Ehat does "almost loupe clean mean

[Amber St. Clare]

 

[RockHugger]

means its mildly included to the naked eye, but the seller doesnt want to say its included and scare off a buyer. So its ''almost loup clean''.

My 1.15emerald cut diamond is ''almost loup clean''...but in reality its an I1.

 

[RevolutionGems]

I agree with Rock to a certain degree. It can certainly mean what she said but it depends a great deal on who is telling you it is "almost loupe clean".

If you are talking about a stone from a reputable seller, it probably means that there are a few very small inclusions that won''t be visible to the naked eye and will only be seen through a loupe with a good close inspection.

If there are eye visible inclusions, I would have serious questions about a seller that calls it almost loupe clean.

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 2/3/2010 5:17:35 PM
Author: RockHugger
means its mildly included to the naked eye, but the seller doesnt want to say its included and scare off a buyer. So its ''almost loup clean''.

You''re pretty cynical. Not this seller! In my grading it means better than eye clean (nothing visible to the naked eye) but slight inclusions visible with a 10-power loupe. The proper designation using GIA grading for colored stones is eye clean. But I always loupe gems to locate any inclusions not visible to the unaided eye and mention them in my descriptions.

 

[morecarats]

Since there are is no well-defined clarity scale for colored gems like there is for diamonds, it is common in the gemstone trade to use functionally defined descriptions like "almost loupe clean", "loupe clean" and "eye clean". A loupe clean gem would have no inclusions visible under 10x magnification. A gem which is described as "almost loupe clean" would have very few tiny inclusions that can just be detected under 10x magnification. Such a gem would most certainly be eye clean, meaning that the inclusions could not be seen with the naked eye.

Like all descriptions, these can be used fraudulently. But these descriptions are preferable to non-standard clarity grades like "VS1" or "VVS".

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/3/2010 7:24:07 PM
Author: Richard M.

Date: 2/3/2010 5:17:35 PM
Author: RockHugger
means its mildly included to the naked eye, but the seller doesnt want to say its included and scare off a buyer. So its 'almost loup clean'.

You're pretty cynical. Not this seller! In my grading it means better than eye clean (nothing visible to the naked eye) but slight inclusions visible with a 10-power loupe. The proper designation using GIA grading for colored stones is eye clean. But I always loupe gems to locate any inclusions not visible to the unaided eye and mention them in my descriptions.

Ah crap. I thought it said "almost eye clean" not loup clean. Sorry! Been an exausting day!!! My brain confused loup with eye. LOL SORRY!

Almost loup clean is like VVS or VS.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

Thanks!!

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 2/3/2010 7:26:22 PM
Author: morecarats
Since there are is no well-defined clarity scale for colored gems like there is for diamonds

I agree with all of your post except the above. GIA created the diamond clarity grades that are now almost universally accepted. It has also introduced a clarity grading system for color, and I''m surprised it''s not widely used or understood.

To quote Richard B. Drucker of the "GemGuide," "The GIA developed a simple type classification system of Type I, Type II, and Type III. Gems that grow very clean in nature such as aquamarine, citrine, topaz, tanzanite, and chrome and green tourmaline are examples of Type I gemstones. Rubies, sapphires, rhodolite garnet, peridot, amethyst, spinel, and pink tourmaline are Type II. Emeralds and red tourmaline (rubellite) are Type III. Not all gems have been given a type classification by the GIA, only the more prominent gems at the time of developing the system.

"In the 2002 course material from the GIA, new grading terms were also introduced to replace the diamond terms for colored gems. We heartily endorsed these. They are eye-clean, slightly included, moderately included, heavily included, and severely included. Charts in the course illustrate how to apply these grades based on the type classification."

I use that system since it''s the only formally recognized method I know of for colored gems, created by the same respected organization that developed diamond clarity grading. It has clearly definable terms that make clarity descriptions more precise although it''s still somewhat subjective, as is diamond grading.

Richard M.

 

[morecarats]

The problem with the GIA clarity scheme is that it has not been widely adopted in the gem trade. One reason is because many colored gem varieties are not classified by GIA. Another reason is that the clarity terms become type dependent, and this is confusing for consumers. So for example, for a type III gem such as emerald the term "very slightly included" means obvious inclusions, visible to the naked eye. But for a type I gem such as aquamarine "very slightly included" has a quite different meaning.

 

[chrono]

I also find that the GIA clarity grades are not universally adopted, probably because most consumers cannot keep track of which gem type falls under which category, which in turn, doesn''t help clear any confusion with them. It is far easier for a regular lay person to understand loupe clean, almost loupe clean, eye clean, etc.

Almost loupe clean means that only small inclusions and few are noticeable under 10x magnification.

 

[Richard M.]

MORECARATS: I understand your point and it''s important. But until consumers are educated to understand there are clarity grading differences that influence market price between diamonds, colored stones and even various types of colored stones, mass confusion will continue.

PriceScope is an educational site and I have a problem understanding why there seems to be so much resistance here to what is a fairly simple concept. It may be that some dealers see an advantage in leaving a bit of "wiggle-room" on clarity. I don''t.

Certainly very few emeralds would ever be graded "Eye clean." Some included stones might gain in market value on the basis of color, cut, lack of treatment, etc. Clarity is only one part of value and colored stone consumers should be helped to understand some of the subtleties involved in comparing aquas with emeralds.

CHRONO: GIA considered most major gem species in setting up its Type system. I can see some problems and GIA should address them. But the basic system is sound and much better than the old method of trying to apply diamond clarity grading to red tourmaline or emerald. And it''s certainly better to refer to a system in use by an independent gemological organization with a worldwide reputation than to go by individual dealers'' confusing AAA, AA, A grades, etc. Consumers who wish to buy color knowledgeably need to do a little homework.

Richard M.

 

[LD]

Date: 2/4/2010 1:26:31 AM
Author: Richard M.
MORECARATS: I understand your point and it''s important. But until consumers are educated to understand there are clarity grading differences that influence market price between diamonds, colored stones and even various types of colored stones, mass confusion will continue.

PriceScope is an educational site and I have a problem understanding why there seems to be so much resistance here to what is a fairly simple concept. It may be that some dealers see an advantage in leaving a bit of ''wiggle-room'' on clarity. I don''t.

Certainly very few emeralds would ever be graded ''Eye clean.'' Some included stones might gain in market value on the basis of color, cut, lack of treatment, etc. Clarity is only one part of value and colored stone consumers should be helped to understand some of the subtleties involved in comparing aquas with emeralds.

CHRONO: GIA considered most major gem species in setting up its Type system. I can see some problems and GIA should address them. But the basic system is sound and much better than the old method of trying to apply diamond clarity grading to red tourmaline or emerald. And it''s certainly better to refer to a system in use by an independent gemological organization with a worldwide reputation than to go by individual dealers'' confusing AAA, AA, A grades, etc. Consumers who wish to buy color knowledgeably need to do a little homework.

Richard M.

Richard - I agree and personally like the Type I, Type II, saturation, hue, etc grading system. I think for experienced gem buyers/lovers it''s pretty simple to understand once they know the basics BUT this does take research. I''m happy to do that but how many people will be bothered, especially if it''s their first purchase?

People fall into two camps (typically), those who do tons of research, ask millions of questions and take their time getting the right stone and those who just pull the trigger because they like the colour or size of a gemstone without even finding out if that gemstone is suitable for what they want!

At least with loupe clean, almost loupe clean, slightly included, included etc., people who are more likely to pull the trigger may have come across this grading system and so it may mean something at least! The words are also self explanatory which is helpful whereas Type I etc isn''t.

 

[morecarats]

I would be more impressed with the GIA clarity grading scheme if the GIA labs would actually use it themselves.

I''ve had several cases recently where customers wanted GIA certification and were disappointed with the GIA test report when it didn''t include any clarity grade. When I inquired at GIA Bangkok the gemologists I spoke with informed me that they don''t provide clarity grading for colored gemstones.

Sounds absurd, doesn''t it? If you have any doubts, you can see the sample test reports on GIA''s website, such as this one:

http://www.gia.edu/lab-reports-services/colored-stones/colored-stone-reports/ruby-report.pdf

Here is GIA''s description of what is covered in their reports:

"These reports document the results of a full gemological examination of a material, identifying the material examined and detailing such characteristics as color, transparency, shape, cut, and dimensions weight and a color photo. The full report states whether the material is natural or synthetic and if it has been treated to enhance its appearance by an identifiable treatment. The report also notes whether the material is a simulant with no known natural counterpart, or if it has been assembled from two or more separate components."

As you can see in the sample report, the "transparency" classification only indicates whether the gemstone is transparent, translucent or opaque.