Got Diamond Questions?
Our community of diamond experts are here to provide answers
Brent Stock

Finding a Jyotish Diamond; difference in Diamonds

Recommended Posts

(I just found this site and I believe I posted in the wrong forums so.. going to repost here)

I am seeking something around .51-.72 carats. I prefer atleast IF and D in color. Besides polish, symmetry, and all the GIA grading standards being at the top I have still found a great significance in Diamond pricing. 

I'd like to keep this at around 3000 down. (Some websites like gemsny offer half payment up front).   If anyone with diamond expertise could help me find what I am looking for, it would be extremely appreciated.

I've noticed the same statistics in FL diamonds, such as this one https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD07791347?click_id=236212334  

 

vs another one with the same specifics on GIA grading report but being 2,000 less. Why?

Here is another example. Shouldn't the first be much greater in every way considering its color, girdle, and even measurements? How can these two be close to the same price?

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD08733885?click_id=462208092

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD09333682?click_id=604750613

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I may of found out the answer.. Blue Nile says.. 

 

Unlike most diamond retailers who price their loose diamonds based on quality and size, we price our diamonds using our actual acquisition price plus a very low margin.
Since we source diamonds from diamond cutters globally, we eliminate the middle man. The result is that two diamonds of equivalent quality can sometimes vary significantly in price, and sometimes you'll find a higher-quality diamond that costs less than a slightly lower-quality diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed the emerald cuts seem to be quite a bit cheaper. At 3k I was looking at .5 for rounds and.. looks like I'll be able to get my astrologer recommended weight at .72 (well very close anyway).. With this one.

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD08565572?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

Anyone have any comments on this diamond?   The only thing that seems not in the excellent par (besides the L/W ratio- I actually prefer something not as long) is the thick girdle.  

How much of an effect do you think this girdle will have on this diamond? OR what type of effect- just that it won't have as large of a face as say a thin girdle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one you listed is FL.  The second is IF.  That's why the price differential.  The third one doesn't meet your specs.  In the database here alone there are 745 stones that do.  Your requirements aren't all that hard and the trick is making the list smaller, not longer. 

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=0.51&fCaratHi=0.60&fColorLo=D&fColorHi=D&fClarityLo=IF&fClarityHi=IF&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=3000&fLabGIA=1

Yes, emerald cuts are cheaper per carat than otherwise similar rounds. I don't see any 0.72/D/IF of any shape so you need to decide where you want to flex.  Would you prefer emerald cut?  If you bump the budget to $3500 you can get it all in round (assuming you prefer that since that's where you started). I see 4 of those to choose from. 

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=0.72&fCaratHi=0.72&fColorLo=D&fColorHi=D&fClarityLo=FL&fClarityHi=IF&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=3500&fLabGIA=1

Edited by denverappraiser

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I will check out your posts as soon as I get the chance.  Yes I realize the first I posted was FL verses the IF ones. I wasn't actually comparing those two. I didn't link a second FL one but I had seen one for much less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yeah. the last one doesn't meet my specs as far as I saw concerning the E color. But, my question was, then why is it pretty much in the same price range as the D color of what seemed like almost identical specs. (Id have to relook but I guess maybe it's related to girdle or something - but I didn't seem to think that when I posted. I'd have to relook).

I understand the 4Cs of a diamond very clearly but noticed some of the exact same specifics were around 3200. -  The only thing I can think of is maybe this 5000 has the perfect table and depth? Although from what I placed in as far as table and depth it was only allowed to pull up excellent T&D's... So I was wondering why the 2000 difference on well, rather similar same specs

Edited by Brent Stock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My specs went down a little concerning the emerald cut, but IF, D color, Excellent symmetry, excellent polish..  

Is a thick girdle not recommended for emerald?  I have pretty much fallen in love with this one. And its much cheaper and larger than what I was originally going for.. a .5 at 5000...  Very happy I found this one. I am only concerned about the girdle being thick but seeing the video- it doesn't seem so bad.

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD08565572?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah.. I found more lol. I really liked that first one but then read about how on emerald cut a larger table than depth is preferred.. I only found one like this and wow.. it really does have an effect or the cut just seems different.. The cuts seem wider or something. VVS1 would be ok, as long as there are no inclusions that look like a crows foot, or in the design of a spider web. haa haa

 

 
Edited by Brent Stock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brent Stock said:

And yeah. the last one doesn't meet my specs as far as I saw concerning the E color. But, my question was, then why is it pretty much in the same price range as the D color of what seemed like almost identical specs. (Id have to relook but I guess maybe it's related to girdle or something - but I didn't seem to think that when I posted. I'd have to relook).

I understand the 4Cs of a diamond very clearly but noticed some of the exact same specifics were around 3200. -  The only thing I can think of is maybe this 5000 has the perfect table and depth? Although from what I placed in as far as table and depth it was only allowed to pull up excellent T&D's... So I was wondering why the 2000 difference on well, rather similar same specs

The reason why D is pretty much the same price as E is that they are pretty much the same colour... the difference is minute when observed in ideal conditions; with a diamond that is set and being worn it's going to be impossible to tell. D will go for a premium just because it's D (as incidentally will FL or IF vs. VVS - your chances of seeing VVS inclusions in a smallish diamond when set are nil, but they will cause the price to drop).

Don't rely on table and depth to evaluate cut. They simply are not enough, and on fancy cuts (i.e. non-rounds) they are even more useless - as are rules of thumb such as "table greater than depth". The only thing that is worse is dealer-attributed "cut grades" - since they are not even algorithmically transparent in giving you an understanding of why they attribute a certain grade.

BTW - bear in mind that although diamonds are priced according to weight, the price/carat at different total carats will vary in a very non-linear way. You will have significant jumps at 0.30, 0.50, 0.70, 0.90 (and lots of other places, but these seem to be the relevant ones for you).

************************

Edited to add: all 3 seem lovely stones. Comparing is very difficult because the brilliance.com images are taken in a completely different environment and using a completely different technique (and the "wrong" one - it's usually good for showing inclusions... in a flawless stone???).

Personal preference: 0.70 from Brilliance, 0.70 from BN, 0.76. Why?

1. The Brilliance stone faces up slightly larger than the BN one.
2. Both #1 and #2 fulfil your requirements of "D/IF" - which may be important symbolically? (If not, and you are choosing D/IF because you think it will physically look different without a microscope, then look again, going down to F/VS1 and possibly even G/VS2).
3. The 0.76 seems a bit "flat" and without contrast, whereas the other two seem more contrasted - however the lack of a video on Brilliance leaves a bigger question mark than for the Blue Nile stones. You can request a video from them; do so!
4. Brilliance is cheaper.

Edited by davidelevi

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,

Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)

davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. Great articulation and easily understandable.  I was thinking the Brilliance too, after looking up what a .7 emerald cut looks like in the hand @ around 6.0mm x 4.48mm. 

As far as the D and IF.. Ehh.. I'm just picky and like the finer things. And since it's for jyotish, well the better it is, the more power it holds. Plus, I wasn't really recommended to go over .72, and although up to 1.2 is ok-  like you said, seems to be a big price jump around the 1 carat area (even for VS1s). 

So do you think brilliance saying this emerald cut is 'super idea' is just a crock of shit? lol.

I specifically chose 'super idea cut' after watching a video on YouTube of the same exact GIA specs but a vastly different diamond appearance because one was a signature idea. It was from a round brilliant though. But woah, what big difference. 

Ok- I found the video again.. and thankfully. But can this even be applied to Emerald cuts?  1:58 in this video god.. difference is incredible. id be so pissed if I bought one that looked like the second vs the first. 

 

Edited by Brent Stock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm basically looking for the equivalent of this in emerald as far as quality. After seeing these, all other diamonds look like shit lol. 

So to find diamonds of this type of quality cut..  Would I have to specifically go to places like JannPaul to buy their line of diamonds or are most diamonds labeled super idea or signature idea etc this grade of precision? 

 

Solitaire-Diamond-Ring-Solasfera-300x169.jpg

Cushion-Cut-Diamonds-300x169.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brent Stock said:

Thanks for the info. Great articulation and easily understandable.  I was thinking the Brilliance too, after looking up what a .7 emerald cut looks like in the hand @ around 6.0mm x 4.48mm. 

As far as the D and IF.. Ehh.. I'm just picky and like the finer things. And since it's for jyotish, well the better it is, the more power it holds. Plus, I wasn't really recommended to go over .72, and although up to 1.2 is ok-  like you said, seems to be a big price jump around the 1 carat area (even for VS1s). 

So do you think brilliance saying this emerald cut is 'super idea' is just a crock of shit? lol.

I specifically chose 'super idea cut' after watching a video on YouTube of the same exact GIA specs but a vastly different diamond appearance because one was a signature idea. It was from a round brilliant though. But woah, what big difference. 

Ok- I found the video again.. and thankfully. But can this even be applied to Emerald cuts?  1:58 in this video god.. difference is incredible. id be so pissed if I bought one that looked like the second vs the first. 

0.72 is a curiously specific number. Can you tell us more as to where it came from? (There is no "diamond trade-specific" reason to consider 0.72 as in any way relevant, so there must be something else).

I might be pissed off too, but the question here is how comparable are these, and how much of the "bad" diamond is chosen specifically because it's bad... notice that we don't ever see any objective data about the diamonds, such as their reports and measurements. We just see a diamond that looks better and another one that looks worse, but no indication of why. We are just told one is their "super ideal" and the other is a "normal 3ex" - nothing "normal" nowadays about that level of leakage for example.

In other words, you say "same exact GIA specs", and my question to you is how do you know? We haven't been shown the specs for either diamond!

48 minutes ago, Brent Stock said:

I'm basically looking for the equivalent of this in emerald as far as quality. After seeing these, all other diamonds look like shit lol. 

So to find diamonds of this type of quality cut..  Would I have to specifically go to places like JannPaul to buy their line of diamonds or are most diamonds labeled super idea or signature idea etc this grade of precision? 

Two issues here:

1. What is "quality"? A round - or perhaps more generally a brilliant cut - has certain characteristics that people like. A step cut has others. Which aspects did you particularly like of the presentations above?

2. How much of this is obtainable in an emerald cut, and what would you be sacrificing/trading off? Against what? Is the trade off acceptable to you/your recipient? What is he/she looking for? (maybe - just maybe - you have different aesthetic preferences on this?)

No, JannPaul (whom I don't know) certainly don't have an exclusive on well cut diamonds, and there are plenty of people who sell equivalent quality stones, including e.g. Blue Nile or Brilliance (or even higher and/or more consistent standards, but I wouldn't expect BN or Brilliance to do that).

This said, as I mentioned above, don't take any vendor's grading classification for valid until you understand it. For example, Blue Nile's "cut grading" is totally useless (for rounds it's the same as GIA except for slightly different commercial T&C on "signature ideal" stones, and for non-rounds it seems to assign grades quite randomly and in a way that they don't disclose). Other vendors have significantly higher standards on how they define and classify cut and on the information used and provided to you to support that classification.

Edited by davidelevi

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,

Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)

davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I like about the rounds?  Being extremely symmetrical and facets cut in a way clearly portraying the venus symbol within it.  I'd say- the 'idea' proportions/ specs helping it to show the arrows clearly. 

At this point in time I'm sold on the emerald cut. I love the retro appearance and I loved how in the first blue nile video the light was passing through it as it turned and appeared to have this sliding escalator effect.

It will be for me so.. yeah.. I definitely desire the emerald sliding appearance. And yes also the sparkling fire even though it doesn't seem to compare to the round brilliant's fire. 

Probably the best way to describe what I am after, and may not even exist in terms, would be how crisp and clear/proportionately cut something like those 'special idea' ones are. 

I trust the classical views on emerald cut and appearance (if they exist? Seems like they would) because, well from my research, it was the first cut to exist in diamonds.  It seems the method would be perfected to bring out the most desirable traits- similar to say pie(3.14) or the golden triangle proportions as beauty (in my opinion) has a strict mathematical formula. 

I do like the ones with larger tables and it seems the lower depth the larger the stone looks up front. I saw I could get some a little over 1 carat if I went down to VS1.  I don't see why or how I could really sacrifice an awesome IF D color for F and VS1 (but as you say they'd both appear the same in those specs to the naked eye).  Are all VS1 labeled by GIA absolutely eye clean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't going to get the level of symmetry of a round in an emerald cut. You may be getting somewhat closer in a square emerald or Asscher (same thing, by and large) - perhaps something worth looking at?

In terms of crisp and clear cut, I think a (well cut) step cut would have the edge, in as much as so much of the faceting would be apparent, vs. "confused" by multiple reflections in a brilliant cut. Proportions though are a different question:

1 hour ago, Brent Stock said:

I trust the classical views on emerald cut and appearance (if they exist? Seems like they would) because, well from my research, it was the first cut to exist in diamonds.  It seems the method would be perfected to bring out the most desirable traits- similar to say pie(3.14) or the golden triangle proportions as beauty (in my opinion) has a strict mathematical formula. 

There are no "classical views"... if by this you mean a mathematically determined set of parameters that make an emerald cut look good. There is some consensus as to what makes an emerald cut "attractive", and it's precisely that moving alternance of light and dark, but there is no way of knowing whether it's there with the proportions data commonly published i.e. depth and table.

BTW, historically, the emerald cut appeared relatively late (point and table cuts first, then rose, then various types of brilliant - all are closer to the natural shape of the diamond crystal than the rectangular, canted-corner "modern" emerald cut, and diamonds are hard to cut).

1 hour ago, Brent Stock said:

I do like the ones with larger tables and it seems the lower depth the larger the stone looks up front. I saw I could get some a little over 1 carat if I went down to VS1.  I don't see why or how I could really sacrifice an awesome IF D color for F and VS1 (but as you say they'd both appear the same in those specs to the naked eye).  Are all VS1 labeled by GIA absolutely eye clean? 

Lower depth certainly equates to larger face-up stone: weight is proportional to volume, and volume is ~face-up area x depth... however too low a depth and all sorts of other issues emerge, ranging from a very dark and glassy appearance to reflection of girdle into the table. A larger table most times makes for a brighter appearance, but again go above a certain level and issues appear.

Any GIA VS1 will be eye-clean face up, especially in a relatively small size. This said, the trade-off seems to be clear: size and "bling" vs. symbolic meaning; appearance in terms of colour and clarity is (relatively) immaterial, and cut is quite independent of all of the above. Quite where you - and your intended recipient - fall on that spectrum, only you can determine.

Edited by davidelevi

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,

Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)

davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Eye clean’ is not part of the clarity grading standards at GIA so no, they don’t guarantee it with VS1’s or anything else.  In practice, yes I think you’re safe at that grade but, as you point out, it’s not ‘perfect’.  People buy IF’s for symbolic reasons and that’s the reason they trade at a premium.  That's also true with color but with a slight difference.  Although most people can't tell the difference between a D and a G after it's mounted, it's at least theoretically possible.  As with the above, the premium for D's is mostly for symbolic reasons, not for how they look. 

 

Edited by denverappraiser

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. About the symbolic meaning; no that is not what I am going for.  In my belief, and according to Vedic Astrology, the more flawless and pure a gem is, the more power it holds. Yes there is a trade off for weight, a 1ct will hold more power than a .7carat but only considering it's practically the same in other qualities such as color, clarity, cut, etc.. 

Inclusions detract from the dispersion of raw power funneling through the gemstone. The more pact, solid, pure the elements are without breaks and distortions = power. 

Being appraisers, you probably know about Jyotish (maybe you don't) but it is believed diamonds and other gems with certain flaws can wreck havoc in your life. The reason would be; these stones produce a certain vibrational frequency in alignment with the planets. In this case, for Venus, an inclusion is like an inclusion in all of the things associated with her. And since we are directly influenced by the push and pull of the celestial bodies it would equate to inclusions in your life. 

And yes.. a gem must have a certain 'sweetness' to it.  I can pick them out in person- trying to figure out how to do this online (but happily- due to the significant price variance vs retail) seems to be a more difficult task. (On another note, after visiting retail places, and seeing stupid stupid prices for lower quality stones.. I don't see how anyone even buys at those places).

I believe I can tell which stones are suitable through seeing certain videos and photos of it in someones hand and other angles but obviously they are not going to go through all of that for a 3,000$ diamond.  (I've already been denied by two sites concerning videos- or additional ones).  I did receive a video from brilliance on the .7 carat IF D I listed earlier.  The thing is, it's so magnified I can't get a real perception of it. It seems like the video was made to extensively show inclusions, not to get an overall look at the diamonds 'life'. 

And am I correct in saying the flawless or IF is only recognized at 10% magnification? So pretty much, all diamonds would have small inclusions if looked under say 30%?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brent Stock said:

I did receive a video from brilliance on the .7 carat IF D I listed earlier.  The thing is, it's so magnified I can't get a real perception of it. It seems like the video was made to extensively show inclusions, not to get an overall look at the diamonds 'life'. 

Have you tried zooming out on the browser (Ctrl-minus on most widespread browsers; Edge is better than Chrome in as much as it will go down to 10% rather than 25%)? Sometimes the lighting is not good (i.e. from the back, as in the Brilliance photo), so it's no use, but sometimes the large scale just gets in the way of being able to see "the wood for the trees", if that makes sense.

11 hours ago, Brent Stock said:

And am I correct in saying the flawless or IF is only recognized at 10% magnification? So pretty much, all diamonds would have small inclusions if looked under say 30%?

Yes, diamonds are graded for clarity at 10x. Pretty much all, except possibly for small white CVD synthetics, would have inclusions and/or reticular defects at some magnification level - if not 30x, then 100x or 200x or... From that point of view, the closest you can get to a truly flawless crystal is a silicon crystal produced by the semiconductor industry: those would be typically significantly purer and more flawlessly crystallised than anything non-man-made.


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,

Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)

davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now