- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,696
The GIA and all other labs use a clarity grading system created when few or no imperfect, I1-I2 or I3, diamonds were lab graded. The important stones for grading at that time, 50+ years ago were the Flawless to VS2 stones and it is my belief less thought was used in setting standards for lower clarity diamonds than might have been employed. Since they didn''t mean much, it makes perfect sense that not much effort was spent on defining them better.
Now, we have an imperfect system for Imperfect stones. We "could" do better, but we all look to standard makers, such as the GIA, to "lead" us in such an effort. While I proposed changes in clarity grading standards more than once, I am not anyone to set standards for the international diamond trade. A change in standards would be disruptive and people''s hard earned profits and capital would be at risk if there were sweeping, though logical changes.
I think the matter is best handled by a smart public. A public that has learned to look at diamonds and understand how inclusions may or may not have an effect on visual appeal and appearance. There are I1 diamonds which look just fine and others that look pretty awful. The same could be said for I2 clarity, but of course, awful becomes more commonplace and looking fine much more rare. When you shop for a diamond, nothing substitutes for looking and judging the visibility of clarity issues. It is much like judging color. What YOU see is VERY important. What you cannot see, may be financially important, but may not be the deciding factor for YOU and your budget.
The point of this post is to help those who would like to maximize the size of their diamond by allowing for a lower clarity diamond, or a lower color one.... The point at which a stone becomes fragile due to clarity faults must be considered and this is in the world of the expert, not the consumer. The visual aspect is the primary area where a consumer needs to use their own eyes and become an observer of what they really are able to see in the diamond. It takes a bit of time to be able to focus on inclusions, but you will find it a worthwhile venture. Knowing the nature of what is in your diamond is an important aspect of long term satisfaction.
Now, we have an imperfect system for Imperfect stones. We "could" do better, but we all look to standard makers, such as the GIA, to "lead" us in such an effort. While I proposed changes in clarity grading standards more than once, I am not anyone to set standards for the international diamond trade. A change in standards would be disruptive and people''s hard earned profits and capital would be at risk if there were sweeping, though logical changes.
I think the matter is best handled by a smart public. A public that has learned to look at diamonds and understand how inclusions may or may not have an effect on visual appeal and appearance. There are I1 diamonds which look just fine and others that look pretty awful. The same could be said for I2 clarity, but of course, awful becomes more commonplace and looking fine much more rare. When you shop for a diamond, nothing substitutes for looking and judging the visibility of clarity issues. It is much like judging color. What YOU see is VERY important. What you cannot see, may be financially important, but may not be the deciding factor for YOU and your budget.
The point of this post is to help those who would like to maximize the size of their diamond by allowing for a lower clarity diamond, or a lower color one.... The point at which a stone becomes fragile due to clarity faults must be considered and this is in the world of the expert, not the consumer. The visual aspect is the primary area where a consumer needs to use their own eyes and become an observer of what they really are able to see in the diamond. It takes a bit of time to be able to focus on inclusions, but you will find it a worthwhile venture. Knowing the nature of what is in your diamond is an important aspect of long term satisfaction.
300x240.png)