SI 1 with visible occlusion

[bee59]

After months of looking I finally decided on a Steven Kretchmer setting and began my search for a diamond. I purchased a 1.04 carat G SI1 Hearts and Arrows stone from Whiteflash.When I took the stone to my jeweler he offered a comparable stone for a cheaper price. The overall price is about $500 less. Both stones are AGS certified ideal and their fire and brilliance are very similar. Here''s the difference. The stone from whiteflash has an occlusion that is visible to the naked eye under natural light. I have looked at the stone a number of times the past few days and there is no doubt that I can see it with the naked eye. I thought an SI1 stone could not have flaws that were visible without magnification? The stone my jeweler provided has a number of what appear to be carbon deposits on the face that are only visible under magnification. They look like tiny black spots and easily spotted with a 10X loupe.I am leaning toward the stone provided by the jeweler, but am a little hesitant because of how easily the flaws are seen. Any suggestions?

 

[purduephotog]

I can't tell you which one to choose, but...

My gf's sister has a ring with a visible carbon spot down the face. It's reflected in all the facets, so it looks even larger. It's the FIRST thing she pointed out to me when I saw the ring- her fiancee wasn't there, fortunately... but both of the women talk about how they don't like that the inclusion is visible.

And this was outdoors in bright sun.

I have no idea what yours looks like but I already know I'm not 'allowed' to have a visible one when I propose ....

 

[reena]

an SI1 stone can definitely have flaws that are visible without magnification.

 

[reena]

purduephotog, out of curiosity what clarity was your GF's sister's ring?

 

[moremoremore]

as Reena said, an si1 can definitely have an eye visible inclusio. Clarity grades are only graded face up and have nothing to do with "eye clean"...The clarity grades only have to do with the nature and # of inclusions...There is a lot of BS out there on diamond sites saying oh, this clarity grade is only visibe 10X. That is so not true. You have to look at each stone individually....this holds true even for vs2 stones....

 

[Brian Knox]

Hi bee,

Welcome ,

You come upon a dirty little secret in the subjectivness of diamond grading.

Some SI-1's may be clean to the naked eye and some may not.

Same is true of SI-2's.

Everything else being equal, everyone will agree that an eye clean SI is better than one that is not eyeclean.

Sounds like your local jeweler has a better stone for less money.

 

[Dancing Fire]

bee59,

the problem with SI stones is it maybe eye clean to one pair of eyes and not to another. if you have sharp eyes, like MMM, then you may have to go with a VS stone. i have a 3+ ct SI1 RB that I can not see anything with a naked eye. Chris from Dave Atlas, who did the appraisal, also calls it eye clean. i hope he eats lot of carrots. but i am blind as a bat.

 

[Skyblue]

Bee59,

Whether you go with your local jeweler or give WF another shot with a different stone, I think you should return the current WF stone.

You are already unhappy with it and I do not think the inclusion is going to become any less noticeable to you over time. Perhaps you should look for a VS2 stone or take your time finding an SI1 stone that meets your expectations.

Good luck

 

[reena]

deleted sorry.

 

[jayselle]

You may want to go at least VS1. Either way at least look at it. I just bought a VS2 that I thought was eye clean, but I never looked from the side. There is a single black inclusion dead center in the ring visible with the naked eye. You have to know its there to see, but it can be seen by the eye. I already gave it to my fiance, however, I think we are going to return and I will upgrade to VVS2 or VVS1.

 

[zoobiedo]

Return the stone and either let Whiteflash redeem themselves or work with your local jeweler if the stone there is one you LOVE. I bought an SI1 and can't see an inclusion anywhere so they are out there.