Today I received a request from Dennis to evaluate 4 diamonds and he’s really curious as to what makes the price per carat on these diamonds so different.
Dennis is comfortable spending between $10,000 – $12,000 but he says he can stretch up to $14,000 for that really special diamond.
The Desired Specs
1.25 – 1.35ct
Super-ideal hearts and arrows cut
G-color (or better)
VS2-clarity (or better)
The Current Options
Diamond 1: 1.31 GVS1 James Allen True Hearts
Price: $10,620
Diamond 2: 1.29ct GVS1 Blue Nile Signature Ideal
Price: $12,510
Diamond 3: 1.24ct GVS1 Black by Brian Gavin
Price: $11,949
Diamond 4: 1.3ct FVS2 Whiteflash A Cut Above
Price: $12,728
The Analysis
The 4 diamonds here are not all directly comparable because the Whiteflash ACA and the BGD Black are true super-ideals whereas the JA True Hearts and the BN Signature Ideal will not necessarily meet the same standards.
So the first thing I am going to do is to compare Diamonds 1 and 2 to answer Dennis’ question on why Diamond 1 is less expensive than Diamond 2 and whether this is because Diamond 2 is over-priced or whether something is wrong with Diamond 1.
Price is often a good indicator that something is wrong. In this case, Diamond 1 is a JA True Hearts and the cut is really good. It has hearts and arrows optical symmetry but there is a pair of upper girdles that are too steep due to digging so it shows up as bright green on the computer-generated ASET in the lab report.
This is considered a minor defect and this could be sometimes sold as a hearts and arrows diamond by a vendor with less strict cut parameters. However, I would still expect there to be a cut premium on this diamond versus a typical GIA Ex/AGS0. Diamond 1 is actually priced too low in this case and causes a red flag with me. If it isn’t the cut then it could be the color or clarity of the diamond which could be the issue.
In this case it is actually both.
Let’s start with color.
Diamond 1 is the top left diamond and I’ve used the side-view function on James Allen so quickly compare against a random selection of other G color diamonds. The reason I did this is because I suspected the color was low for its grade, and it’s just easier to see when you have a few more diamonds to compare against.
As you can hopefully see, the color in this diamond is among the darker diamonds in this range and the saturation of color is also among the most saturated. To me, this is a low-G and that is one reason why this diamond is discounted. In many cases a manufacture might grade a diamond as an H internally and then the lab gives it a G and then they are able to discount the diamond and still make a bigger profit.
Now let’s move on to clarity.
This diamond is an eye-clean VS1, but it doesn’t mean that it is a good VS1. If you take a closer look at the 360, you should be able to make out some faint parallel lines all over the diamond and they are especially noticeable when you look at the 10 o’clock arrow and tilt the diamond to the left. This is the internal graining that is noted in the lab report in addition to the cloud that is the grade setting inclusion and additional clouds that could not be drawn on the clarity map.
Small clouds and graining, when internally reflected, can cause some haziness to the diamond that you might not notice at first but it does have an impact on how crisp the diamond looks. This is why this is a low VS1 as well. If you price this diamond as a super-ideal HVS2 it actually makes a lot more sense. Of course being a GVS1 you would pay a bit more for that and being a near super-ideal means you pay a little bit less for that and it all evens out.
Diamond 2
The first thing I notice in this diamond is that the lab report is very old. It is from 2013 and it hasn’t been updated. This is a diamond that we can quickly reject, not only because of the certificate but because it doesn’t meet the standards of a hearts and arrows diamond.
The major proportions on paper appear fine, but the minor facets especially the stars and the lower girdles is a risky combination at 55% stars/80% lgfs. Whenever you have longer star facets and longer lower girdles together, this can exaggerate the impact on any asymmetry in these facets and negatively impact the contrast pattern of the diamond.
Opening up the GCAL image we can easily see that this is not a hearts and arrows diamond at all and many of the hearts and Vs are distorted. The optical brilliance analysis also reveals unwanted light leakage under the table facet.
Diamond 3
Now we get to the true super-ideal diamonds and with the BGD Blacks, I expect nothing short of cut perfection as these diamonds are cherry picked from cherry picked diamonds. I don’t know if it makes my job easier or harder but I guess it just means we have to split more hairs.
If this was the only BGD Black option then it’s probably not worth splitting hairs. But it just so happens that there is also this diamond that serves as a great comparison stone that I’ll refer to as Diamond 5 and it’s list price is $11853 ($96 less than Diamond 3).
Here’s the link to Diamond 3 again.
1.24ct GVS1 Black by Brian Gavin
Both of these diamonds actually have excellent hearts and arrows. However, if you take a look at Diamond 3’s hearts image, at the 7 o’clock position, the V is actually slightly longer on one side than the other. If you look closely at Diamond 5’s H&A image, you’ll find that not all of the Vs are perfect either, but it’s not quite as noticeable.
A more significant difference is that Diamond 3 has a 40.9° pavilion angle whereas Diamond 5 has a shallower and more ideal 40.8° pavilion angle. With Diamond 5’s crown angle also slightly shallower you can expect Diamond 5 to be brighter.
Diamond 3 does have the more ideal girdle thickness and this gives it the better total depth. I’ve calculated Diamond 3’s weight ratio to be 1.044 versus Diamond 5 has a weight ratio of 1.053. Both are within an acceptable range, but this means that Diamond 3 has a better spread.
The ASET on both diamonds are perfect, and actually Diamond 3 is a rare one with the proportions just right so that face up the table reflection is actually mostly red. Whether the table reflection is red or green really doesn’t matter because the table reflection is returning light that is borderline red/green on an ASET. Whether it is red or green just depends on the ASET scope design and there’s not practical implication.
Diamond 4
Diamond 4 is also cut with a 40.9° pavilion angle. It does have a better crown angle to balance out the steep pavilion so expect this diamond to be brighter than the 2 BGDs. What’s interesting is that it manages to do this and a the same time it has a higher crown too so you get both more fire and brightness.
You would expect there to be some trade-off for all that goodness so what’s the weight ratio? I calculated it to be 1.053 which is the same as Diamond 5. This is great because it looks like you’re not really giving up much of anything for a brighter more fiery diamond.
What are the negatives?
This diamond is almost perfect and there is nothing wrong with the hearts image at all. The only thing I can point out is on the ASET there is a pair of slightly painted upper girdles between the 5 and 6 o’clock position. There’s basically negligible impact on light performance and this is common even among the best cut diamonds.
Recommendation
It’s clear that in this case Dennis has his choice of creme of the crop diamonds and has the luxury not many people have of splitting hairs between super-ideal diamonds. It really comes down to a difficult choice between diamonds 3, 4, and 5.
Comparing the severity of the flaws in super-ideal stones is difficult and I would be happy to recommend any of these stones. If maximizing brightness and fire is more important than face up optical symmetry, then I would recommend Diamond 4 from Whiteflash. If optical symmetry is more important to you than that tiny bit of light performance, then I would go with Diamond 3 from BGD.
I know this is a tough one but and I’m dying to know what you make of all of this! We’re definitely well into the hair-splitting territory though and you can be rest assured that any of these 3 diamonds represent the top 1% of ideal cut diamonds out there.
If you guys reading this want to weigh in on these options please leave a comment because I’m sure your opinions will be very appreciated!
Hi Vincent,
I’m really impressed with your analysis. This makes me wish I have a friend who can guide me through the ins and outs off the diamond buying journey. I’m really thankful for the hard work you’ve put into this.
Some follow up thoughts.
1) Regarding Diamond 1, so it seems like the cut is pretty decent, but the color and clarity are on the low end of their rating. That brings up an interesting point–if it weren’t for James Allen’s high quality images for all their diamonds and an interface that allows for easy color comparison and high zoom, then it would be hard to figure this one out. For fun I tried the same trick at Brian Gavin Diamonds with the two G colored diamonds you picked, and another one that was E colored. The E colored actually looked more yellow, although that’s most certainly because the white balance calibration was off. I guess with other sites like BGD or or Whiteflash, you just have to trust that they’re already stocking the best?
I like James Allen’s ability to quickly preview diamonds visually, but it seems everything they stock is generally cheaper (on a per carat basis) than the competition.
2) So it seems the Blue Nile diamond is just poorly cut. If anything it’s overpriced?
3) Regarding fire and brightness for Diamond 4, do you just get that by looking at the numbers?
4) For Diamonds 3/4/5 do you mind posting some screenshots/pics as you address certain points in comparison? I’ve read some other diamond comparisons and links often go down after diamonds are bought, making it more difficult to figure out what the reviewer was describing.
Thanks,
Dennis
1) What you’ll find is that virtual vendors will go with a neutral background so that they emphasize the color/clarity flaws and this helps them push higher color/clarity stones that are more expensive. A neutral background will downplay the cut defects. On the other hand, super-ideal vendors tend to go with a darker or black background that down plays the color/clarity but instead highlight the cut quality.
I know Whiteflash will provide you with images of the diamonds from the side view and what I do with my premium clients is that I will pick out a couple other stones that I think are high colors for their grade and get them to take that picture so we can compare and make sure the stone we’re interested in is at least correctly graded. If you have several stones of the same color then this is a good way to pick the one with the best color too.
2) Yes I think that the Blue Nile stone is overpriced in this case. You pay a slight premium for the signature brand, but then each signature stone will also vary in their pricing based on their quality in general.
3) When the diamond is symmetrical, then yes you can rely on the numbers. It is difficult to compare idealscopes between sellers, but try to do this with the two BGDs and see if you can spot that Diamond 5 has a brighter shade of red under the table compared to Diamond 3. If you account for the relative intensity of the red, then it is possible to compare across vendors, but it’s just not advisable.
4) Thanks for this suggestion, I will keep this in mind for future reviews!
How much do the actual reports tell me in terms of inclusions? For Whiteflash they don’t have very good high res images to look at, so I looked at the AGS report and for inclusions there’s a ton marked up compared to say the Brian Gavin diamonds. Is there that big of a difference between VS2 and VS1? Or is the Whiteflash diamond on the low end of VS2?
Have you looked at the 360 video that Whiteflash posts? That video is 15x magnified and this goes beyond what clarity is graded at so if you can’t see the inclusions well in that video then you’re pretty safe. Another trick is to look at more of their videos so you can get a good idea of their lighting. You will notice that they tend to turn up the spot lighting when the videographer feels there are some more visible inclusions.
More looking at Diamond 1… isn’t the arrows picture showing a lot of pale areas under the table? I thought that was considered bad?
Great observation.
The pale areas correspond to those whitish areas in the idealscope. This indicates that the light return in those areas are weaker, but it’s not leaking light so this is one of those diamonds where the arrows will tend to be a bit more visible in bright diffuse lighting.
This blog/site is similar to the messages on at least a half a dozen other *guru* type sites, and a handful of dealers – all echoing the same marketing messages.
When we deconstruct these narratives though, it all comes down to subjectivity (tastes, fashion, fads/trends). They would like to convince people there is an objective, scientific process here, but that is not the case.
For a theory to be objective/scientific it would have to apply to ALL diamond cuts. These narratives tend to start with a subjective (fallacious?) presumption: everyone wants the same look in a diamond, and that look is absolute symmetry (as though cut by a computer) with the highest amount of fire. There are a few fallacies here:
1) Very often in our culture and marketplace, when arts/crafts/products go to computer assisted or generated mass production they become very common – reducing market value. Whereas, unique, one of a kind, hand crafted (less production oriented) items can rise in value. Perfection through mass production is common and cheapens the art. Look at collectible furniture, rugs, clothing, jewelry, fine art – all value the unique one of a kind. In rugs there are even premiums for flaws (abrash) because they tend to distinguish the rugs as vintage/handmade from common machine made.
The new diamond marketeers are trying to sell perfection as a premium. They are facing a glutted market of middle class buyers with limited budgets. H&A (hearts & arrows), Ideal, Ideal, super ultra woohoo bling-bling cuts are their competitive message, along with buying a lower grade in raw diamond materials (H, I, J – SI, etc.). This is where they create a margin to operate. The slightly higher brilliance (helps hide flaws and lesser colors), along with the tight budgets make these lesser grades sellable.
Is a perfectly symmetrical round brilliant a better stone than a less symmetrical round brilliant?
Depends on the story you which to value – ie: it’s completely subjective!
Personally, I can’t stand that perfect H&A star in the center of the table. Every time i see it, i think of it as a marketing (LOGO) campaign to persuade people to follow along. I prefer a slightly asymmetrical round brilliant because the look feels more infinite. But then there are some people who are only interested in labels.
If the marketing narrative was actually scientific, we could apply it to ALL cuts. Unfortunately not all cuts are valued as a RB. These (marketing) scopes don’t work very well to support their underlying premise on: Emerald cuts, Pears, Marquis, Rose, Aschers, Cushions, Hex, French, Old European, Raw diamonds, etc. The RB/H&A middle class market is held captive by the marketing messages. Meanwhile the truly elite (billionaires) tend to buy far more unique stones which often aren’t H&A RBs. Celebs are almost always wearing (not the common) jewelry as well. Vintage diamond dealers will often tell you business is great right now. People want unique and authentic.
OTOH – There will be some who want to be part of the same homogenous group, where every lady in the room has the same carat+ H&A, I, SI RB Down the road another 10-20 years another marketing scheme will be needed as this one gets old and glutted too.