Do inclusions affect the light return of a stone?

[johnnyr]

I have been thinking about this, and the logical answer is yes it does. My theory is that since there is an inclusion - or an ''obstacle'' in the stone, the light return is effected by this.

Is this the case or is the brilliance/fire of a diamond not affected by inclusions?

Cheers
Johnny R from down under.

 

[chrono]

I would say the inclusion will only affect the brilliance and fire of the stone if it is very large, say a single cloud that makes the SI grade. Small inclusions in a VS2 and even some SI1s barely affects the optical performance of the diamond.

 

[belle]

only if the inclusion is a big ''ol booger one. a little speck here or there is not going to effect the overall performance. on the other hand, a cloud that covers a majority of the stone will have an impact.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/4/2007 10:22:48 AM
Author:johnnyr
I have been thinking about this, and the logical answer is yes it does. My theory is that since there is an inclusion - or an ''obstacle'' in the stone, the light return is effected by this.

Is this the case or is the brilliance/fire of a diamond not affected by inclusions?

Cheers
Johnny R from down under.

Generally this isn''t an issue with most gem quality diamonds - with rare exceptions.

 

[Regular Guy]

I think the topic is at least slightly controversial, with a range of discussion...from zero effect, like ever, to one where one could make that a no go for even VS2 when a cloud is the grade maker. In this latter case, the concept of AGS0 effectively enough predicting light performance is raised. Alternately...I don't know that there's any good claim to have been made that Imagem or such will help you much.

I find this opinion is dead center...

Date: 10/4/2007 10:28:07 AM
Author: Chrono
I would say the inclusion will only affect the brilliance and fire of the stone if it is very large, say a single cloud that makes the SI grade. Small inclusions in a VS2 and even some SI1s barely affects the optical performance of the diamond.

and the real variation is modest...either side of that.

Me...I'm kind of puzzled the other posters here have much of an opinion really...I'm just a court reporter.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/4/2007 10:57:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy
I think the topic is at least slightly controversial, with a range of discussion...from zero effect, like ever, to one where one could make that a no go for even VS2 when a cloud is the grade maker. In this latter case, the concept of AGS0 effectively enough predicting light performance is raised. Alternately...I don''t know that there''s any good claim to have been made that Imagem or such will help you much.

I find this opinion is dead center...

Date: 10/4/2007 10:28:07 AM
Author: Chrono
I would say the inclusion will only affect the brilliance and fire of the stone if it is very large, say a single cloud that makes the SI grade. Small inclusions in a VS2 and even some SI1s barely affects the optical performance of the diamond.

and the real variation is modest...either side of that.

Me...I''m kind of puzzled the other posters here have much of an opinion really...I''m just a court reporter.

 

[chrono]

Ira,
I too don't understand what you mean by you being just a court reporter.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/4/2007 11:04:24 AM
Author: Chrono
Ira,
I too don''t understand what you mean by you being just a court reporter.

Where''s Gary Larson when I need him?

Anyone remember this strip...

A professor is with a chalk at a board...and students are watching him. They are saying in turn...



What is he doing

What is he doing

What is he doing

(he''s thinking) What in the heck am I doing?

 

[Lorelei]

Ira, you are going to have to spell it out for me I am afraid - what you mean.

 

[chrono]

Ira,
I am sorry - I am not familiar with Gary Larson. Still no idea what you are talking about. Am I showing my age or anything?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/4/2007 10:57:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Me...I''m kind of puzzled the other posters here have much of an opinion really...I''m just a court reporter.

Sorry.

1) We all have a large continuum of experience here actually looking at diamonds. Mine is pretty little.
2) Though we all also participate here...also...together...we read many of each other''s comments...including reports from reputed experts, who...we know...see a whole lot of diamonds.
3) Since we see that those who see a lot of diamonds cannot themselves agree on the light effect from inclusions, as I wrote above, I am puzzled that any of us in the center of the continuum of experience with diamonds would want to state with something that might look like confidence...anything much on the matter.
4) I, on the other hand...assuming reportorial mode, am probably too comfortable sharing what I''ve otherwise heard here.

Is that more clear?

I know I am thick. But was that explanation necessary?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/4/2007 11:22:24 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 10/4/2007 10:57:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Me...I'm kind of puzzled the other posters here have much of an opinion really...I'm just a court reporter.

Sorry.

1) We all have a large continuum of experience here actually looking at diamonds. Mine is pretty little.
2) Though we all also participate here...also...together...we read many of each other's comments...including reports from reputed experts, who...we know...see a whole lot of diamonds.
3) Since we see that those who see a lot of diamonds cannot themselves agree on the light effect from inclusions, as I wrote above, I am puzzled that any of us in the center of the continuum of experience with diamonds would want to state with something that might look like confidence...anything much on the matter.
4) I, on the other hand...assuming reportorial mode, am probably too comfortable sharing what I've otherwise heard here.

Is that more clear?

I know I am thick. But was that explanation necessary?

Very very few of us are actually experts as I think is quite widely known. We are hobbyists and enthusiasts who spend time here trying to help new shoppers. My post above, if that is what you are getting at Ira, was merely another way of repeating information that I have heard the experts say on these boards many times - that inclusions affecting light return is rare. My post is as valid as anyone elses here, despite your personal feelings on what I have to say, I am under the impression that Pricescope is a consumer forum primarily and as such, if I am posting correct information, I have as much right as anyone else to post and participate. If you don't like my posts - skim over them - it is that simple. Yes - that explanation was necessary to me - thank you.

Perhaps then we should not be posting about anything at all concerning diamonds - especially with confidence - as we don't have the practical experience, but I do believe that many of us have been and are of help to those looking for a diamond.

 

[chrono]

I have to agree with Lorelei on this. I do not claim to be an expert but am learning continually from the true experts who post here on PS. This topic has been discussed in the past and this information is what I gleaned from that discussion. This is a forum where a lot of lay people participate in and the experts like Jon, John, Dave, etc don''t always have the time to answer every post. Therefore, I oftentimes quote them, links their posts or share the knowledge that I''ve learnt from them.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/4/2007 11:35:44 AM
Author: Chrono
I have to agree with Lorelei on this. I do not claim to be an expert but am learning continually from the true experts who post here on PS. This topic has been discussed in the past and this information is what I gleaned from that discussion. This is a forum where a lot of lay people participate in and the experts like Jon, John, Dave, etc don''t always have the time to answer every post. Therefore, I oftentimes quote them, links their posts or share the knowledge that I''ve learnt from them.

Thanks Chrono, also personally I enjoy our time we spend daily helping in RT - especially when we get complimented by the experts on how well we are doing - which has happened in the past.

 

[belle]

i see what ira is trying to say and the bottom line is: this is a message board frequented most often by lay consumers. when you post here, you get what you pay for. anytime there is a question answered anywhere in life, you should consider the source. it is a fact of life that should not be overlooked.

 

[Regular Guy]

So, we learn about many things here.

We learn about how to evaluate diamonds.

We learn how to evaluate information

Moreover...we learn how to communicate effectively with each other.

Evidently, I am a slow learner.

Nothing personal...except...everything is personal.

With real regards,

 

[Lorelei]

If I misunderstood I am sorry for that, also I completely agree that it is always best to verify any info given with any purchase, let alone such a costly one as a diamond - personally I think my fellow posters do a great job with advising and helping new consumers, even though they along with myself aren't experts in the main. I think for the most part, we can post and pass on information we have learned through our time here from the experts with confidence, to new posters which is helpful to them and accurate, and I hope we can continue to do so.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Inclusions large enough to impact transparency and brightness are typically relegated to the I1-I3 grades. The exception is grade-setting cloud(s) in SI2. Garry, who is well-traveled, has reported seeing this in a few GIA SI1s as well... In our experience that would be a rare exception, much like a diamond with strong fluorescence that has deleterious effect. We check in any event.

VS+ is practically automatic assurance of no issues. SI stones may have eye-visible inclusions in some instances but nothing to hinder light performance - with the SI2 cloud exception as noted. With I1-I3 it''s a stone-by-stone call. Every diamond is different and it never hurts to be cautious, regadless of lab grade. Reputable sellers make inclusion inspection a compulsory part of their analysis (clouds/transparency, feathers/durability, crystals/eye-clean etc., etc.).

This underscores the reason we feel diamonds should not be sold without a credentialed gemologist doing a firsthand analysis on the client''s behalf.

 

[strmrdr]

bottom line with this issue work with a dealer that is knowledgeable enough to sort out high performance diamonds in person and trustworthy enough to reject the problem stones then don't worry about it.
There are several such vendors on PS.

Things to avoid:
Drop shippers

Also its a good idea too stick with GIA/AGS and maybe EGL-USA reports.

Iv seen IGI vs graded stones with eye visible inclusions that could effect light return in parts of a stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

i agree with Chrono and John about SI''s with grade making clouds. It would be better if labs graded clouds with top light.

I also throw whitish graining in here.