WHY do people want whiter diamonds?

[ericad]

Me, I've always gone for the darker-hued stones. When I got engaged, I had a choice between a D and a J ... and I went with the J, and never looked back. In "blind taste tests" since then, I've been pretty consistent in that regard: inevitably, my sweet spot is somewhere in the near-colorless to faint-yellow range ... I'd say J to N, not having seen too many lower than that that weren't sufficiently tinged so as to be distinct in their demonstration of their body color. (For that matter, so was the N, but since it was a 4 carat AVC, I most certainly did not mind.) I guess my preference is for off-white ... doesn't so much matter what the underlying tone is, so long as it's neither stark nor noticeably yellow or champagne.

Circe, I genuinely prefer lower-coloured stones too - the darker, mellower, NotQuite"White"ButNotYetYellow J/K/L/M range is my favourite. It seems that range in particular is either adored or despised with little in-between! I have a beautifully cut 0.8ct E that I honestly just dislike, it's too bright icy white for me... 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

I also like this color range in part because I feel like they really show of the patterning. We use the term "personality" all the time to describe these colors and their chameleon appearance and the way that environmental colors really dramatically change this range of tints much more than colorless diamonds, which seem to stay white always. I want to get a handle on what this term "personality" means. Clearly, the color shifts. But I feel like it also has something to do with how the cut of the stone in perceived. Any thoughts ladies?

I think of personality as being each stone's unique and individual charm, which is comprised of many qualities: faceting style, color, symmetry, age, etc. Perhaps this is why "personality" is most often used to describe old cuts - because you see a lot more variation from stone to stone. No two antique OEC's will ever look alike in the same way that precision cut stones look alike. Hence each stone has its own unique "personality" or combination of attributes that makes it unique.

To borrow a quote from one of my favorite movies, I would say that this applies to diamonds too:

“Wine is like people. The wine takes all the influences in life all around it, it absorbs them and it gets its personality."
French Kiss (1995) – Luc (Kevin Kline)

Hi Erica,

I get what you're saying but here in NY and around the country I commonly see vendors romancing diamonds that are sloppily cut and with horrendous optics which aren't what I'd say "take in the influences in life all around it" but more a matter of "this is the largest diamond I could get from the rough". It's true there are absolutely beautiful OEC's but IMHO they are rare exceptions. There's a lot of crap out there being marketed as great that simply isn't. My .02c

Hope this finds you well.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

You and I will always agree to disagree on this one, Jon. I assume our inventory isn't comprised solely of those "rare exceptions" as you call them, yet every stone on our site is beautiful to us, and will be beautiful to the person who buys them. And every day we pass on stones that we wish we could buy because there are so many beautiful ones out there.

But then again, we're both a tad biased, are we not? You have a reason to call genuine old cuts "crap" (you have your reproduction AV's to sell, after all) just as I have a reason to preserve and praise them. Though I suspect that there are many on PS who own and love even misfit stones and wouldn't trade them for anything in the world.

You don't have to have an appreciation for the beauty of these old stones, but it's quite inflammatory to state that the majority of old cuts are sloppy, horrendous pieces of crap. I pity any old cut that enters your shop - that's a very judgmental position to take when clearly old cuts are in demand and people love them, even if you don't.

Also, the point of my quote was to suggest that diamonds are like people, in response to the question asking how we define "personality" in a stone. The same way we define it in people. Wine is like people, antique diamonds are like people. Quirky, flawed, showy, shy, loud, quiet, sophisticated. warm, cool. I could use any of these words and more to describe people and to describe old stones too. Make sense?

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you both. I have had the good fortune of comparing my own K color chunky cut to one of your AVR's, Rhino, in a G color.Both gorgeous. My stone obviously more tinted. But I also felt that my diamond shows the faceting more clearly because the contrast was greater. The less tinted stone made it harder to discern the specific facets individually on close viewing (my favourite way to view diamonds.) I have had similar observations with other more and less tinted diamonds. The less tinted seem harder to see the facet patterning because its lost in a wash of light/white. Am I imagining this? Is it explained by faceting differences rather than tint per se?

The easiest way to see facet pattern rather than light return is over obstruct the diamond.
Some diamonds you can't because by the time you get enough obstruction they are fuzzy or you just cant provide enough obstruction.
My guess the major part of the difference you saw is how they react to obstruction.

My favorite is playing a single light source across the stone lighting up different virtual facets as you go.
This works much better with the larger virtual facets and is pretty much impossible with a radiant or princess cut.
To me the virtual facets are much more interesting than the physical facets.

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

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Color preference is personal and subjective - using a vendor you trust, describing to them what you love and what your objective is, and then allowing them to be your eyes is really the best path to finding a diamond you love. And even then, especially with old cuts, it might take a few tries before you have a love connection!

I think this is a most eloquent summation of at least part of this thread.

 

[arkieb1]

I suspect Rhino is having fun with you Erica, otherwise why does he stock both genuine Old Cuts in his store and Antique pieces of jewellery as well.

Sadly Rhino, it's true not everyone actually wants a cookie cutter "New Old cut diamond" and while no-one questions their beauty other than possibly Leon, there is something unique, beautiful and special about a wonky but nice looking genuine hand cut diamond as well.

 

[yssie]

Yssie,
The same intensity white light will appear brighter than tinted light because more cells in the eye are excited.
Put this next to black and you get the most possible contrast for someone with normal vision.
Your graphic will not be an accurate representation because a monitor is not capable of showing yellow and white at the same intensity.
The eye is also less sensitive to some colors than others.
The eye/brain else tends to average things out and black next to white averages out to a higher level than yellow next to black.
It gets extremely complicated when you go too deep.

This is a good point Karl.
In that graphic the white/black is the middle, the left "white" is very slightly yellow, and the right "white" was supposed to be 'lower-intensity' and wound up being sort-of beige. I find it very interesting that it is the combo of 'lower-intensity' beige against black that stands out to me as having the most contrast, and I had not considered the fact that I'm making that comparison on a computer screen as an explanation..

At the end of the day, we try to paint the clearest picture we can of a lively object using static photos and written descriptions. Not all K's face up the same. Not all P's face up the same. This is a fact. Why would it be unscrupulous to state that a particular diamond that is, for example, a GIA N color, faces up like a K if this is in fact the best way to verbally describe that a specific diamond faces up more like a K than a "typical" N? We're not misrepresenting the stone - it's still a GIA N - we're just trying to provide as much information to our buyers as possible because we have the stone in our hands and want to convey its true appearance as best we can. Some diamonds just plain face up whiter than others of the same color grade.

I can't speak for any one else of course, but I personally dislike that sort of explicit colour-grade comparison not because I don't trust the vendor but because it can slide around so much... not all O/Ps face up the same, definitely! But not all Ms do either, so to me saying that an O/P faces up like an "M" can be confusing because then my first question is "what sort of M"? High, low - what's the M that's being compared? Or if you say that do you mean that this O/P faces up like the body colour of an M, disregarding face-up colour of that M? I just thought of that second explanation when typing this and that makes a lot of sense to me!

Generally what we mean is that the stone faces up 2+ grades whiter than one would expect of a "typical" O/P. It's not to be taken as a literal comparison to any specific M colored stone. It faces up like a "typical" M, which would be whiter than a "typical" O/P, broadly and subjectively speaking. GIA doesn't differentiate between high and low ranges within the same color grade, and we don't expect our descriptions to be held to that level of detail either. The diamond is still an O/P and is priced like an O/P.

Color preference is personal and subjective - using a vendor you trust, describing to them what you love and what your objective is, and then allowing them to be your eyes is really the best path to finding a diamond you love. And even then, especially with old cuts, it might take a few tries before you have a love connection!

ericad, thanks for your explanation! I especially agree with that last paragraph. As a consumer I've certainly had that experience - taking a couple of tries to find the Right old cut for me... and with old cuts vs. MRBs my priorities are different and the things I'm looking for are different... I really do think seeing is believing for all diamonds though, old and new!

 

[Rhino]

Me, I've always gone for the darker-hued stones. When I got engaged, I had a choice between a D and a J ... and I went with the J, and never looked back. In "blind taste tests" since then, I've been pretty consistent in that regard: inevitably, my sweet spot is somewhere in the near-colorless to faint-yellow range ... I'd say J to N, not having seen too many lower than that that weren't sufficiently tinged so as to be distinct in their demonstration of their body color. (For that matter, so was the N, but since it was a 4 carat AVC, I most certainly did not mind.) I guess my preference is for off-white ... doesn't so much matter what the underlying tone is, so long as it's neither stark nor noticeably yellow or champagne.

Circe, I genuinely prefer lower-coloured stones too - the darker, mellower, NotQuite"White"ButNotYetYellow J/K/L/M range is my favourite. It seems that range in particular is either adored or despised with little in-between! I have a beautifully cut 0.8ct E that I honestly just dislike, it's too bright icy white for me... 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

I also like this color range in part because I feel like they really show of the patterning. We use the term "personality" all the time to describe these colors and their chameleon appearance and the way that environmental colors really dramatically change this range of tints much more than colorless diamonds, which seem to stay white always. I want to get a handle on what this term "personality" means. Clearly, the color shifts. But I feel like it also has something to do with how the cut of the stone in perceived. Any thoughts ladies?

I think of personality as being each stone's unique and individual charm, which is comprised of many qualities: faceting style, color, symmetry, age, etc. Perhaps this is why "personality" is most often used to describe old cuts - because you see a lot more variation from stone to stone. No two antique OEC's will ever look alike in the same way that precision cut stones look alike. Hence each stone has its own unique "personality" or combination of attributes that makes it unique.

To borrow a quote from one of my favorite movies, I would say that this applies to diamonds too:

“Wine is like people. The wine takes all the influences in life all around it, it absorbs them and it gets its personality."
French Kiss (1995) – Luc (Kevin Kline)

Hi Erica,

I get what you're saying but here in NY and around the country I commonly see vendors romancing diamonds that are sloppily cut and with horrendous optics which aren't what I'd say "take in the influences in life all around it" but more a matter of "this is the largest diamond I could get from the rough". It's true there are absolutely beautiful OEC's but IMHO they are rare exceptions. There's a lot of crap out there being marketed as great that simply isn't. My .02c

Hope this finds you well.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

You and I will always agree to disagree on this one, Jon. I assume our inventory isn't comprised solely of those "rare exceptions" as you call them, yet every stone on our site is beautiful to us, and will be beautiful to the person who buys them. And every day we pass on stones that we wish we could buy because there are so many beautiful ones out there.

But then again, we're both a tad biased, are we not? You have a reason to call genuine old cuts "crap" (you have your reproduction AV's to sell, after all) just as I have a reason to preserve and praise them. Though I suspect that there are many on PS who own and love even misfit stones and wouldn't trade them for anything in the world.

You don't have to have an appreciation for the beauty of these old stones, but it's quite inflammatory to state that the majority of old cuts are sloppy, horrendous pieces of crap. I pity any old cut that enters your shop - that's a very judgmental position to take when clearly old cuts are in demand and people love them, even if you don't.

Also, the point of my quote was to suggest that diamonds are like people, in response to the question asking how we define "personality" in a stone. The same way we define it in people. Wine is like people, antique diamonds are like people. Quirky, flawed, showy, shy, loud, quiet, sophisticated. warm, cool. I could use any of these words and more to describe people and to describe old stones too. Make sense?

I hear you Erica. No disagreement. Truth is, there is generally someone for everything. As a diamond grader there are many times I've examined many wonky diamonds to shake my head only to do a practical examination afterwards and say ... as wonkily as this thing is cut it does in fact have charm. I do however stand by my statement that there's lots that are just butt ugly. Not too long ago I posted one we had here that got a light performance grade greater than 10! Here is the ASET. We're not as opposed in our opinion as you think my friend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

(edit) double post

 

[Rhino]

I suspect Rhino is having fun with you Erica, otherwise why does he stock both genuine Old Cuts in his store and Antique pieces of jewellery as well.

Sadly Rhino, it's true not everyone actually wants a cookie cutter "New Old cut diamond" and while no-one questions their beauty other than possibly Leon, there is something unique, beautiful and special about a wonky but nice looking genuine hand cut diamond as well.

No disagreement Arkieb.

Just an interesting point of note ... think about those shopping for round brilliant cut diamonds and your point above.

You see ... I am one who genuinely does like variety.

 

[yssie]

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

Could I request a pic or a diagram of these one/two/three narrow sliver virtual facets flanking the arrows?

Karl posted this pic in another thread on H&A patterning
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/[/URL]

But I assume these are not what you mean?

 

[yssie]

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

 

[Rhino]

Color preference is personal and subjective - using a vendor you trust, describing to them what you love and what your objective is, and then allowing them to be your eyes is really the best path to finding a diamond you love. And even then, especially with old cuts, it might take a few tries before you have a love connection!

I think this is a most eloquent summation of at least part of this thread.

I second that.

 

[yssie]

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...

 

[Smith1942]

The colour difference between D and I is more obvious when the camera is at a slight side angle.

Nice try and good thinking but there is too much variation in the environment that the diamonds are picking up to show what you want to show.
You would need to carefully isolate the diamonds in a white environment to get an accurate comparison.

But how come the D diamond is not picking up colour from the environment, if that's where the colour is coming from?

A couple of people have said they can't see much difference between the two. You can see very noticeable tint, in my opinion, in the third photo down. That's what the diamond looks like in real life.

I can see a big difference between these two diamonds. I'm a book editor so I proofread a lot for a living - even looking at periods, commas, and apostrophes etc in different fonts, as typographical standards are so high at good publishing houses. I can see periods in different sizes without using a magnifying glass, although I do have to concentrate. Perhaps I can see this colour difference just due to the kind of trained eyes I've got, with being used to noticing every tiny detail about a font.

 

[Smith1942]

To answer the OP, I prefer icy colours - D or E.

I have quite strong opinions on diamond colour in terms of what I like and don't like, because I wear a colour I didn't choose, every day. My enagagement ring is a fab cut - Hearts on Fire - but it's an I colour. It was a gift long ago, I had no input, there's no trade-in programme and my husband doesn't believe in upgrades or buying any kind of jewellery, so I'm quite stuck with it. Actually, I really like the stone for its wonderful cut. It's very fiery indeed, and it has a lot of sentimental value.

However, to critique the stone purely on its colour: Despite the optimal cut, it can look dark. In daylight, it faces up very white....but it isn't white. Once you take it out of daylight, it starts to look darker. When I hold my D diamonds next to it, it looks distinctly lemon.

Many posters talk about warmth, which sounds lovely. If the stone was warm but light, I'd like it. However, in my experience with my engagement ring, the tint does not only bring warmth, it brings darkness. The stone is actually darker than my well-cut Ds, not just warmer.

To be honest though, my stone always looked perfectly white to me until I started buying diamonds (it started about four years ago when I decided to get a pair of studs from Blue Nile). After I got educated and bought higher-coloured diamonds and started comparing, I could really see the difference. But before, when I knew nothing about diamonds, it looked fine.

But there's no going back. Once you know and see the difference, you can't un-see it, at least I couldn't. What happened next is that I got my sticky paws on a nice fat AGS triple 0 D-colour diamond, and that was it. Lurve. I had no idea a diamond could look so cold, so icy, so yummy. Like an Arctic lake.

I have since bought I diamonds in finished jewellery pieces, as melee. They look fine. I just wouldn't choose a larger diamond in that colour. I think I'd rather have a smaller diamond to get an icier colour.

I really notice the difference between my D/E colours and my engagement ring in dimmer environments, like in restaurants. When a given restaurant has had mirrors, I have looked at my reflection from about four feet away, and held up my hand to compare. The D studs and pendant remained quite visible as pinpricks of white ice in the dimness, whereas the darker I colour ring pretty much disappeared. That, for me, sums up the difference - and the value - between the icier colours and warmer ones.

Having said that, I am waiting for the arrival of a G pendant from BGD. I am sure it will be quite white enough - it was the right price and time for the purchase, and I am very happy with a G for this piece. I wouldn't have bought an I, though. Just my preference.

That reminds me of those old DeBeers ads. '80s maybe, that had the entire picture dark/dim, except for that one very white diamond. There used to be a test that one of the PS trade people mentioned: Take the stone under the desk, wrap one's fingers so that no light comes in through the pavillion, and see how bright of dim it looks. One could probably do that with two diamonds to compare colors. I think that some of the HoF are not the best of the superideal cuts. I looked at I colors stones up to about 1.5ct in jewelry stores when I was buying and none of them looked dim. I wore a colorless cz ring to have something to compare to.

But back when I was buying, GOG was using that Gemex Brilliance Scope and posting a live report for each RB. I looked at a lot of those reports for stones ranging E down to I or J, and I did see some "dim" stones in high colors that were simply not as good at reflecting, but they had good numbers on paper. The body tint showed as darker around the rim of the stone, like not as much light passed through it or something.

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!

 

[Smith1942]

Smith all those photos and all those diamonds look the same to me. Also, the diamond in the window is reflecting environmental color fairly clearly to my eyes at least... I am not sure what you are intending to show with those images? Of course an I and a D have different body tints after all.

We were discussing my I stone at some points in the thread and also, since this thread is about why people might prefer whiter diamonds, I thought it would be interesting to see a D and an I side-by-side, because to me there is quite a difference. It's not very common to see two diamonds of these colours posted together on PS, so I thought it would make a nice contribution to the thread. The question was, WHY do people want whiter diamonds? And I thought these pics demonstrated "why" pretty well - that the I colour has an obvious dark lemon tint and that's not to everyone's taste which I think is very apparent in the third pic. But apparently the difference isn't quite as obvious to others!

 

[chappy]

wow, you guys are sure passionate about your diamonds! very cool to read.

When placing a poorly cut stone in a middle color such as I, J, K next to an incredibly well cut diamond of the same colors, almost without exception the better cut stones will look much whiter than the poorly cut stones.

maybe this is also part of the reason! a better cut makes a stone brighter, so it reasons that there would be more badly cut stones of lower color grades. people see these badly cut stones and assume it's the color that makes them awful, when it's actually the cut at fault.

color is easier to differentiate at larger sizes, but at what point does it become negligible? can anyone tell the difference between a 2mm H and a 2mm M? what about a 1mm?

 

[Smith1942]

Me, I've always gone for the darker-hued stones. When I got engaged, I had a choice between a D and a J ... and I went with the J, and never looked back. In "blind taste tests" since then, I've been pretty consistent in that regard: inevitably, my sweet spot is somewhere in the near-colorless to faint-yellow range ... I'd say J to N, not having seen too many lower than that that weren't sufficiently tinged so as to be distinct in their demonstration of their body color. (For that matter, so was the N, but since it was a 4 carat AVC, I most certainly did not mind.) I guess my preference is for off-white ... doesn't so much matter what the underlying tone is, so long as it's neither stark nor noticeably yellow or champagne.

Circe, I genuinely prefer lower-coloured stones too - the darker, mellower, NotQuite"White"ButNotYetYellow J/K/L/M range is my favourite. It seems that range in particular is either adored or despised with little in-between! I have a beautifully cut 0.8ct E that I honestly just dislike, it's too bright icy white for me... 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

I also like this color range in part because I feel like they really show of the patterning. We use the term "personality" all the time to describe these colors and their chameleon appearance and the way that environmental colors really dramatically change this range of tints much more than colorless diamonds, which seem to stay white always. I want to get a handle on what this term "personality" means. Clearly, the color shifts. But I feel like it also has something to do with how the cut of the stone in perceived. Any thoughts ladies?

I think of personality as being each stone's unique and individual charm, which is comprised of many qualities: faceting style, color, symmetry, age, etc. Perhaps this is why "personality" is most often used to describe old cuts - because you see a lot more variation from stone to stone. No two antique OEC's will ever look alike in the same way that precision cut stones look alike. Hence each stone has its own unique "personality" or combination of attributes that makes it unique.

To borrow a quote from one of my favorite movies, I would say that this applies to diamonds too:

“Wine is like people. The wine takes all the influences in life all around it, it absorbs them and it gets its personality."
French Kiss (1995) – Luc (Kevin Kline)

Hi Erica,

I get what you're saying but here in NY and around the country I commonly see vendors romancing diamonds that are sloppily cut and with horrendous optics which aren't what I'd say "take in the influences in life all around it" but more a matter of "this is the largest diamond I could get from the rough". It's true there are absolutely beautiful OEC's but IMHO they are rare exceptions. There's a lot of crap out there being marketed as great that simply isn't. My .02c

Hope this finds you well.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

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.

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.

Taking something of low value and low rarity, making it out to be special and selling it for a high price is marketing genius! I am NOT saying that anyone on PS does this, but I can well see the trend that Rhino is talking about in general when I've been shopping for jewellery of all kinds. Sometimes blue topaz and other very common semi-precious low-rarity gems are presented by companies as something incredibly special and expensive, when we all know they should be inexpensive for what they are.

ETA: It's the same with the book industry and first editions. You'd think that the content of a book is what matters. But no - first edition, first impression printings sell for hundreds of thousands sometimes, and it's preferable if there are errors in the first impression which were corrected in the second. It doesn't matter how ragged, how torn, how mildewed, or how smelly - they are presented as special and valuable, even though the physical nature of the book has nothing to do with its content, which to me, lives independently of its physical paper and binding, and should be the most important thing.

But really, if someone takes something ordinary and tells people it's extraordinary, and they believe it, then good for the clever business person! I recently saw a ripped and torn first edition of two stories by Virginia Woolf, 150 pages, for 27,500 pounds, so about fifty thousand dollars. I could understand that if it was the author's handwritten manuscript, but it isn't.

I'm saying that I think the phenomenon that Rhino referred to is quite common in lots of businesses. Canny, as my grandmother would have said!

Going back to the jewellery industry, I think a great example of presenting something ordinary as being very special was when Tiffany obtained pieces of the first transatlantic telegraph cables and sold them at his store!

An example from the fashion industry: My cousin is the creative director of Samsonite but before that he was a designer at LVMH (Pucci, Fendi, Givenchy, Dior etc). However, before that he was in the French Foreign Legion. I know. Long story. Anyway, at LVMH he designed simple leather wristbands stamped with his old Legionnaire number. Those things flew out of the shops. Again, just a piece of nothing very much that became desirable for no real reason. Seems it happens in many industries, which all, of course, have their clever marketers. Why should the jewellery industry be any different? I think Rhino is right.

 

[LLJsmom]

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.

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.

Taking something of low value and low rarity, making it out to be special and selling it for a high price is marketing genius! I am NOT saying that anyone on PS does this, but I can well see the trend that Rhino is talking about in general when I've been shopping for jewellery of all kinds. Sometimes blue topaz and other very common semi-precious low-rarity gems are presented by companies as something incredibly special and expensive, when we all know they should be inexpensive for what they are.

ETA: It's the same with the book industry and first editions. You'd think that the content of a book is what matters. But no - first edition, first impression printings sell for hundreds of thousands sometimes, and it's preferable if there are errors in the first impression which were corrected in the second. It doesn't matter how ragged, how torn, how mildewed, or how smelly - they are presented as special and valuable, even though the physical nature of the book has nothing to do with its content, which to me, lives independently of its physical paper and binding, and should be the most important thing.

But really, if someone takes something ordinary and tells people it's extraordinary, and they believe it, then good for the clever business person! I recently saw a ripped and torn first edition of two stories by Virginia Woolf, 150 pages, for 27,500 pounds, so about fifty thousand dollars. I could understand that if it was the author's handwritten manuscript, but it isn't.

I'm saying that I think the phenomenon that Rhino referred to is quite common in lots of businesses. Canny, as my grandmother would have said!

Going back to the jewellery industry, I think a great example of presenting something ordinary as being very special was when Tiffany obtained pieces of the first transatlantic telegraph cables and sold them at his store!

An example from the fashion industry: My cousin is the creative director of Samsonite but before that he was a designer at LVMH (Pucci, Fendi, Givenchy, Dior etc). However, before that he was in the French Foreign Legion. I know. Long story. Anyway, at LVMH he designed simple leather wristbands stamped with his old Legionnaire number. Those things flew out of the shops. Again, just a piece of nothing very much that became desirable for no real reason. Seems it happens in many industries, which all, of course, have their clever marketers. Why should the jewellery industry be any different? I think Rhino is right.

Smith, I would definitely agree with you regarding the whole concept of marketing. That's economics in general too though, right? If people assign value to it, if people BELEIVE in it, then it has value. Then comes the question of what really has value? What has intrinsic value? What is the definition of intrinsic? Back in the day, people traded in gold because they assigned value to it. Now, people use cash. Or virtual cash (ie bank balances). I don't know. It's a hard argument either way. (Remember that ugly Cabbage Patch doll? OMG. Moms would beat each other up to nab one of those things. I thought it was the ugliest thing ever. But for every one of me, there were probably 20 people that wanted it. Marketing? Or however that thing became popular? Momentum? Mob mentality? Who knows?

If everyone (meaning the world outside of PS) decided that old cuts are rarer (or for whatever reason) and therefore more valuable, then maybe they will become the standard, versus the MRB. If I understand it correctly, the general reason whiter diamonds (all else being equal) cost more is because they are rarer in nature. Ds and Es are harder to come by than the lower colors. But maybe people decide that rarity should not be a deciding factor. Or you could argue that old cuts (genuine, not cut in current day) are maybe rarer still. (Don't kill me people. I'm just posing a hypothetical.) Thus these would be more in demand and lower in supply, thus driving up the price. But what do I know. I guess if the price of colorless diamonds decrease, good for me, right?

 

[WinkHPD]

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

Could I request a pic or a diagram of these one/two/three narrow sliver virtual facets flanking the arrows?

Karl posted this pic in another thread on H&A patterning
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/[/URL]

But I assume these are not what you mean?

Actually this is exactly what I mean. I have tried to draw some small red lines around some of the tiny virtual facets. I just had carpel tunnel surgery so the result is NOT pretty. Karl's photo that you provided is a wonderful example of what I am talking about. This diamond may have a high cut grade, I really do not know, but it will NOT be a top looking stone, no matter the paper.



The greenish looking arrow at 3 o'clock has at least two tiny virtual facets on the top of it, and some angular shaped ones on the bottom of it that interrupt a lot of the light it could give without them.

Karl, that is an incredible photo!

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, that is an incredible photo!

Wink

Thanks Wink, to be clear its a DC generated image using a simulated light setup mimicking the lighting in the devise Marty designed. 10k+ pinpoint light sources around the diamond.
That image is based on a helium scan of an actual diamond imported into DC.
What is interesting is it can show the effect of facets that are not flat and have azimuth shift across their face.

 

[arkieb1]

I suspect Rhino is having fun with you Erica, otherwise why does he stock both genuine Old Cuts in his store and Antique pieces of jewellery as well.

Sadly Rhino, it's true not everyone actually wants a cookie cutter "New Old cut diamond" and while no-one questions their beauty other than possibly Leon, there is something unique, beautiful and special about a wonky but nice looking genuine hand cut diamond as well.

No disagreement Arkieb.

Just an interesting point of note ... think about those shopping for round brilliant cut diamonds and your point above.

You see ... I am one who genuinely does like variety.

Lopsey Fuggs has a touch too much wonk even for me

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

 

[Ashleigh]

I haven't read thru all the responses and am not sure if this has been mentioned but skin tone does play a part for some people's color preference. Owing to my skin tone, stark white doesn't work. I'm sure there are others who are the opposite of me and hence they love whiter stones.

 

[Tourmaline]

I agree with Wink that many people want whiter stones because they are buying a piece of paper. Whiter is more expensive, so it must be better. This is, of course, not the driving force for everyone. It's clear we all have different preferences. But I think it's pretty common.

Yesterday I took two pictures of my 5.01ct GIA L/VS1 in different lighting, because I was struck by how it fascinates me that my diamond seems to change color throughout the day (different lighting). I read someone saying that she really doesn't like that her lower colored diamond doesn't always look the same, but I *LOVE* this aspect of it. It makes it feel extra magical to me.

The first was taken in the car in the afternoon. The sky was overcast, and there was snow on the ground. I love the complexity of the color.



Then I took this one in the evening, with indoor lighting (I mentioned previously that we have very warm lighting). To me, it looks like a lovely light canary yellow here. My daughter's math homework was the only white background around, hee hee.

 

[Ashleigh]

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!

Smith, I've seen a GIA J with brown body hue appear darker than GIA L without any body hue. I suspect your I color diamond might have some body hue, maybe grey. Brown body hue actually appears slightly peachy. Since you only said darker, I think it might be grey body hue.

 

[WinkHPD]

Karl, that is an incredible photo!

Wink

Thanks Wink, to be clear its a DC generated image using a simulated light setup mimicking the lighting in the devise Marty designed. 10k+ pinpoint light sources around the diamond.
That image is based on a helium scan of an actual diamond imported into DC.
What is interesting is it can show the effect of facets that are not flat and have azimuth shift across their face.

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

 

[Dreamer_D]

The colour difference between D and I is more obvious when the camera is at a slight side angle.

Nice try and good thinking but there is too much variation in the environment that the diamonds are picking up to show what you want to show.
You would need to carefully isolate the diamonds in a white environment to get an accurate comparison.

But how come the D diamond is not picking up colour from the environment, if that's where the colour is coming from?

A couple of people have said they can't see much difference between the two. You can see very noticeable tint, in my opinion, in the third photo down. That's what the diamond looks like in real life.

I can see a big difference between these two diamonds. I'm a book editor so I proofread a lot for a living - even looking at periods, commas, and apostrophes etc in different fonts, as typographical standards are so high at good publishing houses. I can see periods in different sizes without using a magnifying glass, although I do have to concentrate. Perhaps I can see this colour difference just due to the kind of trained eyes I've got, with being used to noticing every tiny detail about a font.

In real life I am sure most of us could see the difference. It is hard to capture color accurately in photos.

 

[Smith1942]

The colour difference between D and I is more obvious when the camera is at a slight side angle.

Nice try and good thinking but there is too much variation in the environment that the diamonds are picking up to show what you want to show.
You would need to carefully isolate the diamonds in a white environment to get an accurate comparison.

But how come the D diamond is not picking up colour from the environment, if that's where the colour is coming from?

A couple of people have said they can't see much difference between the two. You can see very noticeable tint, in my opinion, in the third photo down. That's what the diamond looks like in real life.

I can see a big difference between these two diamonds. I'm a book editor so I proofread a lot for a living - even looking at periods, commas, and apostrophes etc in different fonts, as typographical standards are so high at good publishing houses. I can see periods in different sizes without using a magnifying glass, although I do have to concentrate. Perhaps I can see this colour difference just due to the kind of trained eyes I've got, with being used to noticing every tiny detail about a font.

In real life I am sure most of us could see the difference. It is hard to capture color accurately in photos.

You mean my eyes are not vastly superior to everyone else's? Darn, now I'm disappointed! The photos are surprisingly accurate, BTW. Maybe not exactly the same. Someone else said it might have a grey undertone in real life, which makes sense.

 

[Smith1942]

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!

Smith, I've seen a GIA J with brown body hue appear darker than GIA L without any body hue. I suspect your I color diamond might have some body hue, maybe grey. Brown body hue actually appears slightly peachy. Since you only said darker, I think it might be grey body hue.

Ashleigh, that is a really fascinating insight. Thank you so much. If a grey hue = darkness, then maybe that's what it has. I mean, it's not dark in daylight, but in dimmer electric lighting it pretty much disappears. I do wish I could see the rings of other PSers in order to see what nicer warmer colours look like. Niel's marquise is a K and in all the photos it looks a lovely ivory colour. Maybe diamonds are like wedding dresses - in the Eighties it was all stark white satin, and now the trends are towards ivory, beige, off-white, etc!

 

[Smith1942]

Smith, I would definitely agree with you regarding the whole concept of marketing. That's economics in general too though, right? If people assign value to it, if people BELEIVE in it, then it has value. Then comes the question of what really has value? What has intrinsic value? What is the definition of intrinsic? Back in the day, people traded in gold because they assigned value to it. Now, people use cash. Or virtual cash (ie bank balances). I don't know. It's a hard argument either way. (Remember that ugly Cabbage Patch doll? OMG. Moms would beat each other up to nab one of those things. I thought it was the ugliest thing ever. But for every one of me, there were probably 20 people that wanted it. Marketing? Or however that thing became popular? Momentum? Mob mentality? Who knows?

If everyone (meaning the world outside of PS) decided that old cuts are rarer (or for whatever reason) and therefore more valuable, then maybe they will become the standard, versus the MRB. If I understand it correctly, the general reason whiter diamonds (all else being equal) cost more is because they are rarer in nature. Ds and Es are harder to come by than the lower colors. But maybe people decide that rarity should not be a deciding factor. Or you could argue that old cuts (genuine, not cut in current day) are maybe rarer still. (Don't kill me people. I'm just posing a hypothetical.) Thus these would be more in demand and lower in supply, thus driving up the price. But what do I know. I guess if the price of colorless diamonds decrease, good for me, right?

Yes, but at least diamonds and their properties do have some objective value because of rarity - whether high clarity, high colour, size, a combo. But things like the telegraph cable - that is pure marketing! And it seems that human beings are driven to acquire what is rare (you said maybe we will decide that rarity is not a factor, but I think it has been ever thus!) But you're right about trends - it is just amazing the volte-face that they can do. Example, time was when a pale face was considered the bee's knees as it meant you didn't have to work outside. Contrast that with today's tan worship!

 

[Ashleigh]

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!

Smith, I've seen a GIA J with brown body hue appear darker than GIA L without any body hue. I suspect your I color diamond might have some body hue, maybe grey. Brown body hue actually appears slightly peachy. Since you only said darker, I think it might be grey body hue.

Ashleigh, that is a really fascinating insight. Thank you so much. If a grey hue = darkness, then maybe that's what it has. I mean, it's not dark in daylight, but in dimmer electric lighting it pretty much disappears. I do wish I could see the rings of other PSers in order to see what nicer warmer colours look like. Niel's marquise is a K and in all the photos it looks a lovely ivory colour. Maybe diamonds are like wedding dresses - in the Eighties it was all stark white satin, and now the trends are towards ivory, beige, off-white, etc!

I saw 2 diamonds with grey hue on JA 360 rotate a few months back. Very fascinating! Love them online but no idea how I will feel IRL. Maybe you can see if your diamond looks like the grey hue ones on JA?