A diamond debate- when is it too much info?

[Green with Envy]

I just had lunch with some recent new PS members and some non-PS members and this is our debate... any simple answers are appreciated.

If 10 average people (assuming folks on PS are ABOVE averge) looked at two identical diamonds in identical light with just their naked eyes- would they be able to tell the difference between these two diamonds??? Hypothetically?

Let''s say BOTH are ACA Hearts and Arrow Round dimonds- both 1 carat, color G, VS2 with AGS ideal ratings for all polish, symmetry, negliable florescence, etc. and no one has a loupe or spare ideal scope on hand.

Maybe average folks can tell the difference between one of the stones listed above compared to a perfect 1 ct, D color, flawless AGS ideal, but will they honestly be able to tell any visual difference with the two exact same stones listed above?

Looking for "yes" "no" or "probably not" answers. Any "it depends" answers must have simple reasons for why that we can explain to our non-PS pals.

Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

It depends...
between 2 ACA's
Both newline? Both classic?
lgf% for both is the near the same.
If all of the above is identical then none of the 10 will see any difference.

vs another AGS0
There are way too many variables too say.
How old are they? Wear glasses? Skin tone? Color clothes? (dark clothes make differences stand out more)
the AGS0 might be a 60/60 and easily told apart from the ACA by cut alone.
or it might be my favorite combo: 34.2/41 80%lgf 60% stars and some would see the difference in personality but it depends on the lighting.
Depending on lighting a few might see a little color difference but some will pick the G as the higher color.

 

[strmrdr]

btw by specifying ACA brand stones you skewed the results you were looking for because they are cut to the same specs within a small variation of crown and pavilion angles and the stars are generally in the same range.
They are also cut in two different types: new line and classic.
The lgf% varies a bit from diamond to diamond is likely the largest visible variation in each model line.

 

[Green with Envy]

Sorry- STill trying to get the lingo down-

what does it mean by both newline and classic? You mean newly cut or rated, vs. a diamond ranked with a older ACA standard? or older AGS standard?

ALso- Do you mean someone can tell the difference between a ACA rated vs a diamond without ACA rating, but still both AGS ideal?

Or do you mean someone will only be able to tell the difference between the "perfect" stone vs the ACA with lower color and clarity?

When you say your favorite combo... what does each number/ lgf refer to? THANKS!!!

 

[Green with Envy]

I feel like I have been reading PS for days, like crack for someone who loves jewelry! BUt- I did not even yet realize two ACA cutting styles. Looked it up and now I understand. So what storm is saying is that some people might prefer the look of a ideal diamond that has dimensions cut differently to the WF ACA standards?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Most of us wouldn''t be able to tell an ACA from an unbranded AGS0. They would both be beautiful and personal preference would determine which one each person would pick. But I think I could pick a D from a G. You probably could not tell the VS2 from the flawless with the naked eye, though. You could definitely tell those two apart by the price tags, however.

 

[Green with Envy]

In terms of looks...ACA classic vs new line.

Experts say you CAN see a difference when it is pointed out to people- yet equally beautiful.

How does an internet shopper decide what they might prefer when probably never have the chance to see actual stones to compare before making a puchase?

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Well, in general people who don''t know much about diamonds will either pick a very low color and clarity diamond because they don''t know any better, or they will pick a VERY high color and clarity diamond because they don''t know any better.

The most evident example of this is in the Flawless to VS2 clarity rating. For MANY VS2''s it is very unlikely to detect the inclusions with your naked eye...though at the right angle from the side you can sometimes see them when you know the right place to look and what to look for, and in some occasions they are pretty blatant. Move up to VS1 and there is virtually no way to see the inclusions with your naked eye for the vast majority of them.

What this means is that with knowledge you learn to maximize visual appearance while minimizing cost and thus you are able to maximizing size. That is why many of us here on PS would recommend SI1 and SI2''s, but NOT Flawless diamonds because, as you point out, there won''t be any visual difference in an eye clean diamond and a flawless diamond but it will cost ALOT more money for the same size diamond.

The same thing applies to color, but with color it is a little bit more subjective as some people will be bothered by color in different ways.

Some people are much more sensitive than others and it will largely depend on what type of setting you get and how keen your eyes are and how good your cut is (in regards to face up appearance) as to how clearly the color is shown. Thus, here on PS the general recommendation is to pick a stone where when it is mounted and you are looking at it by itself you do not notice anything that you would call colored--unless that color is something that you really enjoy. With color, its totally up to you and your preference. With clarity, it is just like you say, most people aim for eye cleanliness, not flawlessness.

Consequently, The average person might choose a "K I2" or a "D VVS1" without really understanding what it means, but here on PS we generally say pick a color you are comfortable with, and make sure that when your ring is mounted you can''t see the inclusions.

And that is why it isn''t possible to know too much, as knowing would allow you to choose the G VS2 that is twice the size of the D F and not sacrifice any real beauty.

 

[Green with Envy]

Very well said! I do understand that for what you get for the money- PS would probably recommend a SI1 over Vs2 if all other things are the same. I was in a store and was supposedly shown a H SI1 compared to a g vs2 and I noticed a very big diffference in color-- and when I looked really close at the SI1- I saw what looked like a tiny black speck in the middle of the table. I did not see actual papers to confirm what the saleperson told me- but now I am nervous to buy a Si1 vs a VS2 online because definitions of eye clean depend on the results of one''s laser eye surgery! Am I wrong to just spend a little more and just always go with a well cut VS2 over a Si1?

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

FIRST--if all other things were the same except for size
Also, as you may know, who certified the diamond as H and G is important. I doubt you would have seen a VERY big difference, but I prefer a higher color than H myself, at least for a ring.

The following will be a bit hypocritical as I made my decision to go with VS2 for a variety of reasons and before I learned how helpful the vendors can really be--and so at the time it was really my only option. However, I have learned that you don't have to be nervous. The PS vendors will check everything that you need them to check and explain it to you. They will do it well, and they can send you images, and if everything checks out you can have someone you trust check it out personally and then they will send you the diamond and you can always return it. Or I guess if it was an expensive purchase you could have it sent to an appraiser and look at it their, but I didn't worry about that so I am not sure of the procedure. Basically, it is pretty easy, but if you are really nervous and need some extra assurance, they are there and willing to give it to you--even when it isn't truly necessary.

One thing to remember is just as it is put on the websites. If you check the James Allen website or others you will see that they have written in their explanation of SI clarity stones that these are the hardest to choose from, as sometimes the inclusions will be obvious where as in others it will be pretty much impossible to see. though these will usually be visible from certain angles. But the PS vendors I have worked with have been INCREDIBLE and will def help you to pick a stone that will not have any obvious inclusions like that SI you looked at. I can recommend Jenifer and JA for certain, but others I have talked to have been equally as ready to help. It is def a very real possiblity to get a lower clarity, but you will have to use some judgement. Search the data available, find some with some nice looking inclusion plots and then call up to have them inspected and have them report the color of the inclusions to you. Once you find a couple that look promising get more information about them to weed it down, and have whatever other information you need to make a good decision made available to you. The clarity part is going to be a little harder with SI1, as you will have to deal with a number of reports coming back unfavorably and the process will thus take a bit longer. But it should be quite doable.

Like I said though, I chose VS2, but if i were to go back to 4 months ago I would probably start the search here on PS looking for an Eyeclean SI1. But there is no way I have time for that now, and I am quite happy with my diamond

I am a bit lengthy but to finally sum it up, if you have time, you should try out having some SI1's looked at for you at least, before deciding to pay the price hike for VS2, as it is a very real jump in expense.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/30/2007 8:50:20 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Most of us wouldn't be able to tell an ACA from an unbranded AGS0.

It depends most people could fairly easily tell a 60/60 ags0 from an ACA. they may even prefer one over the other but some might not.
When you start playing with table size the visual difference adds up quickly.
Overall performance wise the edge would go too the ACA in most lighting in my opinion and I think a lot of experts would agree but some would disagree too.

But comparing it too the more PS typical near Tolkowsky branded and unbranded h&a's it is more a matter of small differences and personal preference than performance. You are correct on that :}
Just keep in mind that the ags0 range is a lot wider than the ags0 diamonds we are used to seeing here.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

New line painted type diamonds aside, which have a slightly different appearance (not better or worse), I doubt experts can tell the difference between non H&A''s with good ideal-scope appearance and H&A''s grade sym with equivalent ideal-scope images.

Steep deep H&A''s with table ideal-scope partial leakage would be able to be weaned out by some consumers when clean and loose, but all consumers would see this difference when they had been worn for a day or 2 and were a bit dirty.

At 1ct size in rounds D-F is indistinguishable for almost everyone, and few consumers can see G-D. About 70% can see H-D in 1ct and 50% in 1/2 carat.

In larger sizes like 3ct, H is yellowish and F-D is still hard for all to see the difference - G is about 50:50. Of course a medium to strong fluoro H or G can appear the same as the D in many but not all types of lighting.

Clarity also becomes easier to see as size increases. Many 5ct VS2''s that are concentrated in 1 or 2 spots can be seen by young people.
avoid SI2 large stones if you can not see the inclusion - it is probably given the grade because of clouds or graining.

 

[Green with Envy]

Steep deep H&A''s with table ideal-scope partial leakage would be able to be weaned out by some consumers when clean and loose, but all consumers would see this difference when they had been worn for a day or 2 and were a bit dirty.


When we say "steep deep H&A''s with table scope ideal-scope partial leakage"- are we talking about a non-ACA diamond that is going to have poor light return- thus when the stone gets dirty it really will look boring. OR are we talking about the partial light leakage that comes from a classic cut ACA compared to a new line cut with no white seen with IS? I am assuming you are talking about a very deep diamond with poor lighht return-

but I am still confused about what a consumer will see differently with a new line vs. classic ACA. AFter seraching threads... will the new line have more pin fire while a classic will have pin fire and also broader color like one will see in an old european cut?

I am also realizing that maybe some people might prefer a brillant round that has ideal cut, but maybe NOT a H&A?? Is this correct?

I found a heated debate from way back in 2005 on thread titled ''LGF and stars'' (not computer savey and don''t know how to link it.) Once again- when is it too much info???

This goes back to a question... if a consumer does not have the luxury of walking into WF/ GOG store and is only looking at so- so diamonds at overpriced/ under qualified b&M, how does the shopper who educates himself via PS site figure out what "preference" they have to particular fine tuning of an ideal H&A round or other? originally I was going to just walk into a store and pick a diamond that looked pretty, right size, and something I could afford. NOW I will only be able to buy diamond if I know many more details and it seems easiest to find these details through honest and qualified internet sellers- not the average jewelry store at the mall, or costco (just teasing about costco).

I guess it might mean buying a plane ticket to REALLY look and compare diamonds at any one of the venders who appreciates the PS shopper???

 

[ez-v]

Date: 7/1/2007 6:41:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
New line painted type diamonds aside, which have a slightly different appearance (not better or worse), I doubt experts can tell the difference between non H&A''s with good ideal-scope appearance and H&A''s grade sym with equivalent ideal-scope images.

Steep deep H&A''s with table ideal-scope partial leakage would be able to be weaned out by some consumers when clean and loose, but all consumers would see this difference when they had been worn for a day or 2 and were a bit dirty.

At 1ct size in rounds D-F is indistinguishable for almost everyone, and few consumers can see G-D. About 70% can see H-D in 1ct and 50% in 1/2 carat.

In larger sizes like 3ct, H is yellowish and F-D is still hard for all to see the difference - G is about 50:50. Of course a medium to strong fluoro H or G can appear the same as the D in many but not all types of lighting.

Clarity also becomes easier to see as size increases. Many 5ct VS2''s that are concentrated in 1 or 2 spots can be seen by young people.
avoid SI2 large stones if you can not see the inclusion - it is probably given the grade because of clouds or graining.

I think when we talk about the ability to discern color and clarity, we also have to take into account that most of the scrutiny we place on diamonds -- particularly for a crowd as meticulous and well educated as the PS crowd -- we do on loose diamonds. For example, I don''t doubt the percentages that Garry states above for people that can tell the difference between color grades may be true for people looking at loose diamonds. but in the real-world scenario with an already mounted diamond? I doubt too many of us could really tell the difference between a D and an G and possibly even an H when mounted in a setting except in the most unnatural of cases (i.e., comparing them looking through the side of the diamond with a white background, etc.)

 

[Maisie]

Does anyone remember that video where Leonid went out with some diamond rings and was asking the public which ones they preferred. I wanted to watch that again now I understand more about diamonds but I can''t find it.

 

[junior35]

Date: 7/1/2007 1:31:19 PM
Author: Maisie
Does anyone remember that video where Leonid went out with some diamond rings and was asking the public which ones they preferred. I wanted to watch that again now I understand more about diamonds but I can''t find it.

It''s on the home page of this site.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy
Steep deep H&A's with table ideal-scope partial leakage would be able to be weaned out by some consumers when clean and loose, but all consumers would see this difference when they had been worn for a day or 2 and were a bit dirty.


When we say 'steep deep H&A's with table scope ideal-scope partial leakage'- are we talking about a non-ACA diamond that is going to have poor light return- thus when the stone gets dirty it really will look boring.

yes

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

OR are we talking about the partial light leakage that comes from a classic cut ACA compared to a new line cut with no white seen with IS?

no, not even remotely the same.

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

but I am still confused about what a consumer will see differently with a new line vs. classic ACA.

you might not notice any difference at all. they are very, very subltely different. most people who have actually seen them in real life don't have a strong preference either way. one style may perform differently in certain lighting conditions and the other may seem better in another environment but overall, they are both equally beautiful.

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

AFter seraching threads... will the new line have more pin fire while a classic will have pin fire and also broader color like one will see in an old european cut?

i don't think that is a good generalization. those specifics don't pertain solely to each cut, they can be seen varying across many different stones depending on other more obvious factors such as size

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

I am also realizing that maybe some people might prefer a brillant round that has ideal cut, but maybe NOT a H&A?? Is this correct?

of course! some people prefer the more 'shattered glass' sparkles that come from a diamond that is not optically symmetrical. you also have those that say they don't like the h&a's because of the 'black arrows'

and they obviously have not seen h&a's in person.

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

I found a heated debate from way back in 2005 on thread titled 'LGF and stars' (not computer savey and don't know how to link it.) Once again- when is it too much info???

that would definitely be a case of too much info

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

This goes back to a question... if a consumer does not have the luxury of walking into WF/ GOG store and is only looking at so- so diamonds at overpriced/ under qualified b&M, how does the shopper who educates himself via PS site figure out what 'preference' they have to particular fine tuning of an ideal H&A round or other?

after looking around locally at the readily available, overpriced carp, my best advice is to find a store that carries 'hearts on fire' and get a feel for what a top cut looks like and how it performs. once you hit that top tier of diamonds, further fine tuning is serious overkill.

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

originally I was going to just walk into a store and pick a diamond that looked pretty, right size, and something I could afford. NOW I will only be able to buy diamond if I know many more details and it seems easiest to find these details through honest and qualified internet sellers- not the average jewelry store at the mall, or costco (just teasing about costco).

the balance is somewhere in between. i definitely would not recommend just walking into a store without knowing what you are getting into but you don't have to have every angle hammered down to the minutia either. hopefully you will find a nice place somewhere in between.

Date: 7/1/2007 11:37:07 AM
Author: Green with Envy

I guess it might mean buying a plane ticket to REALLY look and compare diamonds at any one of the venders who appreciates the PS shopper???

or a nice sized limit on your credit card.

best of luck!