What percentage of 2ct+ SI2 diamonds are eye clean?

[kenny]

Buying in person is one thing but when buying over the Internet I play it safe when it comes to cut, clarity and color.
Sight-unseen Internet buying is increasing.
No need to see the stone if you shoot high.

I'll let someone else take the risk with stones that may be disappointing in person.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Buying in person is one thing but when buying over the Internet I play it safe when it comes to cut, clarity and color.
Sight-unseen Internet buying is increasing.
No need to see the stone if you shoot high.

I'll let someone else take the risk with stones that may be disappointing in person.

Great idea Kenny- D/Flawless for all online shoppers!
Are you paying for all this?

 

[kenny]

Buying in person is one thing but when buying over the Internet I play it safe when it comes to cut, clarity and color.
Sight-unseen Internet buying is increasing.
No need to see the stone if you shoot high.

I'll let someone else take the risk with stones that may be disappointing in person.

Great idea Kenny- D/Flawless for all online shoppers!
Are you paying for all this?

The market is what it is.
People want what they want.
They don't want what they don't want.
You and I can discuss it but we can't change that.

Hey, I got an idea.
Join the 21st Century.
Ride the horse in the direction it is going; Stop stocking stones that today's shoppers don't want.
Maybe you could even finally qualify to become a PS vendor instead of spending your energy lowering standards here so you can sell your inventory.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Dreamer- all due respect: Your post re-enforces misconceptions.
For example: Hold a J next to a D. Anyone with sensitivity to color ( someone who is not colorblind) can see the difference.
Hold an eye clean Si2 next to an internally flawless- visually, they are IDENTICAL.
Nor are eye clean SI2's so rare as you make it sound.

But this bolded part is what we cannot assume to be universal to the observer with SI2, eye clean to you nay not be eye clean to me. If we find that truly eye clean to everyone SI2 beastie, then of course it will look just like a IF -- and I will buy it right now! But I think if you hold a typical "eye clean" Si2 up to an IF, many many consumers could see the difference and it will potentially matter to them.

Whenever the topic of SI2 comes up here on PS it seems that the owners of SI2 diamonds say either: "My stone is one million percent eye clean and it took me a long time to find it" or "I can see the inclusions in some lighting if I really really look and I don't care at all!" with more people in the latter than former camp. Again, this suggests to me that SI2s that are truly indistinguishable from an IF for all observers are rare.

 

[yssie]

...and I'm the opposite, when I was looking for a larger stone I narrowed my search to SI1s and SI2s and asked my vendor to find me one with a crystal near the girdle. I got one with a feather instead. And stuck it under a prong, works for me.

I think there are some fundamental facts all SI2-seekers must accept:
1. Most larger stones won't be eyeclean by conventional standards (from usual viewing angles through the crown from 8-10" w/ 20/20 vision).
2. SI2 is a range, and when two stones compare well on paper but differ substantially in price it's probably because one is a "better" SI2 than the other - cheaper is not always better value.

3. All inclusions reduce sparkle, the question is by how much. We know that clouds and twinning wisps can visibly reduce brilliance, we must accept that a VVS stone will have more un-interfered-with light return than an SI2 of any sort. Does this matter IRL? Perhaps, perhaps not. A better cut will certainly help mitigate the effects of broken ray-paths (as will the fact that it's a larger stone, with -hopefully - more clean volume to accept and output light), but I do believe that at some point the benefits of simply having a higher clarity break even with/outweigh choosing a lower-clarity super-ideal with a premium.

An eyeclean SI2 and an IF might look identical faceup when held still, but the way the stones handle incident light will differ, and you may or may not see the effects of those differences when the stone is in motion. The breaking, splitting, and dispersing of rays around and through inclusions is much like the splitting that occurs in non optically symmetric stones, and the final result - smaller VFs - is the same. 'cause that's what the math says The extent, though, is a different question.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

Dreamer- all due respect: Your post re-enforces misconceptions.
For example: Hold a J next to a D. Anyone with sensitivity to color ( someone who is not colorblind) can see the difference.
Hold an eye clean Si2 next to an internally flawless- visually, they are IDENTICAL.
Nor are eye clean SI2's so rare as you make it sound.

snip..... If you are grading from the top down, this is just not the case, there are many of them. probably more that are eye clean than are not. (Depending on eyesight of course.) If you are grading them from the sides and bottoms where the physics of light make it much easier to discern the inclusions then I will agree with you and there will be many VS stones that are not eye clean under this definition. Please understand though that this is not the trade definition of the term.

Wink

I agree with Wink- my assessment is based on personally looking at thousands of carats of GIA graded diamonds each year..

I also agree with part of what you wrote dreamer- it's very important to actually look at any stone to decide if it's color, clarity, and cut are right for you.

It's really important to say that eye clean is REALLY subjective. I have had clients that could see the inclusion with their eye at 8" of a GIA graded VS2 diamond. It's RARE, but it happens. In my experience, SI2's are 50/50 eye clean for me if I look at the stone for a few minutes from 8 inches. At about 2-4 inches, for me, about 10% of SI2's are eye clean. All of this is looking at the diamond from the top, which is how the trade will define clarity. Yes, people admiring your ring will look at 2-4 inches. All of this depends on the visual acuity of the viewers.

Saying an IF looks visually identical to an SI2 is misleading. There's a reason there is a clarity grading, diamonds of different grades are rarely visually identical.

It is extremely important to talk with distant vendors over the phone and get their honest opinion on their stone. After that, YOU have to see the diamond first and make your own decision.

--Joshua

 

[Rockdiamond]

Buying in person is one thing but when buying over the Internet I play it safe when it comes to cut, clarity and color.
Sight-unseen Internet buying is increasing.
No need to see the stone if you shoot high.

I'll let someone else take the risk with stones that may be disappointing in person.

Great idea Kenny- D/Flawless for all online shoppers!
Are you paying for all this?

The market is what it is.
People want what they want.

Part of the problem is that Kenny, and others, are attempting to define the diamond market based on posts from an internet forum.
If 1000 people are looking for a diamond today, how many look at PS- and how many of that number actually posts?
Basing shopping advice on what one gleans from reading an internet forum leads to a lot of misinformation being written- hopefully tradespoeple with actual experience are reading, and can assist in straightening up misinformation- but that does not always happen.

...and I'm the opposite, when I was looking for a larger stone I narrowed my search to SI1s and SI2s and asked my vendor to find me one with a crystal near the girdle. I got one with a feather instead. And stuck it under a prong, works for me.

I think there are some fundamental facts all SI2-seekers must accept:
1. Most larger stones won't be eyeclean by conventional standards (from usual viewing angles through the crown from 8-10" w/ 20/20 vision).
2. SI2 is a range, and when two stones compare well on paper but differ substantially in price it's probably because one is a "better" SI2 than the other - cheaper is not always better value.

3. All inclusions reduce sparkle, the question is by how much. We know that clouds and twinning wisps can visibly reduce brilliance, we must accept that a VVS stone will have more un-interfered-with light return than an SI2 of any sort. Does this matter IRL? Perhaps, perhaps not. A better cut will certainly help mitigate the effects of broken ray-paths (as will the fact that it's a larger stone, with -hopefully - more clean volume to accept and output light), but I do believe that at some point the benefits of simply having a higher clarity break even with/outweigh choosing a lower-clarity super-ideal with a premium.

An eyeclean SI2 and an IF might look identical faceup when held still, but the way the stones handle incident light will differ, and you may or may not see the effects of those differences when the stone is in motion. The breaking, splitting, and dispersing of rays around and through inclusions is much like the splitting that occurs in non optically symmetric stones, and the final result - smaller VFs - is the same. 'cause that's what the math says The extent, though, is a different question.

Yssie- again, all due respect, but making these kind of statements based on what you've learned online- or looking at a limited number of diamonds in person is misleading.
The part underlined- simply untrue.
I understand very well that not all individuals have the same ability to see imperfections- that does not change the fact that many SI2 graded diamonds are totally eye clean- no matter your vision- and a lot of those from any angle.
The part in italics-again, untrue.
There are many SI2 diamonds who's imperfection has no perceptible impact on brilliance.

It's really important to say that eye clean is REALLY subjective. I have had clients that could see the inclusion with their eye at 8" of a GIA graded VS2 diamond. It's RARE, but it happens. In my experience, SI2's are 50/50 eye clean for me if I look at the stone for a few minutes from 8 inches. At about 2-4 inches, for me, about 10% of SI2's are eye clean. All of this is looking at the diamond from the top, which is how the trade will define clarity. Yes, people admiring your ring will look at 2-4 inches. All of this depends on the visual acuity of the viewers.

Saying an IF looks visually identical to an SI2 is misleading. There's a reason there is a clarity grading, diamonds of different grades are rarely visually identical.

It is extremely important to talk with distant vendors over the phone and get their honest opinion on their stone. After that, YOU have to see the diamond first and make your own decision.

--Joshua

Joshua- I flat out disagree that some SI2 diamonds are not visually identical to some Internally Flawless stones , in terms of their imperfection.
In my experience, being able to tell the difference between the clarity grades requires experience, and a loupe.
If the differences between the clarity grades were obvious, we would not need gemologists.

 

[yssie]

RD - I study polymer optics for a living.

When there's gunk in your sample, gunk of any sort, the optics are going to be affected.

I believe I made very clear that I couldn't state the extent of those effects, or whether they're perceivable IRL.

But no, an IF and an SI2 with inclusions, visible or not, will NOT perform identically even if every single other thing is exactly the same.



As to that first statement, I meant to delete it from my post as I don't want to get involved in that debate - apparently I forgot!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks yssie!

I think that your experience is certainly an addition to the conversation.

If the differences in brilliance between an SI2 ( eye clean ) and an IF are imperceptible, do they matter?

 

[yssie]

Thanks yssie!

I think that your experience is certainly an addition to the conversation.

If the differences in brilliance between an SI2 ( eye clean ) and an IF are imperceptible, do they matter?

Good question. Great question, in fact.

If the differences in brilliance between a hearts and arrows superideal and a non-H&A well cut stone are imperceptible, do they matter?

To me, not in the slightest - thus, I'm very happy with my 2ct+ not-eyeclean non-H&A SI2. But they matter to a lot of people, judging from the popularity of superideals!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks yssie- I really do enjoy reading your posts ( plus it's a very cute kitty)

You raise a great point- which can be related to this question.
If a potential shopper is relying on the answers given here, and perceptions differ, what can happen?
One person, who's seen some bad Si2 diamonds ( or misgraded ones, etc) warns another against SI2 diamond based on limited experience.

I strongly feel that discussions of cut often go in the same direction. If we need some sort of high tech device ( reflector technology, not a loupe) to say which diamond is brighter, is that difference material?


Kenny's suggestion is some sort of "highest common denominator"- which I also feel strongly about- folks that want a great looking stone- and a lot of bang for their buck- should be entitled to good advice just like those wanting H&A D/IF stones.

 

[yssie]

Thanks he's cute until he's trying to claw your eyes out, then marginally less so


I reckon most consumers wind up on RT because they're analysts. There are a thousand tools to help one analyze, and as long as they're used in the way they were intended, neither overused nor misused, no harm done and quite possibly something useful learnt. I know I like knowing about the minutae, and deciding for myself what's important and what's not - I'm not so good with deferring to the higher powers

The problems arise when people try to use these tools without understanding and accepting their limitations - the "cheat-sheet" becomes a hardline, the HCA becomes a lifeline, and the intricacies of the ASET image become a noose.

WRT clarity - if ten people say "beware large SI2s" because they've each had bad experiences with large SI2s, that's very different from ten people parroting an eleventh person who told them to beware large SI2s, IMO.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

It's really important to say that eye clean is REALLY subjective. I have had clients that could see the inclusion with their eye at 8" of a GIA graded VS2 diamond. It's RARE, but it happens. In my experience, SI2's are 50/50 eye clean for me if I look at the stone for a few minutes from 8 inches. At about 2-4 inches, for me, about 10% of SI2's are eye clean. All of this is looking at the diamond from the top, which is how the trade will define clarity. Yes, people admiring your ring will look at 2-4 inches. All of this depends on the visual acuity of the viewers.

Saying an IF looks visually identical to an SI2 is misleading. There's a reason there is a clarity grading, diamonds of different grades are rarely visually identical.

It is extremely important to talk with distant vendors over the phone and get their honest opinion on their stone. After that, YOU have to see the diamond first and make your own decision.

--Joshua

Joshua- I flat out disagree that some SI2 diamonds are not visually identical to some Internally Flawless stones , in terms of their imperfection.
In my experience, being able to tell the difference between the clarity grades requires experience, and a loupe.
If the differences between the clarity grades were obvious, we would not need gemologists.

The difference between a VVS and IF, or VS and VVS, requires a gemologist. The difference between IF and SI2 requires a brief talk. Most customers can find the inclusion by themselves at SI2. A VVS or VS diamond would be hard for someone untrained to separate from flawless, that I will agree to.

If light performance of a diamond is so important that a couple poor facets in a ASET leaking light will cause performance issues (which I STRONGLY believe), how is it that an inclusion covering several facets won't impact light performance? Crystals and feathers of sufficient size (SI2, and definitely I1) will impact the light return of a diamond.

--Joshua

 

[kenny]

RD I'm not going to even bother replying to your twisting and distorting of my words.

People can read.

 

[yssie]

If light performance of a diamond is so important that a couple poor facets in a ASET leaking light will cause performance issues (which I STRONGLY believe), how is it that an inclusion covering several facets won't impact light performance? Crystals and feathers of sufficient size (SI2, and definitely I1) will impact the light return of a diamond.

--Joshua

Joshua my issue with your assertion is that SI2 is a range, as is I1. Type, continuity, and placement of inclusion(s) all matter very much in determining whether the impact on light return is significant or of negligible importance, and visibility under a 10x loupe - which determines grade - isn't one of those factors. So the only thing we can really say for certain is that there is an impact of some sort.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes Yssie- sometimes tools can provide more consistent data, yet make things more difficult to allow instinctual powers to take hold.
If someone was told a given diamond is statistically worse than another, and they trusted that advice, would it color the way they saw the diamond?

WRT clarity - if ten people say "beware large SI2s" because they've each had bad experiences with large SI2s, that's very different from ten people parroting an eleventh person who told them to beware large SI2s. Or vice versa.

I agree- it's very different, but I wonder if we think it's for the same reason.

IN some ways it may cause mis-impression.

When people are satisfied, they generally speak out less.
If someone was sold an SI2 with a carbon spot that was not visible when the stone was clean, sees the spot after the stone gets really dirty, they may feel like a wrong was done ( and it may have been) so they feel the need to speak out.
What if there's 250 happy SI2 owners for every unhappy one that posts here?

As long as we're talking about SI2- let's get into a few specific types of SI2 stones.
Black Carbon spots are found in a percentage of SI2 diamonds.
We can have a single spot- in an SI2 that's relatively large.
If the spot is oriented just so, it can be completely invisible from face up- as well as 75% of views through the pavilion, even when the stone is loose.

OR

The spot is in a direct line between your eye, and the table, and a large facet on the bottom of the diamond, causing it to highlight the black spot- making it visible.

For me, one of the coolest aspects of diamond grading was always the incredibly variety of types of imperfections- as well as different types of similar imperfections that acted differently.
It's like looking at faces- each one is different.

Joshua- I really have seen many SI2 diamonds with extremely difficult to find imperfections.
I believe that the act of diamond grading is an art and a skill - of sorts.
Mainly because the main aspects are so basic- and unteachable if the student does not have the aptitude.
For example, holding the tweezers and loupe. If one is going to look at many stones, it's vital to be able to have good command of loupe and tweezer.
Some people can look at a diamond and recognize lapses in symmetry, or differences in shade.
You can only show a student what to look for- their ability will dictate if they can see it or not.
Teaching the difference between VVS1, VVS2, VS1, VS2, SI1. SI2 is not all that difficult, if the student has aptitude.

I think that keeping the discussion about clarity would be useful- sorry I mentioned reflectors.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

If light performance of a diamond is so important that a couple poor facets in a ASET leaking light will cause performance issues (which I STRONGLY believe), how is it that an inclusion covering several facets won't impact light performance? Crystals and feathers of sufficient size (SI2, and definitely I1) will impact the light return of a diamond.

--Joshua

Joshua my issue with your assertion is that SI2 is a range, as is I1. Type, continuity, and placement of inclusion(s) all matter very much in determining whether the impact on light return is significant or of negligible importance, and visibility under a 10x loupe - which determines grade - isn't one of those factors. So the only thing we can really say for certain is that there is an impact of some sort.

Very true, locations and how strong or weak the SI2 is are definitely factors. I just have a problem with saying an SI2 diamond is visually the same as a flawless.

--Joshua

 

[Rockdiamond]

Consider this: If we're looking at pricing, the SI2 grade costs the cutter ( saves the buyer) about 40% over a VS2 in a given color, 2carat size. The difference between Si1 and SI2 is about 20%
I1 prices plummet another 40% below SI2 graded stones. That's an approximately 40% drop in price in one grade!
For this reason, dealers started classifying stones as "SI3"- soon the second tier labs followed suit.
Still, since I1 has such a negative connotation, many of those stones end up as SI3- or even SI2 from lesser labs.
The grade of I1 is very wide- in other words, a bad I1 ( borderline I2) is far worse when compared to a stone that just missed getting SI2.
The point being, GIA is fairly strict with their SI2 clarity, as a rule.
Resulting in many eye clean I1 diamonds as well.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Consider this: If we're looking at pricing, the SI2 grade costs the cutter ( saves the buyer) about 40% over a VS2 in a given color, 2carat size. The difference between Si1 and SI2 is about 20%
I1 prices plummet another 40% below SI2 graded stones. That's an approximately 40% drop in price in one grade!
For this reason, dealers started classifying stones as "SI3"- soon the second tier labs followed suit.
Still, since I1 has such a negative connotation, many of those stones end up as SI3- or even SI2 from lesser labs.
The grade of I1 is very wide- in other words, a bad I1 ( borderline I2) is far worse when compared to a stone that just missed getting SI2.
The point being, GIA is fairly strict with their SI2 clarity, as a rule.
Resulting in many eye clean I1 diamonds as well.

pics???

 

[diagem]

The way an SI2 (Included) clarity will appear in a Diamond depends on quite a few factors...

a) Planning of the rough (which will determined the position of the inclusions within the polished stone).
b) the type of rough material used from the start.
c) the type of allocations and/or assortment a specific cutter uses in his/her normal production.

etc..., etc...

I can vouch that since I use mostly high quality material (both in shapes & quality), most of my polished production will end up VS+ in clarity!
But due to normal outer-edge (natural skin) clarity problems I encounter during the process, I could find myself with a small % of polished that will drop to SI1 (usually) and to SI2 (unusually) & sometimes even I1 (extremely rare!!).

One thing I am certain of..., these drops of clarity will appear in the polished outcome as the nicest SI's on the market since most of these inclusions were meant to be cut out of the polished resulting in tiny feathers positioned on the outer edges of the stones (usually on the pavilion side) translating into a completely free-of-inclusions face up appearance.

On the other hand there are assortments cutters use that are based on SI clarity and thats where you could find more problematic/visible SI appearances and where VS's become a rare bonus!

Hope I made sense,

 

[Rockdiamond]

Diamgem- although you generally buy the cleaner rough, would you say that there are cutters who buy more imperfect rough that may have developed great skill in cutting so that the imperfections are less visible?

 

[diagem]

Diamgem- although you generally buy the cleaner rough, would you say that there are cutters who buy more imperfect rough that may have developed great skill in cutting so that the imperfections are less visible?

They have too in this competitive environment..., other wise they will be out of business fast! Thats the whole difference today..., you must cut desirable Diamonds that are in demand. No room for amateurs anymore.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thanks yssie- I really do enjoy reading your posts ( plus it's a very cute kitty)

You raise a great point- which can be related to this question.
If a potential shopper is relying on the answers given here, and perceptions differ, what can happen?
One person, who's seen some bad Si2 diamonds ( or misgraded ones, etc) warns another against SI2 diamond based on limited experience.

I strongly feel that discussions of cut often go in the same direction. If we need some sort of high tech device ( reflector technology, not a loupe) to say which diamond is brighter, is that difference material?


Kenny's suggestion is some sort of "highest common denominator"- which I also feel strongly about- folks that want a great looking stone- and a lot of bang for their buck- should be entitled to good advice just like those wanting H&A D/IF stones.

Rock,

Sorry man, but this simply is not the case. Way too many of my clients have chosen the Infinity diamond without the aid of a reflector or any coaching from me in "blind taste tests". Differently cut diamonds look different to the eye.

I do not think it is a case of the eye saying which is brighter, it is a case of the eye saying which it likes best. Once the eye has made a decision, it is icing on the cake to give the education that explains to the client the reason(s) that they liked those stones better than the others. On rare occasions the lesser cut diamond was chosen, and that was okay too, as that is what THAT client's eyes liked better. That is why we do the "blind taste tests" with in house clients.

On the Internet it is simply easier to offer that which is chosen by an overwhelming percentage of my clients. Disparaging the use of reflector technology will not make the fact that it is the eye which is making the choice go away. All the reflectors do is allow us to explain in a very short period of time what our clients are seeing with their eyes. It is a far day away from the days when I myself would frequently fall asleep trying to inform a client about refractive index, light refraction, critical angles, and wow, my hands are going numb and my eyes getting heavy just typing this last sentezzzzzzzzz

 

[cara]

It will be hard for someone not in the trade to evaluate the actual percentage of not-eye-clean 2 ct+ SI2s. But harder still is standardizing the definition of 'eye-clean'. Different people have different eyes, and different standards (top-down? with some tilt? or from the side as well? at what distance? in what lighting conditions?)

But I find it hard to believe that most 2+ ct SI2s are 'indistinguishable' from IFs based on clarity. At least to people with good eyes given ample time to look at them. I have a 1.1 ct SI2 that I can easily see the inclusion in from top view at reasonable viewing distance on my hand - in some lighting conditions. In other lighting conditions it looks much cleaner. My ideal diamond would be higher clarity, but I didn't really figure that out until after this one was purchased. And while I can easily see the inclusions sometimes, they are also easish to ignore. So this stone will do for a nice long while until/if an upgrade is ever in store. I don't think my stone or my eyes are *that* out of the ordinary - plenty of other psers seem to easily see things in SI stones that they are considering, or ones that they have purchased.

As to whether or not it is 'bad advice' to discourage people from considering SI2s when they are in the market for a 2+ ct stone, I think there are some additional variables to consider: what are the budgetary pressures, how important is eye-cleanliness, how strictly is the buyer defining eyecleanliness, how patient is the person and what is their time-frame, how much hassle is the buyer interested in undergoing (ie, buying and returning SI2s that don't meet their standard if they are purchasing over the internet), how important is mind-cleanliness, does the person have a history of noticing clarity flaws in diamonds after some period of time and getting upset with them? The list goes on.

For example, if Guy A posts with ample budget saying he wants an ideal cut, eyeclean F/G 2+ ct stone pronto for proposal in 2 weeks, this is probably someone who should not try and weed through the SI2s looking for the eyeclean ones. He has time pressures but not so much budget pressures, better to go with a a higher clarity rating that is more likely to be eyeclean.

If Guy B also wants an ideal cut eyeclean F/G 2+ ct stone, but has months of time and will be stretching his budget to the absolute limit to get the color/size he wants, then it makes more sense for him to consider SI2s. Especially if he does not have the most strict definition of eyeclean and/or eagle-eyes.

If Woman C has already sent back several SI stones that were not eyeclean to her standards, and knows that she will be horribly bugged if she can *ever* see the inclusion in her diamond at any viewing distance or angle, then she also should probably try to get out of the SI2 market in the 2+ ct size range if possible. Unless she is aware that she is searching for a rare bird and willing to bide her time and pay shipping fees if she is working with an online vendor (and hopefully she is working with a vendor who gets her standards to minimize the transactions.) But it would be far less hassle to change her budget allocation and move up to SI1 or VS stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- I apologize again for even mentioning the word "reflector" in this disucsion- it could very easily go completely in a different direction.
Apparently there's quite enough interest in the clarity aspects.

Cara- I agree with your well thought out points about different considerations for different buyers- time constraints, budget, eyesight, past experience all come into play.

Since we're having this discussion on a forum, my question was based on how many people warn others about Si2 diamonds based on perception. My point is that sometimes those perceptions may not match reality.

Someone equated Si2 with J color- which is not an accurate comparison- going back to how an eye clean SI2 can look just like an IF.
By the way, I never wrote that "most" SI2's are indistinguishable from IF's- rather, my point is that a truly eye clean SI2 can look just like an IF in terms of clarity.

 

[cara]

Cara- I agree with your well thought out points about different considerations for different buyers- time constraints, budget, eyesight, past experience all come into play.

Since we're having this discussion on a forum, my question was based on how many people warn others about Si2 diamonds based on perception. My point is that sometimes those perceptions may not match reality.

Based on *what* perception? Your paragraph is not clear. What perception is so inaccurate that we need a thread to address it?

For that matter, what is your own answer to your question? You are in the trade, in a position to form a reasonable opinion on the subject, yet I haven't seen you hazard a guess as to the title question: what percentage of 2+ ct SI2 diamonds are eye-clean?

I think we need this answer to address whether or not it is a problem to 'warn' the likelihood of finding an eyeclean large SI2 stone. If such stones are exceedingly rare, then it makes perfect sense to warn people that what they are searching for may be difficult to find and that their time/money/efforts would be better spent doing something differently (maybe relaxing their expectations to something 'mostly eyeclean' or maybe searching among SI1s for something eyeclean to their standards.)

...By the way, I never wrote that "most" SI2's are indistinguishable from IF's- rather, my point is that a truly eye clean SI2 can look just like an IF in terms of clarity.

To meet this standard you have set (indistinguishable from an IF stone), you must be using 'truly eye-clean' to mean from all viewing angles, in all lighting conditions, at any distance, even to someone with good vision. My understanding is that that is a rather strict definition. But useful in that 'indistinguishable from IF' is somewhat less subjective than 'eye-clean'. People might have different viewing abilities (thus it is still somewhat subjective) but at least it has a yes/no criteria. Using this strict standard, does your answer to the title question change?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I guess the title implies "what percentage of 2ct +SI2 diamonds do you think are eye clean?
Maybe I was not clear not enough- but that was my intention.

However, it's a good question, clearly relevant.
If we had a specific answer ( we don't) it might be informative but the reasons we can't have a specific answer are also relevant.
1) as has been mentioned, "culling" takes place. People buy the eye clean ones, and non eye clean ones don't get bought- or get returned if purchased from a buyer buying blind. So, the percentage of eye clean SI2 stones coming out of GIA is clearly different than the percentage on internet DB lists.
2) We'd have to further define the grouping. Step cuts are more rare, rounds less so.

But for the purposes of conversation, let's say it's 30%.
In my mind, even if the number is lower, that's still not a reason top discourage buyers offhand.

How many diamonds are "ideal" cut by PS standards?
If the number is low ( it is), does that mean we should discourage folks from looking for them?

If someone's SI2 is eye clean, they probably don't care about the percentages.

With regards to your question about different angles and lighting- surely there are less SI2's which qualify for this definition of eye clean- but they do exist.

But this is a good point- would it make sense to ask shoppers considering SI2 diamonds be asked if they mind if an imperfection might be able to be seen from the bottom as opposed to simply eliminating SI2 as a candidate?

How about this aspect of forum perceptions versus broad market

What if there's 250 happy SI2 owners for every unhappy one that posts here?

 

[luckynumber]

Very interesting topic!

I've decided I'll only buy a SI2 if kenny says it's eye clean

 

[cara]

Since we're having this discussion on a forum, my question was based on how many people warn others about Si2 diamonds based on perception. My point is that sometimes those perceptions may not match reality.

Based on *what* perception? Your paragraph is not clear. What perception is so inaccurate that we need a thread to address it?

I am still not clear on what perception is so problematic that you needed to start a thread to address it. A thread that asks a question even you say is impossible to answer.

In addition to the challenges you cite in answering the title question, there is the fact that eyeclean is subjective. Where you might find that 30% of stones are 'eyeclean' to your definition, I might find that only 5% are. And someone else might find that 50% are good enough for them. Hence different recommendations for different folks. If your point is that *some people* should consider large SI2, I will be on board with that recommendation. But other people might be better served by looking at higher clarity grades, depending on the many variables I discussed earlier.

There are some imperfections in your argument that psers should encourage everyone to look for large eyeclean SI2s because 'ideal cut stones are rare - yet psers still encourage people to look for them'. Most psers believe that there is a visual difference between ideal cut stones and non-ideal cut stones - hence why it is worth it to search for them even if it would be cheaper and faster to get a non-ideal cut stone. If I read you correctly, there is no visual difference between a 'truly eyeclean SI2' and an IF stone. There is only a price difference. And if there is a visual difference, usually no one is arguing that the SI2 is superior based on its clarity grade. So ideal cuts would be recommended for its visual characteristics (without an easier to find equivalent), eyeclean SI2s are recommended for price (where there is an easy way to get an 'equivalent' is to pay more!) And for each (finding an ideal cut stone, finding an eyeclean SI2) I have seen methods recommended on ps.

For finding an ideal cut stone: don't randomly buy stones from a drop shipper and hope they turn out to be ideal cut. Use tools to help you improve your odds - HCA, reflectors, vendors that specialize in ideal cuts or at least have an appreciation for cut standards beyond the GIA cut grade, offer branded stones, etc. Similarly, I have seen methods recommended for finding the rare bird large eye-clean SI2. Use a vendor that has a sufficient number of in-house stones and either trust the vendor's eyeballs or be able to come in an evaluate the stones yourself (and trust yourself to make such a judgement.) But not all people are working with such vendors or trust themselves to make that determination quickly in the jewelry store. I myself looked over my stone in the jewelry store, and only later did I realize that I could see the inclusion and would have preferred a higher clarity. If someone wants to shorten their search, make life easier on themselves, etc, then it might be prudent to consider higher clarity grades in which truly eyeclean stones are more common. Yes there will be a price difference. But time is money, to some people!

Me personally, I am not in the trade and have not seen nearly enough 2+ ct SI2 stones up close to be able to be in a position to judge what fraction are eyeclean. But I have hung out on ps for a while and read a lot of threads about people's experiences. It might help to turn the question around and look at whether or not people are happy with the SI2s they purchase or consider purchasing rather than try to answer the title question.

Many psers have purchased SI2 stones and been happy with them. Some of those are large stones. Sometimes those stones are eyeclean to their standards. Sometimes they are not 100% truly eyeclean but the person is fine with it - it is clean enough for them. Or sometimes they are not truly eyeclean and the person would prefer a higher clarity but has made a size/color/clarity/budget tradeoff that they are happy with.

But some people have had a harder time with SI2s. Maybe they are pickier or have better vision. Or don't want to wait months to find the magic eyeclean SI2 that meets their other requirements. I have definitily been affected by my limited experience, in that my very nice 1.1 ct SI2 is not eyeclean to my standards, but I didn't figure this out in the jewelry store but rather after the stone was puchased, set, proposed with, and very difficult to exchange or return. So my recommendations to others will of course reflect my experience. With a healthy appreciation of the fact that many many people are perfectly happy with their SI2s and have different priorities than me and not all SI2s are equivalent. When I post advising other people, my goal is for them to have pleasant shopping experiences and end up with stones they are happy with. I'm not trying to make them spend more than they need to or buy a stone to my standards rather than theirs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cara- the reason I feel the subject is important is the frequency of dissuasion.
I am not suggesting people recommend SI2 diamonds to everyone- rather that bias against SI2 does exist- and possibly needlessly in many cases.
Even if we look at your response:

But some people have had a harder time with SI2s. Maybe they are pickier or have better vision. Or don't want to wait months to find the magic eyeclean SI2 that meets their other requirements.

Eye clean Si2's are not magic, and don't necessarily take months to find.



I was mentioning specifics of diamond imperfection before.
There are SI2 diamonds with "feather" imperfections.
In such cases it can be a much softer looking characteristic.
Again, orientation is key.
I recall 5 carat emerald cut graded SI2.
The imperfection was a feather - to see this feather you had to look through the girdle of the stone and have it in the exact correct plane to find it.

Or, the same size feather in the table looks like a flag in the middle of the diamond.
Sometimes white imperfections are worse than black.

Another important point- clarity grades are cumulative.
That is to say: A stone has a speck that's really teenie.
Say it's VVS1 sized. Impossible to see without a loupe for 99% of all humans ( or let's say most people would not be able to see a VVS1 sized carbon spot)
If there are 15 of those- scattered around the diamond, it might be an Si2.
Or it could have 3 VS2 sized imperfections.

It's true that people have different levels of eyesight and sensitivity- that's where the vendor comes into play. Hopefully giving a straight review.