| Author | Topic: Clarity Question |
|
BrianHP rough rock Posts: 13 |
posted 01-04-2001 04:01 PM
Hello, I didn't notice anything in the tutorial concerning inclusions on the table. Is there a problem with inclusions hurting the brillance of a stone when they are on the table? Thanks, |
 | |
| |
| |
|
lawmax cut rock Posts: 113 |
posted 01-04-2001 04:49 PM
Hi Brian, I will defer to an expert here- I suppose you wouldn't want to see the inclusion and you wouldn't want any that would reflect (some inclusions appear dark). I was once sent an SI1 stone to see if I wanted to purchase it. When I took it out in the sunlight, I saw 3 dark, round spots in the diamond. Needless to say, I sent it back. In general, I believe, the higher the grade, the smaller the inclusions. You can get a good SI1, you just have to be picky. Most people seem to prefer inclusions off to the side, where they can be hidden and no feathers/cleavages that could break the surface/become a durability issue (during setting and afterward). lawmax [This message has been edited by lawmax (edited 01-04-2001).] |
| |
| |
| |
|
Cut Nut cut rock Posts: 24 |
posted 01-04-2001 10:18 PM
Brian an inclusion under the table will be smaller than that in a stone with the same rating where the inclusion is placed off to one side. ie a VS 2 mark in a table could be graded VS 1 in the crown facets. I believe some testing was done in Europe many years ago that showed that inclusions had no measurable effect until they were at I2 of more. This might be an experiment people could attempt with the brilliancescope by drawing a dot on the outside and running a number of stones with different sized dots? |
| |
| |
| |