Love is never having to say.....

[Modified Brilliant]

"Imperfect Clarity!"
At least that is what I have learned about a gemological laboratory who probably thinks that the word "imperfect" might be a turn-off for prospective diamond buyers. After all, this laboratory finds itself doing plastic credit card "appraisals" and "grading" for a very large jewelry retailer and most certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone. It's politically correct to talk about diamond "color" i.e. (H) near colorless but NOT clarity, i.e. (I) <no description of what "I" stands for>

So my question is: if your significant other purchases a diamond and you learn that it is "imperfect" what would be your reaction?
We all know that an imperfect clarity diamond may be somewhat visually appealing in some ways.
Do you feel that the terminology "imperfect" may be a turn-off to a potential buyer and should be avoided by a lab?
Just curious what the PS community thinks about this.








Note to PS community:
Jeffrey Ira Averbook has legally changed his name to Jeffrey Ira (same guy!)

 

[Skippy123]

so if something was written imperfect clarity I would be curious what perfect or near perfect clarity looked like. lol Who is the consumer, I guess? If it was a PS'er of course I think we would probably question it. Are these diamonds SI3's? just curious. and hi, Jeff!!!

 

[dk168]

Personally, the adjective "imperfect" is subjected to interpretations, and I would avoid using this terminology when producing a certificate for a diamond or gemstone.

I would prefer to see grading being awarded based on a set of recognised standards for colour, cut and clarity, based on objective and measurable evidences.

DK

 

[Circe]

I would prefer to avoid subjectivity in grading. "Imperfect" has a negative set of connotations. Imagine if GIA called VVS or VS stones "flawed" instead of admitting to varying levels of inclusions ....

 

[HopeDream]

I always thought the big I stood for "included"- as in very obviously included. (Which shows you how much I've looked in to imperfect diamonds - I usually don't even consider them).

I'm fairly clarity sensitive, so, if I received one, upon close inspection, no one would have to tell me that it was an "I" diamond it would be quite obvious.

If the inclusion was really cool - like a ruby inclusion, or an inclusion that formed an identifiable shape, and was chosen for that reason with thought behind it, I'd probably be quite pleased if it was a pendant or other "fun" purchase.

If an I diamond was purchased for an engagement ring, the proposal would be declined because my partner would be well informed of my clarity sensitivity ahead of time. He knows that a smaller high clarity diamond would be preferred to a larger included one, and blatant disregard of an important detail of a major purchase bodes ill for the future of our relationship.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses....keep them coming!
So, GIA changed their terminology of the use of the word "imperfect" to "included" in the 1990's.
Apparently, some labs and diamond industry folks were resistant to change. Most still use the term "imperfect."
If you asked most of the jewelry trade about this they would answer "imperfect."
It's a softer word, for sure, but the definition remains the same.