Why the 'transparency' difference here?

[optimizedlife]

When viewed table on and about 15deg on either side of straight on the 2.27 looks VERY hazy compared to the 2.02.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/2.27-carat-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-310791
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/2.02-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-299955

AFAICT It's not the H - I can find other Hs that look as transparent as that G.
AFAICT It's not the SI1 - I can find other SI1s that look as transparent at that VS2

Is it just something uncategorizable? Is it some difference in video/lighting? I assume not the latter, they seem pretty consistent.

Or IS it the SI1 and there are just TONS of micro-inclusions that harm light traversal? Obviously there is a reason a 2.27 Ideal cut is so cheap. Is that 'intangible' what makes it drop like that?

*learning*

 

[ecf8503]

The cert on the 2.27 says "additional clouds not shown"...

 

[drk14]

One thing I notice about the H is that the virtual facets that make up the dark "arrows" have blurry edges. I've been told by JA that if facets look blurry, it's not a camera problem, the stone would actually present like that. So my guess is that there is some suboptimal aspect of the cut of the H diamond that consipres to make the virtual facets blurry and hazy...

Clouds are apparently constellations of a large number of small pinpoint inclusions, so I would be surprised if an entire diamond was enveloped by a cloud.

 

[pyramid]

Inclusions can reflect so the clouds could reflect and fill up the transparent areas of the diamond to the eye.

 

[sparkleme]

I was in a similar situation -- one stone of 2 looked noticeably hazier, and the cert diagram did not explain this. The cert said "additional clouds not shown", and the gemologist said that was the explanation.

 

[optimizedlife]

OK this has me concerned now. I have roughly 15 diamonds on my 'watch list' (mix of VS1/VS2/SI1), and at least 10 of them have some sort of 'additional clouds not shown' on them.

Does that disqualify them? Or does that mean I then get them looked at by someone to tell me if they are hazy in any way?

With something like JamesAllen it seems to be easy to see it, but the primary place I'm shopping is WhiteFlash due to their selection, their customer service has been tremendous, and I'm probably getting the setting done with them as well so want to do it all at the same place. I could be looking at only hazy/cloudy diamonds and not know it!

Does the sharpness of the 'default image' for a diamond that WF shows perhaps point to that? I've seen some where that image has slightly fuzzy edges on the arrows etc (as mentioned by drk14).....is that a way to select out?

eg:
sharp - http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3189872.htm
not sharp - http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3063719.htm

 

[sparkleme]

FYI, the diamonds that I described were at WF, and I noticed the difference between the hazy and non-hazy diamond on the default image. I think the default image can be used to select out the hazier stones, as you illustrated. I'm a newbie, though.

 

[sparkleme]

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-clarity

I think this comment on clouds from the link above is interesting:

Clarity Grading Plots

Most grading reports have inclusion plots. (marked in red for internal and green for external features) They are useful for identification. Often only the main "grade makers" are plotted, and additional inclusions are listed in comments; "pin points not shown" etc. A worrying comment is "Clouds Not Shown,” because a cloud drawn on plots can look so bad that no one would buy the diamond. Clouds are only a problem on SI1 and lower clarity diamonds if no other inclusion is marked on the plot, i.e. the cloud is the grade maker. Big clouds can dull the diamond. But it is rare for even I1 diamonds to be dulled by inclusions.

 

[optimizedlife]

Good find sparkleme! Thanks so much.

 

[John P]

When a report lists clarity characteristics as "not shown" (usually surface graining, pinpoints or clouds) it means they are non-issues. The grader was simply noting they exist for sake of thoroughness.

A similar comment which does bear investigation when it appears is "Clarity grade based on clouds not shown." It's especially relevant in SI and I clarities where grade-setting clouds can be an optical issue.

 

[optimizedlife]

John: Interesting. If they aren't of issue, then why was that diamond in the original question SO hazy looking then do you think? Or would that haze be seen at 'life size' viewing rather than a 20x blown up video that you can rotate?

 

[John P]

Several thoughts.

1. My comment was made in the interest of defusing this notion:

I have roughly 15 diamonds on my 'watch list' (mix of VS1/VS2/SI1), and at least 10 of them have some sort of 'additional clouds not shown' on them.

As I shared, standard practice is for the term "not shown" to indicate a non issue when it appears. So when you're looking at 10 reports which say "(XYZ) not shown" no problems should be anticipated...per standard practice.

2. With that said:

then why was that diamond in the original question SO hazy looking then do you think

Some possibilities, in descending order of significance...

A. The diamond is indeed hazy: Occasionally a diamond with some level of haziness caused by persistent microscopic pinpoints will make it through a lab with no comment or indication. This isn't just an I or SI issue, we've seen diamonds graded VS which have this condition. The haziness can be very slight to severe. A trade nickname when there's a notable effect is a "sleepy" diamond. Slight cases may never be noticed by the average jeweler, but a thorough vetting process will detect any with this issue.

B. The video is making the diamond seem hazy. If the lens was smudged it can create a hazy appearance where none exists.

C: The diamond is smudged: A fingerprint, grease or something on the surface could be interfering with transparency.

D: Some other photo/video circumstances we don't know about.

My suggestion is to get in-touch with one of the gemologists working for the seller who can get you a definitive answer. You're working with solid professionals who'll investigate on your behalf. Use those onsite experts to your advantage.

 

[Karl_K]

When a report lists clarity characteristics as "not shown" (usually surface graining, pinpoints or clouds) it means they are non-issues. The grader was simply noting they exist for sake of thoroughness.
I used to think the same but after talking to some people about recent grading I am not so sure. I think that it should prompt a discussion with the seller just to be safe. With clouds more so than the others
A similar comment which does bear investigation when it appears is "Clarity grade based on clouds not shown." It's especially relevant in SI and I clarities where grade-setting clouds can be an optical issue.

 

[Karl_K]

Woops, I should have read further on to John's next post then just posted ditto.

 

[John P]

Karl,

No worries. In fact I'm with you, in the sense that we also feel an ongoing need to grade the graders. It's why I advise shoppers to find and work-with an expert they trust to provide an added layer of site-based consumer protection.

 

[optimizedlife]

Great, thanks...good knowledge. So it comes down to when I'm pulling the trigger, asking them in depth about that one diamond and any perceived issues. I guess the 'skeptic' in me says they just want to sell me something so will tell me what I want to hear as opposed to getting an unbiased notion...but on the balance, their inventory and choice is so high that would be the gain out of that since they could easily say no, not what you want, and point me at another diamond.

I do think I succumb to 'perfectionism' in a lot of things and that can carry across to this. I balked when experts on here said I/eye-clean-SI1 is perfectly fine for flash/colour/etc and the only time it would be noticed is when side on compared against a much whiter colour or with a loupe/microscope. Size/flash (cut) are noticed all the time. Colour/clarity not so much. The demon I wrestle is eye clean vs "really get in with eye and look clean" vs mind clean.

 

[optimizedlife]

John: Do you have suggestions on where to find an "official" expert for an online purchase, other than depending on the altruism of online experts such as yourself or Gypsy?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes John, I often advise people to not be too clever in their own non expert analysis of clarity - they some times try to find an eye clean SI2 in +2ct ,which unless the stone has a prong coverable inclusion, in my view there is no such stone unless it has a cloudy effect.

Of course if there is a warning "Clouds not shown" and it is the third mention or even further down the list of inclusion types on the grading report, then I would ignore it. If its the second then I would want to see an appropriate sized inclusion to be the major grade maker.

I have personally seen a GIA VS2 that was very cloudy - sleepy - I asked to buy it as a sample but the manufacturer vendor did not want to risk his reputation with GIA.


Edited to add - if in doubt find an appraiser on the list of resources for a 3rd party review. Most vendors will ship a stone to an appraiser for you (at some small expense possibly).

 

[luvdajules]

Hi Garry, thank you for your post and expertise. I'm in the process of vetting out a 2.07 J/Si2 "eye clean" and the second grade setting inclusion is a cloud with additional comments additional clouds not shown. I'm a skiddish buyer to begin with and your informative and helpful post has given me a bit of pause, ha! I have to admit my stomach fell as I read it but I think it's good for buyers to really know their stone they are considering, now during the inspection period to fully accept the clarity of Si2. So they may fully embrace their stone and love it with eyes open (assuming no brilliance or transparency issues as a result of clarity or cut). Thankfully, I'm working with a wonderful PS vendor and appraiser, so I feel like I'm in great hands with this purchase.

Perhaps since I'm still a newb, I'm not super confident about diamond knowledge in general, however, I have to say that this particular stone is eye clean and over 2 cts. AND the light performance is AGS0 and I'm not aware of any brilliance or transparency issue at all, but admittedly, I'm not an expert (like you who has seen thousands, maybe tens of thousands). Every stone must be judged on its own merits, but an edict-like statement like there's no such thing as an eye clean Si2 over 2 cts. is a bit over generalized? However, I'm sure well rooted from experience and probably a good overall threshold to be cautious crossing. I'm having my stone looked at by a 4th set of eyes today, just to make sure!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Could you post the report, do you have any images Luvdajewels?
I did say - "unless the stone has a prong coverable inclusion"

 

[Karl_K]

over all my years here I can think of 2 maybe 3 2ct+ si2 that where eyeclean without pronging an inclusion and min, impact on performance.
All of them were hand picked by the vendors and not selected from a list.
They are extremely rare and in most cases the owner would lab shop until they get a better grade before putting it on the market at a higher grade.
Overall Garry is right but there have been very few exceptions.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The other exception is VS x 10 Karl, when the stone has several VS type inclusions that are all too small to see. They frighten some people under magnification though.

And twinning wisps - I have seen some, rarely, which because (IMHO) labs grade in dark rooms with back light, these stones can face up when the lights coming from above the stone with very little to be seen.

I hope we can get to see a good image of the stone in question - it may be a good learning op.

Also Luv - take a ruler, rest one end between your eyes, run your finger along and tell us the closest focus distance you can still see clearly.
For most people that is about 10 inches / 25cm. if you wear specs leave them on.

 

[luvdajules]

Thank you, Garry. Here it is, sorry a little tardy...report and images in 2 first posts. The pic of actual diamond is really blown up!
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/[/URL]

ETA I think you guys in the trade must have hawk eyes from years (sometimes decades) of practice and maybe also tend to error on side of caution, which we all appreciate here. Admittedly, this stone is maybe borderline, but I'm assured is an Si2 and eye clean at 10". I personally cannot see the inclusions without a loupe even taking the stone in 6-8", but those in the trade can (knowing what to look for). The lilypad (a tiny garnet crystal that grew in a feather) on the edge of the stone is not visible to me nor to many people that have seen the stone, but one person could see it and it did bother her, but it's totally prongable (although I dont strictly think it's necessary). Thank you for looking!

EETA I was a little freaked yesterday after reading this thread and being a cautious consumer, so I had it looked at specifically for any transparency issues or brilliance effect from the inclusions (especially from the clouds) that might take away from the cut quality. Answer was absolutely NO, whew!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you, Garry. Here it is, sorry a little tardy...report and images in 2 first posts. The pic of actual diamond is really blown up!
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/[/URL]

ETA I think you guys in the trade must have hawk eyes from years (sometimes decades) of practice and maybe also tend to error on side of caution, which we all appreciate here. Admittedly, this stone is maybe borderline, but I'm assured is an Si2 and eye clean at 10". I personally cannot see the inclusions without a loupe even taking the stone in 6-8", but those in the trade can (knowing what to look for). The lilypad (a tiny garnet crystal that grew in a feather) on the edge of the stone is not visible to me nor to many people that have seen the stone, but one person could see it and it did bother her, but it's totally prongable (although I dont strictly think it's necessary). Thank you for looking!

EETA I was a little freaked yesterday after reading this thread and being a cautious consumer, so I had it looked at specifically for any transparency issues or brilliance effect from the inclusions (especially from the clouds) that might take away from the cut quality. Answer was absolutely NO, whew!

There you go. You did your homework AND your due dilligence. And now you have a beautiful result for your efforts. Your enthusiasm and excitement is contagious.
Congrats!

 

[luvdajules]

Thank you, TL, that's very generous of you !!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you, Garry. Here it is, sorry a little tardy...report and images in 2 first posts. The pic of actual diamond is really blown up!
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/advice-on-this-2-07-ct-j-si2-on-the-fence.204119/[/URL]

ETA I think you guys in the trade must have hawk eyes from years (sometimes decades) of practice and maybe also tend to error on side of caution, which we all appreciate here. Admittedly, this stone is maybe borderline, but I'm assured is an Si2 and eye clean at 10". I personally cannot see the inclusions without a loupe even taking the stone in 6-8", but those in the trade can (knowing what to look for). The lilypad (a tiny garnet crystal that grew in a feather) on the edge of the stone is not visible to me nor to many people that have seen the stone, but one person could see it and it did bother her, but it's totally prongable (although I dont strictly think it's necessary). Thank you for looking!

EETA I was a little freaked yesterday after reading this thread and being a cautious consumer, so I had it looked at specifically for any transparency issues or brilliance effect from the inclusions (especially from the clouds) that might take away from the cut quality. Answer was absolutely NO, whew!

It is indeed a VS2 x 4, and the major grade maker is the prongable red garnet crystal, which is also a collectors item.
I would definitely not cover that Luvajule!

With that much going on the clouds are very minor or GIA would have given it I1. But it is one of the rare eye cleans so you have a lucky price saving

 

[luvdajules]

Thank you, Garry! Especially the bit about the garnet crystal being a collector item. Well, it was AGS certified, but assured and reassured that GIA would also grade it Si2. The GIA definition for I1 as I understand it: inclusions must cause material loss of beauty and or durability. Hope this helps others considering larger, budget friendly diamonds.