Inclusions at edge of diamond... acceptable?

[john_ertw]

Hi everyone. I''m looking at a round 1.06 ct, SI2, g colour, "ideal" cut diamond (these specs were from a Gemscan pre-cert, but I will get a full grading report before purchasing it). The diamond looks great to the naked eye and under a 10X loupe I can see a couple small inclusions throughout the diamond, but what concerns me is what I think is an inclusion at the edge/perimeter of the diamond. I can''t see it with my bare eye, but under the 10X loupe it almost looks like crushed glass (that''s the best I can describe it). I''m not sure if it''s an inclusion or damage to the edge of the diamond. Is an inclusion at the edge of the diamond acceptable or something I want to stay away from?

I would be getting a great deal (I was referred to someone and can pay cash to avoid taxes (15%)). My girlfriend''s sister''s ring was bought from this person and it''s been verified to be what it was claimed to be, although that diamond had a GIA report.

Any help would be great!

 

[WinkHPD]

Most people prefer their eye clean SI2''s with inclusions towards the side of the stone. If you have questions about it, ask to see the stone under a scope with variable power and take a better look

You should be careful about talking about avoiding taxes in public as that can be illegal in most jurisdictions, even though the vendor does not have to collect the tax. (You are required to pay a use tax, although most people do not do it. Someday the states will go to vendors with subpeonnas for their sales records and those who did not pay the taxes can expect a knock on the door as there are literally BILLIONS of dollars at stake which the States desparately need/want.) Although if you are in his office, taxes are not a function of whether or not you pay cash unless he is willing to collude with you on avoiding taxes, which would make me personally very nervous. Any vendor willing to cheat the government with its incredible powers to "reach out and touch someone" might well be willing to cheat me too...

Wink

 

[ame]

Mine is at the edge and I purposely had it set NEXT to a prong instead of under where it was concealed for two reasons--I am insane and need to see it, and because I wanted the table to be parallel to the band.

I don''t want anything clearer than an SI1 because I feel it''s not worrying about.

 

[john_ertw]

So I guess inclusions near the edge is the best senerio. How can I tell if what I see is an inclusion or damage? Being right at the edge it almost looks like someone smashed the stone and left that mark (although it''s size is so small you can''t see it with a bare eye).

Thanks for the quick replies. This forum is very helpful!

 

[ame]

Well mine is pretty easy to see if you 1) knowwhat you are looking for and 2) are looking at it from the right angle but otherwise no one knows what Im talking about...now at 30x magnification it''s pretty interesting looking, almost a "crack" shaped thing but clearly isn''t a crackor chip.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/12/2005 6:51:35 PM
Author: ame
Mine is at the edge and I purposely had it set NEXT to a prong instead of under where it was concealed for two reasons--I am insane and need to see it, and because I wanted the table to be parallel to the band.

I don''t want anything clearer than an SI1 because I feel it''s not worrying about.

You had me thinking there for a minute with this post, Ame. I was like "aren''t the tables supposed to be parellel to the band?" But you want the facets lined up with the band, right? Or am I still confused? I honestly didn''t think about that. I was mostly just wanting to know that the arrows were not covered up by the prongs. I forgot to mention that, but I''m happy to see that they look petty good. The way my prongs are configured, it was pretty difficult to line everything up evenly with the band. (I mean arrows, facets, what not)

As far as not wanting anything clearer than an SI1, is it because you want to be able to indentify your diamonds by the inclusion?

 

[john_ertw]

I came across this site that provided a description of various types of inclusions along with magnified pictures: http://www.niceice.com/diamond_clarity_characteristics.htm

Based on what the pictures, I would have to describe what I saw as either a very large feather or cloud. According to this site, they would avoid a diamond with large feathers that break the edge since it may present a future duribility risk.

 

[ame]

What I mean is that top facet, I want it to run parallel to the band where the hexagon shape is straight across...does that made sense?

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/13/2005 4:29:49 PM
Author: ame
What I mean is that top facet, I want it to run parallel to the band where the hexagon shape is straight across...does that made sense?

Yup, it makes sense to me. At first I couldn''t figure it out, but after I thought about it, I got it.