Choosing Between a 1-Carat VS and a 3-Carat Medium Grade Diamond

Which One Should You Buy?

  In theory, the 4C system is considered an excellent standard for evaluating diamonds. However, in practice, this system doesn't necessarily account for the perception that the differences in quality might be subtle, while the price difference is significant. Even gemologists can have variations in their assessments. Is this fair to consumers?

  For example, when the prices of a D/FL, 1-carat diamond and a 3-carat I-J/VS-SI diamond are roughly equivalent (currently priced around $30,000 according to the current price list), which diamond should consumers choose for the best investment?
  In theory, it is recommended to buy the highest-quality D/FL diamond. However, in practice, our experience suggests that during prosperous times, the prices of high-quality diamonds on the price list experience the most significant increase. Conversely, during economic downturns, these so-called high-quality diamonds also see the largest decline. On the other hand, diamonds of intermediate quality, because their prices are closer to the average consumer's budget, tend to have larger and more stable transaction volumes. They are less susceptible to economic fluctuations, and their long-term price trend is one of steady growth (after all, the natural diamond production is decreasing).

  Since the introduction of the 4 C standard system, it has led to the creation of the RAPAPORT Diamond Price List. Consequently, regardless of the quality of a diamond, there is a standardized market value on the price list. This is universally recognized as the price in the global diamond market. The popularity or lack thereof of specific grades is determined by global supply and demand, as well as the prevailing economic conditions. Therefore, from an investment perspective, it is not necessarily mandatory to choose a 1-carat D/FL diamond.

  In the future, when consumers need to sell these two diamonds, the likely scenario is that the 1-carat D/FL diamond may be challenging to sell at $30,000, and a price reduction may be necessary. On the other hand, the 3-carat medium-quality diamond purchased at the same price of $30,000 may sell smoothly, possibly even at a profit. This is because, for the average consumer, the perceived difference in quality is minimal. In a situation where the prices are the same, the practical reality is that a 3-carat diamond appears significantly larger than a 1-carat diamond, making it a more appealing choice for consumers. This, for consumers, is the highest philosophy of buying diamonds.

Viewed from the front, with the table facing upwards and under a white light source with a white background, the perceived color difference is very subtle. Laid flat under a white light source with a white background, observing the color grading from the side reveals minimal grade differences, yet there is a significant difference in price.

 Theoretically, the 4C color grading system is considered a good standard. However, in practice, once diamonds with DEF color are set, gemologists categorize them as 'Colorless,' and those with GHI color as 'Near Colorless.' The color difference between these two stages is so minimal that even gemologists might provide different grading results due to variations in lighting, background, or their mood at the time of assessment. Since even gemologists can introduce errors, some consumers might prefer choosing a GHI color diamond over DEF color, as the visual effect is nearly indistinguishable, but the price difference is substantial.

  Theoretically, the 4C clarity grading system is an extremely detailed standard. However, in practice, using the same diamond for assessments at three world-renowned certification entities like GIA, IGI, and HRD may yield different clarity grading results (with a potential error range of one to two grades). Surprisingly, even when the same diamond is submitted to different branches of the same certification center, distinct results may arise. In some extreme cases, diamonds originally certified as SI2 in the 1980s were reassessed in the 2010s and received a clarity grading of VS2, indicating a shift in the clarity grading despite unchanged evaluation standards.

Jewelry

  In 1979, one of the most renowned international certification entities in Europe, aiming to enhance the consistency of gradings and reduce the chance of disputes arising from minor rating differences, suggested consolidating the 4C clarity grades F L and IF into one grade, merging VVS1 and VVS2 into one grade, grouping VS1 and VS2 into two grades, categorizing SI1 and SI2 into two grades, and combining I1, I2, and I3 into two grades. The intention was to make the grading standards more uniformly consistent across various certification entities. However, this proposal faced criticism for being too lenient and lacking credibility. Consequently, the certification entity opted for stricter grading standards, leading to a counterproductive and unhealthy competitive environment.

  If everyone follows the standard system, and controversies persist between leniency and strictness, it might indicate flaws within the system itself. In some cases, emerging nations tend to have stricter grading standards. While rigorous scrutiny during grading is correct, intentionally being overly critical to showcase one's strictness is unnecessary. Such behavior could undermine the original spirit of the 4C system. It is analogous to the chicken and egg paradox, creating a cycle that reduces seller profits, making survival challenging, and complicating the operation of certification entities. Ultimately, consumers may find it difficult to benefit from such a situation. The subtle differences between grades and the influence of individual circumstances on grading results, especially for the highest grades (FL, IF, VVS1, VVS2), highlight the subjective and objective standards in diamond grading, leading to minimal perceptual differences but significant price disparities. Even appraisers can make errors.

Is this fair to consumers?

This is why, during diamond grading, it is essential to consider the opinions of three or more appraisers to ensure fairness.

Not buying without Hearts and Arrows?

Reality: It's challenging to visually distinguish cut grades.

  In theory, Hearts and Arrows ideal cut is considered the most beautiful, but theory doesn't claim that the human eye alone can accurately discern the subtle differences in a diamond's brilliance and dispersion. The perceived differences are minimal. The beauty expressed by its cut is essentially a numerical game that requires instruments for precise measurement of angle variations. Theory also doesn't mention that the trend toward pursuing perfect cut has invisibly increased the cost of diamond cutting and polishing. However, in the current competitive market, selling profits may not necessarily increase, as consumer budgets won't necessarily deepen due to the pursuit of a perfect cut. There used to be a saying, 'Ideal is ideal, but ideals don't sell.' This refers to a diamond company specializing in ideal cut diamonds that faced financial crisis and was eventually acquired.

  In the 1970s, De Beers introduced 'A DIAMOND IS FOREVER,' touching countless hearts. Around 2005, they also presented the ideal cut diamond with eight hearts and eight arrows, a call that resonated widely and brought them closer to the pursuit of perfection. Now, it is believed that some stores are facing challenges as old customers attempt to sell large-carat diamonds from several years ago. However, issues arise in the resale price because they lack the eight hearts and eight arrows. Does DIAMOND still count as FOREVER?

———— / END / ————