely not, so I wanted to show it next to a whiter stone.

The thing is... it may just not be white enough for you. For example, my J looks "white" face up (it's in a halo, so that's the only way it can be seen for all intents and purposes) so I'm good with that. However, if my setting showed a lot of the side of the stone, the J probably wouldn't be "white enough" for me, KWIM? Originally, I picked out a 2 ct I in a 6-prong setting... I loved it -- it was whiter from the side than I thought it would be ("high I" maybe??).

I think your I stone isn't lemony, it's just reflecting your environment. But... if it's your environment and that's how it's going to be viewed most often, then you need to like it! Different photos of my J show it from "really white" to "pretty dang tinted," all depending on the lighting and colors being reflected around me. I love to look at my diamond in Home Depot and Lowe's... SUPER white and sparkly! LOL My least favorite is gross office lighting, where I can see a bit of tint. It all comes down to what YOU see and what YOU like. If YOUR eye sees "lemon", then it's lemon in your world -- and it's what YOU see/think that really matters.

(sorry for all the CAPS)

Good Lighting (late afternoon and outside in the first pic, in my car at sunset and reflecting the turquoise in my shirt in the second):



Not so good lighting (not the worst, but not great...):

 

[Smith1942]

I don't see a lot of tint in your stone, msop. It looks quite a bit whiter than my I. And the I wasn't taking colour from the environment, I don't think, or at least not too much. That is what it looks like IRL. Or maybe, on the other hand, it WAS taking colour- it does look whiter face up outside.

 

[msop04]

I don't see a lot of tint in your stone, msop. It looks quite a bit whiter than my I. And the I wasn't taking colour from the environment, I don't think, or at least not too much. That is what it looks like IRL. Or maybe, on the other hand, it WAS taking colour- it does look whiter face up outside.

Gotta go with what it looks like to you! Like I said, if that's the environment you usually view it in (i.e. home, work, etc), then that's what you're gonna see all the time. After all, it's you that's viewing it, and we don't live our lives in a white box with very specific lighting to "check if it's right" ...if only the world was lit like Home Depot. LOL

 

[msop04]

I don't see a lot of tint in your stone, msop. It looks quite a bit whiter than my I. And the I wasn't taking colour from the environment, I don't think, or at least not too much. That is what it looks like IRL. Or maybe, on the other hand, it WAS taking colour- it does look whiter face up outside.

Forgot to post this... I definitely see tint in this shot (from the side), but not too bad... The counter behind it isn't helping, but I think this is a fair assessment of what it looked like when I saw it on a white cloth before I bought it. The setting really makes a difference.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Smith

Funny you should say this...I am only an amateur but I have looked through online inventories of antique diamonds and there was just so much wonky symmetry out there, with grades of Fair if they were certed at all, that I went off the idea. My hometown has one of the largest antique jewellery quarters in the UK and I have spent hours wandering round it. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of antique diamonds in that place, and I've never seen one that really sparkles or catches my eye in a big way. I'm not saying that they don't exist, there are some really lovely ones on PS, but I agree there's a lot of not-so-great stuff out there that's being marketed as something special.

I hear you and it's why I've generally never been crazy about OEC's in general. I've always had them and when we would show couples shopping for erings side by side nobody would generally ever pick the OEC over the H&A or Ideal cut rounds we'd feature. I suppose working around precision cut gems for years and appreciating the labor that goes into them influences heavy on my opinions but in fairness to the OEC's they hold an intrinsic value for the mere fact that they are antiques. The beautiful thing about the diamond industry and diamonds in general is as I had mentioned earlier. There's somebody for everything. Like Erica said, there are so many personalities of people which are in essence seen in the MANY varying personalities of OEC's and I would say OEC's in particular too because once you reach the pinnacle of H&A's you get to what Arkieb was talking about earlier with the only real nuances happening between those precision cut diamonds with varying lower half facet lengths between 75-85% all of which do happen to be very beautiful. In OEC's though there is a lot more variety in appearance than there is with round brilliant cuts of today.

It's the same with the pearl industry. Some places are selling pearls that are shaped like horns, pearls that are oblong, pearls that are half-formed and awfully squashed, and pearls which are not really pearls at all but byproducts of the cultivation process. They have sheen, and colour, and some people love them. But again, they are being marketed as something special when they are not. Pretty, maybe, but not special and certainly not valuable, considering that one of the measures of pearl value is the how close to spherical they are. Enterprising companies have put these misshapen pearls into strands and given then names like "ripple necklaces", with price tags upwards of $600. I actually think they are very pretty but not $600-pretty. Oddly they are often discounted to about $200, so desirable are they! I'd like one for that price though - they are pretty, but not special.

I hear you and this is where appreciation for the true rarity of fine pearls come to play. In the world of diamonds, where my appreciation for those cutters who will laboriously take their time (up to 4-5x longer) to care in their cutting of a genuinely unique and rare product where many facilities will just pump out GIA Ex's in 1/4 of the time. We're on the same page and good points and examples from other industries as well Smith.

All the best,
Rhino

 

[Karl_K]

- My theory is that they should study the ‘delta’, meaning how fast and undisturbed the VG changes from dark (0) to bright (100).

- Before, I have explained this as ‘crispness’, but possibly ‘delta’ is a better explanation. Even AGSL does not study or did not succeed in studying that delta.

I have a similar theory and have presented it a couple times over the years.
How often a facet flashes per degree of movement is a very important part of scintillation and fire.
I call the time between bright flashes and the time between dark flashes, dwell time.
In general the larger the virtual facet the larger the dwell time but shape makes a huge difference on dwell time which is a component totally missing from the AGS study.
To demonstrate dwell time in a convincing manner, take a long emerald cut in diffused lighting. Rotate it the long way and the very long virtual facets relative to the line of motion have a lot of dwell time, now rotate it the same velocity side to side and the narrow virtual facets relative to the direction of motion have a much smaller dwell time(are both bright and dark for a shorter period of time/rotation).

 

[Rhino]

Wow.
Rhino d'you have an actual pic of that one?

Okay, common sense just kicked back in and I have to take that back - yeah, I believe you if you say it has charm.
Because sometimes one's priorities and the metrics light reflector technology rewards are really not in sync.
I just stuck a couple of my favourite antiques (rose cut is from JbEG!) under the IS for the heck of it... my priorities were obviously very different from when buying my MRBs!






ETA The rose cut and my briolettes are particularly interesting because the faceting doesn't in any way mask or accentuate body colour - the stones just show whatever colour the material is from all angles. I like that, in an "it's the principle of the thing" sort of way - it's a charming sort of honesty...

Hey Yssie!

Well ... I personally didn't say THAT particular one had charm but I suppose there are people who may. And yes ... different buyers have different priorities. Most of the consumers we serve do care greatly about diamond optics and place it high in priority and there are some who don't. The key IMO is being able to listen to whom it is you are serving and doing your best to meet their needs based on *their* priorities.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Hi Arkie

Lopsey Fuggs has a touch too much wonk even for me

I hear that! Me too!

I have recommended GOG, JBEG and Wink to a number of people, so I am in no way attacking you guys, I just make the observation that all of you often state diamonds face up whiter than X or Y in videos, in the case of JBEG in their descriptions, and unlike most vendors out there (that Rhino points out do sell crappy looking diamonds, and intentionally mislead their customers) I don't think you are doing anything necessarily wrong or intentionally misleading, I make the observation from the original O/P, and from your comment Rhino, about variety, that wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we didn't have to tell people this diamond faces up two grades whiter than it's stated colour or whatever. In a perfect world you could just say it's a freakin' awesome cut, it's an L or an N and the customer can be happy that it is what it is regardless of if it looks like an L or an N or it faces up whiter or indeed more tinted than it's stated colour.

I understand what you're saying Arkie. I would in fact alter my commentary if it was in any way misleading but truth is, it isn't. I do let people know precisely what the color is, am willing to photograph or video it alongside of other colors but the truth remains that when the optics of a diamond are demonstrably rare it will face up whither than their counterparts. The "N" I wear in my own ring, when I show it to clients in natural daylight can't believe it. Then I tilt it at a 45 degree angle and bammo you see the warm color instantly. If you are ever out my way I welcome you to a rock party.

Everyone has come to the conclusion that seeing colour is highly subjective. You might have 85% maybe even 90% that agree with all three vendors, that the diamond described as facing up whiter top down than is actually graded, to most people honestly does look whiter, but what about the 10% (or whatever it is) for whatever reason, it doesn't face up a shade whiter, or it does look it's stated colour or more tinted face down? It's naive to think that all people view stones the same way your eyes do.

Amen to this. Not only would I concur Arkie but I'd say the same applies to "eye clean" as well. We'll do everything within our means to show various features of whatever diamond it is a person is considering but ultimately they must see it for themselves. The best way to really determine color tolerances is to physically see it for yourself. Preferably diamonds of like kind when it comes to cut because (and I think it may have been mentioned in this thread) diamonds that are wonky cuts and/or exhibit extraneous light leakage will in fact absorb more color than Ideal cuts. It will be referred to as "color absorption" and I've shown it in quite a few videos before.

It seems Ironic to me that when you are all arguing things like people want genuine old cuts (which indeed they do) people want uniqueness (which again they do) people can walk into a shop and pick a stone out of a tray of a lower colour but with a better cut than higher coloured ones (which many people can and will do) that the Industry still perpetrates the myth that white is good or better and more tinted is somehow worse, yet by stating a diamond does face up whiter to any customer you are participating in that myth too.

I hear where you are coming from and I am open to your suggestions of how that presentation should be worded. In our store we show comparisons like this all the time where we'll take two diamonds of the same color and ask unbiased spectators to give us their opinion of which diamond appears "whiter" to them and/or which they would prefer if we were to give them one. Even in lower colors however our consistent finding is that cut generally wins out. When we get to what I would consider the warmer varieties (L/M/N etc.) it's easier to see the tone and most can pick that out but will generally remark ... the brilliance of this one with the color of the other. A question Arkie, from a consumer's standpoint ... If most people do perceive those diamonds with higher optics as facing up whiter but are in fact of the warmer tones what is it you'd change about how I present that data? Curious.

Do you need to do that in order to sell diamonds or to describe their features? I don't know the answer, possibly yes you do.

No, I don't do it to sell them. I say that because it is what I see and also what I can demonstrate as well. I am however open to suggestions because we always seek to remain open, honest and candid in our examinations and why I am open to listening to yours as well.

I am not knocking it, having purchased a diamond myself recent that I have a love/hate relationship with that I was told by two different vendors faced up white for it's stated colour yet to my eye it doesn't, and another ages ago that I was told faces up one to two grades whiter than it's certified colour that actually does 95% of the time look whiter than it's stated colour, I am just reflecting on the posters and Karl's questions.

[/quote]

Good input and now I understand moreso your comments and where you are coming from. It's one reason why I believe a liberal return policy as well as trade up and/or buy back help protect people like yourself who feel they were not being dealt with in full candidness. As mentioned above color tolerance as well as how eye clean a diamond is are and will always be subjective and why the end consumer should do a thorough job of examining their diamond once it arrives on their doorstep and educating themselves as much as possible before the sale.

Kindest regards,
Rhino

 

[TC1987]

TC - regarding my HoF, I don't know if it would be like the dim stones you describe. It seems pretty dim to me a lot of the time. I've posted it so you can see. The third pic down of the ring on its own looks noticeably tinted to me, and this is what it looks like in real life. I really don't think it's the cut in this case; the diamond has excellent numbers, score of 1 on the HCA and triple 0 AGS rating for cut. Whatever's wrong with it, it's the colour, I'm sure. I couldn't even give a crap about the black mark on the table, but regarding colour I wish I could just bleach the darn thing!

I believe you. I see tint ofsome sort in there. I don't think it's all coming from the surroundings. That's what makes me wonder if it's really a GIA J. The I that I have doesn't even have that much tint if I look straight through the side of it. I don't have a cert on it, but two jewelers who looked it unmounted called it GIA I.


I agree with the posts that said maybe yours has an undertone to it that affects the color. I can't tell from the pics, but I might have guessed green not beige, because my M has a green cast sometimes and can look a little sallow or just "dark" at certain angles. Sometimes it looks "lemony." Actually, it looks far more lemony in the lights at Lowe's and Home Depot and far whiter and paler in natural daylight of diffused natural daylight. And that's pretty much opposite of what some of the others in this thread have described about their diamonds. LOL

 

[TC1987]

Back to the original question, and quoting Rhino in his post, above:

...but the truth remains that when the optics of a diamond are demonstrably rare it will face up whither than their counterparts...

Contemplating that, and someone's earlier statement about online buyers buy colorless due to they are buying the paper and want to buy the "best": Part of the reason people at least start their quest looking at / for colorless diamonds might be because for a few decades the white, colorless, and so-called blue-whites were THE thing to buy. Much of that preference might have been due to many of those modern diamonds at least postwar '40s through '50s and maybe even into the '70s were poorly or oddly proportioned. Huge tables, low crown angles, deep pavilions, lack of fire, or fire only appearing around the outer rim of the diamond if it was viewed at an angle -- With optics like that, it probably had to be a D/E/F in order to look white. (I can imagine a K looking pretty darned muddy, LOL.) I am thinking of the diamond my mother received as her e-ring. It is almost all table, and no crown height, and it's set in an illusion mount boxy head, platinum. It is very white because it's an E, but it has really bland optics compared to modern superideal H&A.

 

[aljdewey]

I know it's probably inconceivable around these parts, and perhaps even moreso coming from me (a former disciple of precision cut), but I emphatically feel that the 'charm' of OECs is about more than just their history/age.

While I can still appreciate the beauty that goes into a top-cut stone, I'm sorry to say that I find them boring overall now. They just feel formulaic and cookie cutter to me now - not horribly distinctive and not nearly as pleasing to my eye as the lovely facet arrangement of a nicely cut OEC. I tend to think of ideal MRBs now like paint-by-numbers paintings; follow the recipe and you'll get a reasonably predictable and repeatable result.

OECs, on the other hand, feel like freehand paintings where beauty lies directly in the heart of the quirkiness; it's exactly why they are beautiful and charming. They feel much more whimsical and unique to me than ideal stones do, and the proof is in trying to match two OECs for earrings. It's pretty easy to match two ideal-cut MRBs, but far more challenging to match two OECs.

I think that's why I'm not a fan of the imitation OEC-flavor stones being cut today; it's less about the lack of history and much more about the lack of quirk. The very nature of having more precision strips the essence of the charm from them for me.

I guess I've morphed into a 'color outside the lines' type in my old(er) age. Who knew?

 

[The sun is shining]

Rhino, is the stone you are currently wearing the 1.67 by chance?

(Am I allowed to ask?)