David

Do you ever see any Golconda diamonds?

Rio.

I saw Elizabeth Taylor's at her Christie's Exhibit...it was amazing!

I am so confused by these Golconda diamonds. I've googled them since Trinkette mentioned them and I'm still not very clear on what it means to have "clear" diamonds but not necessarily high clarity diamonds.

For me, the decision by the Diamond Marketing and Grading Gods to use the term "clarity" to describe a diamond's interior inclusions and exterior blemishes, or lack thereof, was a poor choice of nomenclature and makes the topic extremely confusing.  

However, it is what it is.

That being said, on a GIA diamond report, for example, or when most people speak about diamonds, "clarity" refers to inclusions (interior) and blemishes (exterior) together referred to as "clarity characteristics" (as the GIA prefers to call them... so you don't run screaming when you find a report listing a DEFECT in or on your beloved diamond... AGHHHHHHHHH!!!).   BTW, these are the same Diamond and Marketing and Grading Grading Gods who declared that a crack in a diamond is to be called a "feather."

Anyway, if you say "clear" to describe your diamond, you COULD be talking about a diamond's grade for "clarity," like what you would see on a diamond grading report. Most people would probably think this is what you mean. However, in a strictly vernacular sense, "clear" means transparent, lucid, easy to see through... so, also, you COULD be referring to the appearance of your entire diamond's actual chemical and crystal make-up.

As I mentioned, the first example, involving the "clarity characteristics," is recognized officially on a diamond grading report. The second example, however, involving the overall visual quality of the diamond's composition, is NOT recognized officially in a grading report. IMO, this is a great illustration of how marketing has led the diamond industry around by the nose... making "brilliance,"for example, the be-all and end-all in diamond desirability – and, I am not saying there is anything wrong or less-worthy of valuing a diamond first for its brilliance. Yet, in centuries past, it was the crystal, or the overall limpidity, transparency, clearness, or "water" of a diamond that determined value. This is the characteristic to which I refer.

Dovesgate, does this make more sense now?

Dovesgate, as mentioned on the other thread, many of the most famous and respected Golcondas are high-color diamonds, even tough they do come in colors. So, it gets even MORE confusing because SOME people refer to the word "clear" to mean "colorless." So, really, you could be trying to untangle three different meanings for the word "clear" when discussing diamonds, especially Golcondas... 1) clarity characterisitcs (inclusions and blemishes); 2) what we call translucency, crystal or "water;" and, 3) high color, like a diamond graded "D" on the color scale.

The Holy Grail would be big, extremely well-cut, and have all THREE qualities above!   

Trinkette, you are amazing.  Thank you for all that you're writing.  But I'm not totally clear here (pun intended!) and I'm terribly worried that I'm being dim.

Is there ANY way we as consumers can clarify the water or crystal of a diamond?  It's not on the GIA so I'm going to go ahead and guess not.  I think that's the whole point of what you were illustrating in the other thread.  There IS no way other than side by side comparison in person.  I can wrap my head around that.  What I'm having trouble with is the education aspect.   How does one know to do that?  Is it just a matter of seeing diamonds and loving that wet look?  Does the average store even carry diamonds of this caliber?  OR would seeing one generally be a lucky accident?

I've looked at loads of diamonds (window shopping mostly-eye candy!) in person, but I can't honestly say I've seen this wet quality before getting my stone from David.  I feel like I fell into this backwards and finally FINALLY that's worked in my favor.  But going forward I'm interested in learning more.

Actually, the denomination "Golconda" is incorrect in most if not all cases, since it should refer only to old Indian-mined stones, traded through the Golconda market. Interestingly, Golconda was and is not a diamond mining place; it was the equivalent of New York, Antwerp or Ramat Gan today: a diamond processing and trading market.

Considering the difficulty in identifying geographic origin for most diamonds, the term "Golconda" should not be used unless there is provenance, and even then used with great caution: bear in mind that diamonds were being moved from Brazil to Goa by the Portuguese in the early 18th century, because of the reputation of India as the sole source of "real" diamonds.

The diamond type is unambiguous, since it refers to presence or absence of certain elements (mainly nitrogen) in the diamond crystalline structure. In many cases, type II diamonds are referred to as "Golconda", regardless of where they come from. And in many cases, diamonds with excellent crystal are type I diamonds. Marketing at work again.

Oh, interesting thread! Trinkette and I have chatted about this topic before, since we're both helplessly drawn to diamonds with that wonderful water clear, crystalline appearance.

I think it's one of these things that you'll know when you see, if that makes sense. It's somewhat unhelpful, but when you SEE a stone with that fine, beautiful crystal, you'll know it.

firegypsy, I don't know how to answer your question. As we've written earlier, about 2 percent of all diamonds are reported to be Type II. How often one runs across one is unknown to me. Plus, who knows how many killer-crystal Type I diamonds are out there. And, already, on the other thread, I listed some of David's diamonds that feature exceptional crystal. Perhaps not Golconda-esque, but exceptional, nonetheless.

Maybe, you would have best luck finding an antique or near-antique Golconda-type in a piece of estate jewelry... ?

Trinkette - I insist on buying you lunch the next time we are in NYC.  I hope you will talk non-stop (except when eating) about diamonds!  I love reading your replies!  Of course, I love OMCs replies just as much, and his family is welcome to come for a free lunch, as long as he talks about diamonds when you aren't!  Deal?

Hi All!
I don;t look for TypeII diamonds specifically- but what we're calling "crystal" is essential in what we love about almost all the diamonds we own.
Some notable exceptions are deeply colored diamonds- that certainly need to possess good transparency given the color- may also possess strong grain lines visible from certain angles that kind of trap the light- similar to some sapphires.
This is essential to the face up color.
You can see this by looking through the pavilion, or side- and see not a lot of color, while the face up exhibits strong color.
In these cases there should be good crystal to transmit that color- but not necessarily crystal throughout.
Deep brown diamonds come to mind in this regard.
Then there's stones that are supposed to be opaque- such as black diamonds.

Of course we once had an amazing pair of Fancy Grey ) ad a bunch of other colors on the GIA report) diamonds that were more i the first category.
They had a lot of stuff that made them slightly opaquie- yet it was surrounded by nice crystal giving lovely sparkle.....

As far as golconda...
I think i'ts kind of a legend at this point.
There's a retired mine in South Africa called the "Zimi Mine"
To this day, when a cutter has an extraordinary vivid yellow, they're calling it "Zimi"

They are featured in the new 2012 Desktop Calendar for Diamond Lovers....

Actually, I think David can capture it in photos.


The bigger problem is that of consistency in photo technique (which David has, but not many - or any - others do). After seeing enough photos and the corresponding DBL diamonds, I have a pretty good idea what a DBL stone would look like in real life. This is not necessarily the case with a photo on another site - and DBL's photos are unmatched in terms of quality and quantity anywhere else on the web.

Oh, and the Fancy Greenish Grey are much nicer in real life.