Infinity Diamonds... I1?

Date: 2/13/2009 3:14:19 PM
Author:Maisie
If its an Infinity Diamond will the inclusions in an I1 be less obvious than in a less well cut diamond? I wonder why I feel silly asking that. I know its down to how good your eyes are of course!

Date: 2/13/2009 3:16:45 PM
Author: Lorelei


Hiya Bruddah!

As you know I1's aren't created equal but I think it is possible for an Infinity or other top cut diamonds to be able to make inclusion/s less obvious due to the best light return.

Date: 2/13/2009 3:17:25 PM
Author: Maisie




Hey Bruddah! You got mail!!

Date: 2/13/2009 3:18:08 PM
Author: coatimundi
Hiya--Did you see this thread?

http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=102764

It depends on the placement of the inclusions, but I'd say a well cut diamond would be better at masking them, because of greater brilliance and scintillation.

(posting at same time as Miss L!)

Date: 2/13/2009 3:46:17 PM
Author: glitterata
It depends on the particular diamond, but in my experience, yes, inclusions in Infinity I1s are harder to see.

I own one and was a little disappointed to find that I can't see the inclusions without a loupe. Call me weird, but I actually like inclusions and wanted to be able to see them! Here's my thread on it: My infinity I1

If you have any questions about a particular stone, ask Wink. He's a straightforward, honest guy--he'll tell you the truth about what he sees.

Date: 2/14/2009 10:59:19 AM
Author: glitterata
Paul, thank you for that interesting and detailed answer!

My I1 is from 2008, and it has a couple of clear crystals under the table, so although it doesn't have any dark crystals, it does fit the rest of that description.

Why do you think dark inclusions are harder to see in well-cut diamonds than white inclusions? Do you understand why that is?

I can imagine that central inclusions might be harder to see because they might not reflect as much--is that true?

I didn't know that AGS had loosened up on their clarity grading. If my I1 were sent back to them, would it keep its grade, or might they change it to SI2? (Just curious--I like having an I1.)

Date: 2/14/2009 10:59:19 AM
Author: glitterata
Paul, thank you for that interesting and detailed answer!

My I1 is from 2008, and it has a couple of clear crystals under the table, so although it doesn't have any dark crystals, it does fit the rest of that description.

Why do you think dark inclusions are harder to see in well-cut diamonds than white inclusions? Do you understand why that is?

I can imagine that central inclusions might be harder to see because they might not reflect as much--is that true?

I didn't know that AGS had loosened up on their clarity grading. If my I1 were sent back to them, would it keep its grade, or might they change it to SI2? (Just curious--I like having an I1.)

Date: 2/14/2009 2:27:19 PM
Author: Serg

re:Why do you think dark inclusions are harder to see in well-cut diamonds than white inclusions? Do you understand why that is?



If stone has clear visible and static black arrow pattern , cutter can use it to camouflage dark inclusions.

But dark and white inclusions is not 100% correct definition . Inclusions lightness depends from cut, light schema and position inclusion in diamonds

Round diamonds with high level symmetry have bigger and more static virtual facets, what create big opportunity to camouflage even relative inclusions even in the central part table

Date: 2/14/2009 9:46:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Maisie,

Your question is probably based upon observation or upon testimonials like the one from Glitterata. Even though these observations are probably correct, we are not geniuses nor magicians. There are several factors at play which ultimately lead to the public's observations.

First, there is the problem that during most of 2008, AGS was extremely strict in their clarity-grading, and a lot of stones that they now would grade SI2 was graded I1 in that period. Other cutters most probably have sent these stones to GIA in order to get the SI2-grade, but we have stuck with our choice of lab. Today, also AGS will grade a high number of our I1's of last year as SI2.

Another aspect has to do with our planning and the experience we gained in this field. Logically, when planning our rough, we take the orientation and location of the inclusions into consideration, and make sure that the inclusions are least visible in the final stone. If we do not feel capable of sufficiently masking the inclusions, we will not produce this stone and sell it to another cutter.

In this regard, we have learned some new insights that are not in line with age-old adagios in the industry. This also has a certain effect:

Industry-adagio 1: Black inclusions are easier visible than white inclusions and thus less desirable. We have learned that the exact opposite is true in our production of super-ideals. To some extent to our surprise, we feel that white inclusions often are easier to see with the naked eye than black inclusions.

Industry-adagio 2: Centrally located inclusions are easier visible than inclusions on the sde and thus less desirable. Again, we have learned that the exact opposite is true in our production of super-ideals. Also here, we were surprised to some extent to find that it is easier to see side-inclusions with the naked eye while central inclusions are easier to mask.

Because of this experience, we are not afraid to plan a black inclusion in the center of the table. We had the funny experience when visiting one of our dealers last month, where the owner did not want to buy a SI2 with a central black inclusion, while his sales associates really wanted to sell that stone since the inclusion was in no way visible to the naked eye. It is old industry-wisdom versus unbiased observation, actually.

The old industry-wisdom might play to our disadvantage too in lab-grading. We suspect that when a lab-grader is checking clarity with the microscope (where the brightness of the stone has no effect), stones with central and/or black inclusions are more easily downgraded. As a result, it is no surprise that a high number of these lab-I1's actually are observed as being eye-clean. This is very unfortunate, and basically to our disadvantage. On the other hand, it definitely is advantageous for the consumer.

Live long,

Date: 2/14/2009 5:37:12 PM
Author: Wink
Not sure which part of Paul's post you are asking really about, but I sense a touch of sarcasm.

Yes, really, it is always to the consumer's advantage if the diamonds are graded correctly, and AGS did some study on diamond grading after many of us complained that they were too strict on SI2's in comparrison with GIA. They found out that indeed they were grading diamonds I1 that woud be graded SI2 by GIA and they meticulesly worked to bring their clarity grading into sync with GIA.

After all, it is GIA's grading system and they set the standards, so it makes good sense that AGS should try to match their grading standards with those employed by the company that set the standard.

How can that not be in the interest of the consumer?

If you are questioning whether it was to their advantage to buy a diamond graded and priced as an I1 when AGS was being too strict, then how can getting an eye clean diamond at an eye visible price not be to the consumer's advantage?

Wink

Date: 2/14/2009 2:27:19 PM
Author: Serg

re:Why do you think dark inclusions are harder to see in well-cut diamonds than white inclusions? Do you understand why that is?

If stone has clear visible and static black arrow pattern, cutter can use it to camouflage dark inclusions.

But dark and white inclusions is not 100% correct definition . Inclusions lightness depends from cut, light schema and position inclusion in diamonds
Round diamonds with high level symmetry have bigger and more static virtual facets, what create big opportunity to camouflage even relative big inclusions even in the central part table

Date: 2/14/2009 5:44:13 PM
Author: Wink
I will go on to say that not all of Pauls I1 diamonds are misgraded I1's, and they are still beautiful! In a 1.5ct that is shown in my gallery it is the colorless inclusion on the edge that is visible to the eye while the black inclusions that are so evident in the photograph of the diamond are not. Yet even though visible, to close examination, they are not to a normal viewing distance view.

I do not know or care why, I will leave that to the great thinkers and cutters, but I can tell you it is a beautiful diamond, in spite of the paper. I have attempted to clearly show this by showing it through the loupe, then without the loupe in the video that is posted with it. It is now sold to one of two clients, one has first right of refusal and the other wants it if it is refused, so I do not think this constitutes advertising. If I am wrong the moderator will please remove this post.

Wink

Date: 2/14/2009 7:50:06 PM
Author: Wink
Too many variables involved Serg. It depends on the specific diamond and the specific client, but that has always been the case in eye-clean judgments. I will say that of the thousands of SI and I1 diamonds I’ve seen over my life, Paul seems to consistently employ the strategies he, DiaGem, Strm and you already talked about, so that an abundance of his SI and I1 diamonds are clean to the normal person.

I guarantee to describe any diamond I offer exactly as I see it to my clients. That’s something I’ve done for 30 years which just seems obvious and necessary to me. I never listed that but I know how concerned shoppers are with getting precise details, so it might be helpful to put that forward as a guarantee.

Wink

Date: 2/14/2009 2:53:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here is an arrow pointing to the inclusion which is the tiny dot in front of the red arrow.
ignore the dog hair, oil and dust on the crown.
The stone is ~5mm and the side stones ~3mm to give you a size reference.

Date: 2/14/2009 8:30:51 PM
Author: arjunajane


Strmy...Ask wifey2b to go clean that diamond,!

Date: 2/14/2009 8:29:06 PM
Author: strmrdr
The confusion I see stemming from this thread is to further mix up eyeclean and the lab grade.

So I am going to clarify:


Eyeclean is a judgment call based on common lighting and eyesight and is a judgment call on the vendors part and needs to be based on an agreed upon standard between you and the vendor.

Make sure you have a return policy incase your eyes don't agree with the dealer.

The PS vendors have a ton of experience with it because they do not want someone getting upset and it costs them money and reputation if they are wrong.


The lab grade is a judgment call of the lab under 10x MAGNIFICATION and does not grant or deny a diamond eyeclean status it just sets the price. (GIA/AGS vs2 or above is usually eyeclean except on very very rare occasions, under vs2 it needs to be seen by the vendor 100% of the time for an eyeclean opinion)

Date: 2/14/2009 8:46:13 PM
Author: Wink



Well said Storm!

Wink