shape
carat
color
clarity

SI2 Inclusions. Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
We all know from spending lots of time on Pricescope that SI2 inclusions may or may not be visible without magnification.

However, once it is concluded that an SI2 stone is eye-clean, are there then specific inclusion types that should be avoided?

In other words, is a ''natural'' better than say a "cloud"...or a "chip" worse than a "feather"? Are all inclusions within an eye-clean stone, created equal?

Wondering....
Thanks!
 

neatfreak

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
14,167
I''m not expert, BUT to me as long as they''re eyeclean and the inclusions aren''t likely to hurt the integrity of the stone, I don''t care which ones they are.

BUT I don''t like black inclusions ever.
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,589
Sometimes feathers near the girdle should be avoided for durability reasons, but this should be done on a case by case basis and only an appraiser can tell whether it would be an issue or not.

In general, I find that twinning wisps are incredibly difficult to see with my eyes or with a loupe. Also, I prefer either many tiny inclusions scattered about or one or two larger inclusions that could be covered by a prong.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
I will tell you what, I have a REALLY hard time imagining SI2 inclusions being totally eyeclean from all angles. But since it seems to be true!(based on reading several other threads) I am very hopeful for my new VS2, its inclusion plot is VERY exciting, the best I have seen in the VS1 and lower range. Now I just wish BN would hurry up and accept my return. However, back to the SI2's, I trust people here, but I will always wonder if those people are just blind until I actually see one that is totally eyeclean
11.gif
sorry
9.gif



oh, and by the way, we need to come up with a new pronoun for diamonds. I don't like calling them It, but I also don't want to give them genders
1.gif
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/15/2007 8:14:15 PM
Author:beebrisk
We all know from spending lots of time on Pricescope that SI2 inclusions may or may not be visible without magnification.

However, once it is concluded that an SI2 stone is eye-clean, are there then specific inclusion types that should be avoided?

In other words, is a ''natural'' better than say a ''cloud''...or a ''chip'' worse than a ''feather''? Are all inclusions within an eye-clean stone, created equal?

Wondering....
Thanks!
No straight rules!!!
Way to many parameters.....

And no, not all inclusions within an "eyeclean" stone are equal.
As not all eyeclean stones are considered eyeclean by all!!!
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Working Hard and DiaGem,

When I say my stone is eye-clean, I mean when it''s set, and you look straight at it, it looks beautiful, clear and sparkly. If there is an inclusion that can be seen from the pavilion that is either entirely or even mostly hidden by the setting, I have no problem with that.

No one (and that includes me!) will be taking the ring off, twisting it around under every possible light source and condition, and making it their business to go hunting for visible inclusions. I believe I have found such a stone.

I guess what i really want to know is this: Within the SI2 clarity level (and provided you are dealing with an nice, eye-clean stone) are there certain inclusion types (ie: Cloud, chip, needle, etc) that are more ''acceptable'' than others? Are there some that should be avoided? Obviously a fault at the girdle can be an issue, but other than that, are there some SI2 stones that are considered ''better'' than others?
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/16/2007 6:27:03 AM
Author: beebrisk
Working Hard and DiaGem,

When I say my stone is eye-clean, I mean when it''s set, and you look straight at it, it looks beautiful, clear and sparkly. If there is an inclusion that can be seen from the pavilion that is either entirely or even mostly hidden by the setting, I have no problem with that.

No one (and that includes me!) will be taking the ring off, twisting it around under every possible light source and condition, and making it their business to go hunting for visible inclusions. I believe I have found such a stone.

Good for you...

I guess what i really want to know is this: Within the SI2 clarity level (and provided you are dealing with an nice, eye-clean stone) are there certain inclusion types (ie: Cloud, chip, needle, etc) that are more ''acceptable'' than others? Are there some that should be avoided? Obviously a fault at the girdle can be an issue, but other than that, are there some SI2 stones that are considered ''better'' than others?

Any inclusions that have potential to stick out (visibly)..., for example black crystals or feathers in a position of blocking the direct path of light return etc..., etc...

Good luck,
YES..., there are better SI2''s and worst ones..., but as you said..., your main concern is the face up appearance (as most people are)...
So it gets back to my "old saying"..., you have got to see the Diamond with your eyes prior to deciding!!!!
 

ladykemma

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,194
beleive it or not i have a pair of eye clean I-1 leverbacks earrings from jared. and i am nearsighted. so keep an open mind.
 

MWG

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
530
Date: 6/15/2007 8:14:15 PM
Author:beebrisk
We all know from spending lots of time on Pricescope that SI2 inclusions may or may not be visible without magnification.

However, once it is concluded that an SI2 stone is eye-clean, are there then specific inclusion types that should be avoided?

In other words, is a ''natural'' better than say a ''cloud''...or a ''chip'' worse than a ''feather''? Are all inclusions within an eye-clean stone, created equal?

Wondering....
Thanks!
Personally, I would stay away from FEATHERS, especially those close to the girdle. My reasoning is that a feather, from what I have read, is basically a crack in the stone.

Now, does that mean the stone is going to break......NO!!!!!! But, in my mind, a crack is a crack, and it can only do 2 things......stay the same or get worse!!! I prefer not to take the chance.

MWG

Just my 2 cents
MWG
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/16/2007 10:49:54 AM
Author: MWG

Date: 6/15/2007 8:14:15 PM
Author:beebrisk
We all know from spending lots of time on Pricescope that SI2 inclusions may or may not be visible without magnification.

However, once it is concluded that an SI2 stone is eye-clean, are there then specific inclusion types that should be avoided?

In other words, is a ''natural'' better than say a ''cloud''...or a ''chip'' worse than a ''feather''? Are all inclusions within an eye-clean stone, created equal?

Wondering....
Thanks!
Personally, I would stay away from FEATHERS, especially those close to the girdle. My reasoning is that a feather, from what I have read, is basically a crack in the stone.

Now, does that mean the stone is going to break......NO!!!!!! But, in my mind, a crack is a crack, and it can only do 2 things......stay the same or get worse!!! I prefer not to take the chance.

MWG

Just my 2 cents
MWG
I rather perfer feathers as SI inclusions when correctly positioned.
A feather is better explained as a "split"... rather than a crack...
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 6/16/2007 11:11:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

I rather perfer feathers as SI inclusions when correctly positioned.
A feather is better explained as a 'split'... rather than a crack...


I agree. Crack is a scary word (both on the street and in diamonds).
40.gif
I prefer split or fissure. Crack sounds so…recent.

What is a feather? It was often caused by a crystal that expanded inside the diamond millions of years ago when it formed.Cutters try to plan around such inclusions and if a feather doesn’t break the surface or run for a long way it likely poses no problem: Remember that adiamond will never be exposed to the extremes of pressure and friction it endured during the cutting process in everyday wear. On the other hand an open feather can pose a durability risk, depending on its size and position. Feathers are very common in SI clarities and must be considered on a case by case basis.
 

Lynn B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
5,609
Date: 6/16/2007 2:02:08 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
I will tell you what, I have a REALLY hard time imagining SI2 inclusions being totally eyeclean from all angles. But since it seems to be true!(based on reading several other threads) I am very hopeful for my new VS2, its inclusion plot is VERY exciting, the best I have seen in the VS1 and lower range. Now I just wish BN would hurry up and accept my return. However, back to the SI2''s, I trust people here, but I will always wonder if those people are just blind until I actually see one that is totally eyeclean
11.gif
sorry
9.gif
OK, I assure you I am not "blind"
2.gif
, in fact I have 20/20 vision. And my DD has eagle-eye 20/10 vision and she can''t see any inclusions (from ANY angle in ANY light) in my SI2 stone, either. Since I obviously can''t show you my diamond in person, let me direct you to a thread with a kijillion photos of it. And trust me, none of them are altered or edited in any way. All I know how to do in Photoshop is CROP!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-gorgeous-new-fishtail-pave-set-from-wf.46129/

Believe me, totally eye-clean SI (even SI2) stones ARE out there. (Although, as I noted in another thread, those pitiful, visibly occluded SI stones in most mall jewelry stores are NOT accurate representations of the SI stones most PS''ers have.) They (SI stones) may not be for everyone, because the issue of "mind clean" is very real. BUT, when SI diamonds are ideal-cut, they represent an AWESOME value for people, like me, who don''t want to pay for what we can''t see... and who put priority on cut (beauty) and size.
31.gif
 

cinnamon013

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
1,701
Date: 6/16/2007 11:56:28 AM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 6/16/2007 2:02:08 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
I will tell you what, I have a REALLY hard time imagining SI2 inclusions being totally eyeclean from all angles. But since it seems to be true!(based on reading several other threads) I am very hopeful for my new VS2, its inclusion plot is VERY exciting, the best I have seen in the VS1 and lower range. Now I just wish BN would hurry up and accept my return. However, back to the SI2''s, I trust people here, but I will always wonder if those people are just blind until I actually see one that is totally eyeclean
11.gif
sorry
9.gif
OK, I assure you I am not ''blind''
2.gif
, in fact I have 20/20 vision. And my DD has eagle-eye 20/10 vision and she can''t see any inclusions (from ANY angle in ANY light) in my SI2 stone, either. Since I obviously can''t show you my diamond in person, let me direct you to a thread with a kijillion photos of it. And trust me, none of them are altered or edited in any way. All I know how to do in Photoshop is CROP!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-gorgeous-new-fishtail-pave-set-from-wf.46129/

Believe me, totally eye-clean SI (even SI2) stones ARE out there. (Although, as I noted in another thread, those pitiful, visibly occluded SI stones in most mall jewelry stores are NOT accurate representations of the SI stones most PS''ers have.) They (SI stones) may not be for everyone, because the issue of ''mind clean'' is very real. BUT, when SI diamonds are ideal-cut, they represent an AWESOME value for people, like me, who don''t want to pay for what we can''t see... and who put priority on cut (beauty) and size.
31.gif
Well, I don''t have an SI2, mine is SI1, and I agree with Lynn B. I am so proud everyday of my little SI1. I appreciate my education on here about diamonds and the SI category. It is a real beauty. AND, it reminds me that I am a wonderfully thrifty person. I got a great deal on a beautiful rock, and kept true to my spirit of getting the most for my dollar.

If it is eye clean, then no one will see anything but bling. Beebrisk, congrats! If that SI2 stone your are eyeing turns out to be eye clean, go for it. Wear it and smile!
25.gif
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/16/2007 11:50:26 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/16/2007 11:11:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

I rather perfer feathers as SI inclusions when correctly positioned.
A feather is better explained as a ''split''... rather than a crack...



I agree. Crack is a scary word (both on the street and in diamonds).
40.gif
I prefer split or fissure. Crack sounds so…recent.

What is a feather? It was often caused by a crystal that expanded inside the diamond millions of years ago when it formed.Cutters try to plan around such inclusions and if a feather doesn’t break the surface or run for a long way it likely poses no problem: Remember that adiamond will never be exposed to the extremes of pressure and friction it endured during the cutting process in everyday wear. On the other hand an open feather can pose a durability risk, depending on its size and position. Feathers are very common in SI clarities and must be considered on a case by case basis.
OR...., a partition (a space) between to perfectly paralleled Diamond planes that can be pretty transparent....
 

just_looking!

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
505
I''m in the SI2 eye clean club!! My engagement ring diamond is an F with feather hidden under a prong. I have trouble finding it even with a loupe so it''s really eye clean. This allowed me to get a whiter stone which I prefer!

We got lots of photo''s from the vendor inc. microscope and dark field before sending it off to Richard Sherwood for an expert opnion about whether there were any structure issues.

Would definitely buy SI2 even in larger sizes if the inclusions were eye clean.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
JQuixote
Thank you for your expert opinion...and on a Saturday, no less! (Didn''t you say on your webcast yesterday that you were in desperate need of a little R & R?) I guess the call of the diamond is just too hard to resist, huh?
9.gif


The plot on my intended (stone, not dear BF) shows a cloud, a crystal and a couple of tiny needles and feathers. In the "Key to Symbols" (GIA), it also shows a "Chip". However, for the life of me, I cannot find the corresponding chip symbol on the plot. The clouds and others are quite clear, but there is no little, triangle-shaped thingie that''s supposed to represent the chip. Should I just stop thinking too hard, and go by what I saw (a GORGEOUS, sparkly stone) or should I inquire further about this one seemingly teensy inclusion? By the way, it''s a .85 RB, so I guess by virtue of its size, it definitely hides a multitude of sins!

Lynn B,
I have spent so many months reviewing this site, you didn''t think your rock would escape me, did you? It''s one big, beautiful, blingy thing! And I agree, the SI''s do seem to be a great value, and I feel oddly proud of myself for finding something I love so much for a reasonable amount of money.
41.gif


Cinnamon,
I will definitely wear it and smile! I agree whole-heartedly with you and Lynn B about the value of the SI''s. I''ve never been one to need a giant rock (I have a small hand and I''m not the flashy type), so it seemed like absolutely the perfect choice for me. This way I was able to get a nice size and good "G" color.


35.gif
 

MWG

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
530
DiaGem and John Quixote - I love the "politically correct" terms that you two are using for a FEATHER!!! But of course, I dont sell diamonds for a living either.....LOL I hope you know .......I am just "messing with you." LOL

Well, let me rephrase my thought.....I personally would not purchased a diamond that has a "split or fissure" in the diamond. I did not say they were bad, but I do not want one.

Friends always,
MWG
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
Date: 6/16/2007 11:56:28 AM
Author: Lynn B
Date: 6/16/2007 2:02:08 AM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

OK, I assure you I am not 'blind'
2.gif
, in fact I have 20/20 vision. And my DD has eagle-eye 20/10 vision and she can't see any inclusions (from ANY angle in ANY light) in my SI2 stone, either.


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-gorgeous-new-fishtail-pave-set-from-wf.46129/

I completely agree with you. My previous post was really more making fun of myself than intending to show doubt on your diamond. As you have probably seen in some of my numerous threads where I repeat this same matter, I just got a VS2 that was not totally eyeclean, so now I am terrified to buy even a VS2 online! a VS2! I really feel silly stressing so much over a VS2 inclusion. If it was an in store purchase I would be more than happy to go with SI2, but I simply don't like the risk of trusting someone's else eyes and interpretation of eyeclean, getting it and having to trust the postal system and them to give me my refund if I have to return it--(plus the time and wasted 1.5% of the cost of my diamond). So I have the utmost respect for everyone with their SI2's and while I am happy to be able to get her a VS2 for an engagement ring I would not care at all if it was eyeclean, I would be estatic for the find. But doing this online, I think I might have a heart attack if I went down to SI2.

Also, I have researched a lot of combinations and prices out there. I have found that in my price range I have set to get a color where I can't see any warmth from the side if I were to drop in clarity the only options in the bottom end of my price range are some GSI1's that don't have the AGS chart listed and are about .05 mm larger than mine (so obviously I would pick my E VS2 for slightly more money, as I can detact a slight warmth from the sides of the G's I have looked at) or I can move up .9cts and have a variety of SI2s of F color that are about .10 mm larger than mine and have to trust the online dealer to have the same high standards for eye cleanliness as myself. What it comes down to for me is that I am getting into that .6ct range, but if I move up to over .7 then there is a major price hike just for ct alone, so lowering clarity doesn't help improve size much unless I lower my color significantly as well. I can get a bit cheaper of a diamond with lower clarity and similar color, but most of them are lower color and I would have the added stress of trusting the dealer so much with the added risk of having to trust everyone for a refund and a minimum of 1.5% the purchase price in postal fees. And finally there is the risk that other people may find out her clarity, and not everyone is as well educated as you ladies on here--thus I think its part of my job to find a ring that she won't ever be shy about if someone finds out its clarity (which will be even more difficult without her being particularly well informed).

Thus I have determined that sticking with my .61ct E VS2 is going to be the best all around balance of size, color, clarity, and cost. If it were in store though, I would take a look at some SI2's that are slightly larger, but it just doesn't seem worth it to me online. You have a beautiful ring though! no questions about it! i would love to wear her myself! (well the diamond anyway, the setting would have to be more manly:)
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/16/2007 1:42:24 PM
Author: MWG
DiaGem and John Quixote - I love the ''politically correct'' terms that you two are using for a FEATHER!!! But of course, I dont sell diamonds for a living either.....LOL I hope you know .......I am just ''messing with you.'' LOL

Well, let me rephrase my thought.....I personally would not purchased a diamond that has a ''split or fissure'' in the diamond. I did not say they were bad, but I do not want one.

Friends always,
MWG
I am afraid you got it backward...
A feather is no crack....

Nothing political here!
 

MWG

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
530
Date: 6/16/2007 2:14:01 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 6/16/2007 1:42:24 PM
Author: MWG
DiaGem and John Quixote - I love the ''politically correct'' terms that you two are using for a FEATHER!!! But of course, I dont sell diamonds for a living either.....LOL I hope you know .......I am just ''messing with you.'' LOL

Well, let me rephrase my thought.....I personally would not purchased a diamond that has a ''split or fissure'' in the diamond. I did not say they were bad, but I do not want one.

Friends always,
MWG
I am afraid you got it backward...
A feather is no crack....

Nothing political here!
Hey DiaGem,

I will quote some trusted people on PS and others for you about FEATHERS and Politically Correct:


A "feather" is a fancy word for a "crack" within the diamond. In the industry we don''t like to use the word crack since that sounds too harsh. Truth be told "feathers" are the most common types of inclusions found within diamond and are found in VVS2 - I3 clarity diamonds. The only feathers that should really concern you are those that break the surface or ones that run from one side of the diamond to another. On our website if you browse our tutorial on clarity, gallery of inclusions or diamonds for sale I have many pictures of what feathers look like at various magnifications.
Hope that helps,
Rhino
Rhino
Good Old Gold

A primary feather is a disturbance in the crystal structure (crack, cleavage) which occurs because of pressure on the diamond in it''s initial growth period.

Continued secondary heat, pressure and crystallization of the diamond will then partially heal that crack or cleavage, giving it the "feathery" look from which it receives its name.


A "healed" feather is similar to a crack in a piece of metal which has been "re-welded". If the "welding job" is very good, the "well healed" feather usually poses no threat to the durability of the diamond.


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory
www.sarasotagemlab.com

Feathers are healed fractures in the diamond crystal. A nice way of saying a "crack" as it were.


Feather - This is another name for crack. A feather is not dangerous if small and does not open through a facet.


„X Fracture (feather): The majority of imperfections in diamonds are the result of breakage or fractures, in the diamond chemical structure.


Feather
When the plane of cleavage or fracture in a diamond is viewed at right angle to it, the appearance is often reminiscent of a feather. Thus, cleavage and fractures are often called ¡§feathers.¡¨
Feathers: These are small fractures in a diamond. They are usually caused by the tremendous stress that the diamond suffered while it was growing underground. In some cases the feather both begins and ends within the diamond''s surface and, in other cases, the feather begins inside the diamond and extends to the surface. When viewed under magnification, some feathers are transparent and others have a light white appearance to them. The term "feather" comes from the fact that, under magnification, these fractures often seem to have an indistinct, feathery shape to them. While the idea of buying a diamond with "fractures" may sound scary, the reality is that, with normal wear and care, most feathers pose no risk to the diamond''s stability. Consider this: even with the feathers, these diamonds survived their growth and their journey to the surface intact. Once on the surface, they also survived the mining process, as well as the brutal stresses of the diamond cutting process. Though diamonds are certainly not invulnerable to damage, basic consideration to their care and handling during everyday wear will most likely protect them over the course of several human lifetimes. For more information on feathers and other types of inclusions, see our discussion, The Four Cs: Clarity.
Small feathers close to the girdle that don¡¦t break the surface are usually no a problem. Feathers are small cracks running perpendicular to the cleavage plain, they usually have a white feathery appearance.

Cleavages on the other hand are sometimes a problem as they occur in the direction of the cleavage planes and are a result of cohesion weakness of the carbon atoms. These cracks occur a lot easier and can expand under internal pressure.





 

Modified Brilliant

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,527
Date: 6/15/2007 8:14:15 PM
Author:beebrisk
We all know from spending lots of time on Pricescope that SI2 inclusions may or may not be visible without magnification.

However, once it is concluded that an SI2 stone is eye-clean, are there then specific inclusion types that should be avoided?

In other words, is a ''natural'' better than say a ''cloud''...or a ''chip'' worse than a ''feather''? Are all inclusions within an eye-clean stone, created equal?

Wondering....
Thanks!
Hi beebrisk,

Very good questions but very difficult to answer as inclusions vary in size and scope as we all know. I personally prefer an SI 2
that doesn''t have dark included crystals. I prefer a small natural to a cloud and feathers vs. chips on a case by case basis.
It''s amazing what folks with really great eyesight can see.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Id much rather have a white si2 grade setting feather than a GIA/AGS si grade setting cloud.
MWG - while you are quoting people hunt down the quote from Garry that a healed feather can actually stabilise a cleavage plane.
He makes a pretty good case for it but I cant say its true or not for sure because not everyone agrees.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
Date: 6/16/2007 1:42:24 PM
Author: MWG
DiaGem and John Quixote - I love the 'politically correct' terms that you two are using for a FEATHER!!! But of course, I dont sell diamonds for a living either.....LOL I hope you know .......I am just 'messing with you.' LOL

Well, let me rephrase my thought.....I personally would not purchased a diamond that has a 'split or fissure' in the diamond. I did not say they were bad, but I do not want one.

Friends always,
MWG

Relax MWG...
This is my sole opinion on this matter.

I have never heard the term crack associated with Diamonds Gemological clarity term..., so I guess its not only me and John!
Sure..., sometimes we use a that term in Diamonds professionally but it is usualy in associations with either serious cracks (like natural breakage of the surface..., usualy in its rough state) or could even be in regards to a "sherf (crack)" manually inserted on the surface of a Diamond for the purpose of cleaving (spliting)...


If my opinion could have weight on this subject..., I would stick to the term feather/fissure when it comes to a Diamond...
After all..., Diamonds are not like any other rocks.

And again..., nothing political here period!



 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
MWG - I think it's tomayto, tomahto and I'm glad you brought it up because it is one way retailers describe a feather to consumers.

The language of cutters is sometimes different than we hear downstream. Brian Gavin taught me 'fissure' to describe a feather because he associates 'crack' with natural rough breakage or with splitting rough - like DG does. I follow his lead because I'm often in the company of cutters, and because crack implies something recent and fragile (to me). Nothing is written in stone tho - excuse the pun - and if I was describing big open, nasty explosive feathers in an I2-I3 diamond to a newbie I might describe them as 'cracks' or worse (canyons?).
2.gif


This kind of discussion is precisely what makes PS great, so no worries!
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 6/16/2007 1:37:05 PM
Author: beebrisk
JQuixote

Thank you for your expert opinion...and on a Saturday, no less! (Didn't you say on your webcast yesterday that you were in desperate need of a little R & R?) I guess the call of the diamond is just too hard to resist, huh?
9.gif
You're quite welcome - I can't seem to stay away. My PS addiction is like... (brace yourself) ...'crack.'


The plot on my intended (stone, not dear BF) shows a cloud, a crystal and a couple of tiny needles and feathers. In the 'Key to Symbols' (GIA), it also shows a 'Chip'. However, for the life of me, I cannot find the corresponding chip symbol on the plot. The clouds and others are quite clear, but there is no little, triangle-shaped thingie that's supposed to represent the chip. Should I just stop thinking too hard, and go by what I saw (a GORGEOUS, sparkly stone) or should I inquire further about this one seemingly teensy inclusion? By the way, it's a .85 RB, so I guess by virtue of its size, it definitely hides a multitude of sins!
Is it an AGSL graded stone? If so, we've encountered a trend with the lab: By GIA's interpretation a chip is an inclusion. It occurs at a girdle edge, facet junction or culet and typically follows the direction of cleavage. There are two smaller characteristics the GIA calls blemishes: A nick is similar to a chip, occuring in the same places, but smaller. A pit is a tiny opening anywhere on the diamond's surface that looks like a tiny white dot. We've seen a couple of stones with what the GIA would call a nick or pit, plotted by AGSL as a chip. They were difficult to locate on the plot (triangle is so tiny it looks like a line) and took extreme scrutiny to find on the diamond under 10X. That's the technical part. I suggest the 'gorgeous sparkly stone' part trumps your chip, unless it's a durability issue.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
John Quixote,
You''re quite welcome - I can''t seem to stay away. My PS addiction is like... (brace yourself) ...''crack.''

By "crack" you mean "feather"...right? ;-)



Is it an AGSL graded stone? If so, we''ve encountered a trend with the lab: By GIA''s interpretation a chip is an inclusion. It occurs at a girdle edge, facet junction or culet and typically follows the direction of cleavage. There are two smaller characteristics the GIA calls blemishes: A nick is similar to a chip, occuring in the same places, but smaller. A pit is a tiny opening anywhere on the diamond''s surface that looks like a tiny white dot. We''ve seen a couple of stones with what the GIA would call a nick or pit, plotted by AGSL as a chip. They were difficult to locate on the plot (triangle is so tiny it looks like a line) and took extreme scrutiny to find on the diamond under 10X. That''s the technical part. I suggest the ''gorgeous sparkly stone'' part trumps your chip, unless it''s a durability issue.

It''s a GIA graded stone. Are you suggesting that the presence of a ''chip'' on the GIA grading report, but invisible on the plot, is insignificant?? Of course, that''s what I want to hear!
And...if you suspect the ''gorgeous sparkly stone'' trumps the chip, I am going to breathe a big sigh of relief and go forth with the pretty thing!...THANKS John!
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 6/16/2007 7:49:32 PM
Author: beebrisk

By 'crack' you mean 'feather'...right? ;-)
1.gif
Methinks the only cracks in this thread are wise cracks.



Date: 6/16/2007 7:49:32 PM
Author: beebrisk

It's a GIA graded stone. Are you suggesting that the presence of a 'chip' on the GIA grading report, but invisible on the plot, is insignificant?? Of course, that's what I want to hear!
And...if you suspect the 'gorgeous sparkly stone' trumps the chip, I am going to breathe a big sigh of relief and go forth with the pretty thing!...THANKS John!
It does sound promising but, keeping it real, clarity is always case by case. 'Gorgeous sparkly' is what will matter to you in the long run, but go ahead and find out where our friend Chip is for peace of mind before final purchase. A GIA report will show the chip in red and in its actual shape (it's not always a V). Someone can find it. This is a case where a reputable independent appraiser can help you sigh blissfully for the long haul. As with any diamond (even FL/IF) be sure to have it insured.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
John Q.

Thanks again for all the info...Feels like you should send me a bill for all this free advice!

I will definitely inquire about the chip position, etc..

I should say, I am purchasing this stone from another VERY highly regarded PS "diamond guy", so I do feel quite confident about the fact that I am getting the best stone within the quality/price parameters that I have chosen.

At the same time, I think there should be a ''warning'' label on PS that reads something like this:
"Although you''ll learn more about diamonds on our site than you thought you ever needed to know, you should be aware that side effects can include: head-spinning, confusion, doubt, second thoughts, second guessing and ultimately, obsessive forum-reading behavior."
19.gif
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Strm,
How do you know exactly what inclusion is considered the ''grade making'' one?
 

rainydaze

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
3,264
Date: 6/17/2007 9:03:18 AM
Author: beebrisk
John Q.

Thanks again for all the info...Feels like you should send me a bill for all this free advice!

I will definitely inquire about the chip position, etc..

I should say, I am purchasing this stone from another VERY highly regarded PS ''diamond guy'', so I do feel quite confident about the fact that I am getting the best stone within the quality/price parameters that I have chosen.

At the same time, I think there should be a ''warning'' label on PS that reads something like this:
''Although you''ll learn more about diamonds on our site than you thought you ever needed to know, you should be aware that side effects can include: head-spinning, confusion, doubt, second thoughts, second guessing and ultimately, obsessive forum-reading behavior.''
19.gif
LOL, i cannot comment on the inclusion issue but the highlighted comment had me laughing. SO TRUE....... !!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top