“Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown” WHAT DOES THIS SENTENCE MEAN?

[blueMA]

I totally get why you might get this impression reading- but this is not the case. It truly reflects the difficulty of trying to understand clarity grading when one has not looked at many many stones.

David - perhaps you have access to amazing SI1 stones somehow, but I've never seen a loupe clean SI1 that I had a tough time finding an inclusion coupled with excellent cut before mine, not even from any superideal vendors as of recent.

 

[TreeScientist]

Tree,
You ask a lot of great questions. You must be a scientist or something.

Guilty as charged.

Regarding those that are noted as 'clarity grade based on clouds', in the lower clarities this is essentially "lab speak" for a transparency issue.

Perfectly said.

Thank you both for answering. That's what I've gathered as well: Clarity grade based on clouds = transparency issue. Why else would they assign a clarity grade based on something that cannot actually be seen at 10X if it had no effect on the stone whatsoever?

I know that there are others in the trade who will have differing opinions on this. And whether or not it could be distinguished by the average consumer is another matter. But I personally would not want a stone with any sort of reduced transparency to the point where GIA or AGS deemed it worthy of assigning the SI clarity grade based on such an issue.

And I wonder how consumers would feel if they saw "Clarity grade based on reduced transparency not shown" on the certificate.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Guilty as charged.




Thank you both for answering. That's what I've gathered as well: Clarity grade based on clouds = transparency issue. Why else would they assign a clarity grade based on something that cannot actually be seen at 10X if it had no effect on the stone whatsoever?

I know that there are others in the trade who will have differing opinions on this. And whether or not it could be distinguished by the average consumer is another matter. But I personally would not want a stone with any sort of reduced transparency to the point where GIA or AGS deemed it worthy of assigning the SI clarity grade based on such an issue.

And I wonder how consumers would feel if they saw "Clarity grade based on reduced transparency not shown" on the certificate.

Sometimes the truest things are said in jest!

I think this is precisely what Garry and I have both suggested in different ways. From a consumer protection perspective GIA should be more direct in the way they approach reporting on this issue. Transparency is more widely discussed as a deficit for certain fluorescent stones. But inclusion based deficits are actually a bigger issue in that with fluoro stones the haziness goes away whenever intense UV is not present (the majority of viewing environments). Inclusion based transparency deficits do not dissappear.

The argument can be made that the labs ARE telling consumers this with the "clarity grade based on clouds" comment. But it is a stretch to think consumers would somehow know this without being advised by the jeweler. And in that process there is usually some conflict of interest for the jeweler in being fully candid. I also believe that most jewelers are not sufficiently conscious of the issue themselves.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David - perhaps you have access to amazing SI1 stones somehow, but I've never seen a loupe clean SI1 that I had a tough time finding an inclusion coupled with excellent cut before mine, not even from any superideal vendors as of recent.

Hi blue- are you now, or have you ever been professionally involved grading diamonds?
I ask because you'd really need to look at a lot- a huge number- of diamonds to understand clarity grading- and how it relates to GIA grading in general.
Then you need to keep looking at stones coming out of GIA to be aware of the larger implications of the grades.
I think it's a mistake to use "Superideal" vendors as some sort of benchmark for clarity assessment in general.

 

[blueMA]

Hi blue- are you now, or have you ever been professionally involved grading diamonds?
I ask because you'd really need to look at a lot- a huge number- of diamonds to understand clarity grading- and how it relates to GIA grading in general.
Then you need to keep looking at stones coming out of GIA to be aware of the larger implications of the grades.
I think it's a mistake to use "Superideal" vendors as some sort of benchmark for clarity assessment in general.

No. I'm going by what I've personally seen (retail and Internet) over the last several decades as a diamond obsessed consumer. Also, just because someone had been in the business for all their lives doesn't always translate to them possessing in-depth knowledge, and I often find quite the contrary. I've learned that superideal vendors have the first grab at the best quality stones/roughs, so it simply seemed suitable to mention it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

On one point, we agree. There are folks working in jewelry stores who know almost nothing about the specifics of diamonds that we discuss here every day- and many of them have been working in those stores for (what seems like) eons.
But that's very different from someone working all their lives in wholesale ( and retail) diamond assorting and sales.
So, I can tell you from many years of long hard experience working with diamonds that one can't possibly gain the knowledge necessary to grade- or even speak with authority on grading and patterns without looking at thousands and thousands of diamonds. As I do, every month.
SI1's, in general, are going to be more likely to be eye clean than not in round diamonds. Sure there's examples of non eye clean, and or cloudy SI1 graded diamonds. But these are not the rule.
If you want to believe you have a "unicorn" by all means, have at it.
But I'm telling you that on the market, correctly graded SI1 diamonds are frequently eye clean.

In terms of grabbing the best rough- I know companies cutting Super Ideal stones are super particular- but in the realm of market power- they really can't compete with the largest cutters. Super Ideal cutters may indeed grab the best pieces of rough- but it's highly unlikely that they get the "first grab"

 

[blueMA]

SI1's, in general, are going to be more likely to be eye clean than not in round diamonds. Sure there's examples of non eye clean, and or cloudy SI1 graded diamonds. But these are not the rule.
If you want to believe you have a "unicorn" by all means, have at it.

You might want to read my posts again what I've described as MY unicorn - it's a LOUPE clean excellent cut stone. When I saw it, my hair raised I couldn't believe my eyes, and I'm very lucky to own one. Hell, with my aging eyes, most SI1 stones are eye clean nowadays, but in the past I had eagle eyes and saw inclusions that others swore were eye clean.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You might want to read my posts again what I've described as MY unicorn - it's a LOUPE clean excellent cut stone. When I saw it, my hair raised I couldn't believe my eyes, and I'm very lucky to own one. Hell, with my aging eyes, most SI1 stones are eye clean nowadays, but in the past I had eagle eyes and saw inclusions that others swore were eye clean.

blue- I totally wish we had the opportunity to sit together and look at stones- because you sound very interested!
Remember that the amount of imperfection needed to qualify for SI1 is not all that great.
A little more, and we have an SI2.
Then, remember that GIA clarity grades are based on the presence of imperfection- not visiblity.
So then, it's a numbers and location game.
Where is that small Si1 sized imperfection located?
If it's in the middle of the table, sure it's easy to find with a loupe.
But a percentage of SI1 stones' imperfections are not all that easy to find with a loupe.
A majority? No.
Unicorn? Also no.
Maybe 10-20% of properly graded SI1 diamonds have to be inspected carefully with a loupe to find the imperfection. ( we could call that "loupe clean")
If we consider SI1 stones that are set in rings, the percentage goes up.
Also- in SI1's comprised of multiple imperfections, those shmutzes can get really teeenie.

 

[blueMA]

Where is that small Si1 sized imperfection located?
If it's in the middle of the table, sure it's easy to find with a loupe.

See the earlier response below.

My requirement for SI1 was that I don't see obvious inclusion that could be visible to the naked eye smack under the table, and most people hope for that when searching in the range. My SI1 was a freaky find - it has one very thin diagonal feather right near a girdle and I had it hidden with a prong, and now it looks just like my VVS1 after set

I can, from my non professional experience, guess very well on what inclusion would be visible to the naked eye to an eagle eyed individual. Again, you seem to have access to better quality SI1s than the rest of PS consumers, but it's not that easy to find great quality well-cut eye-clean SI1 stones out there.

 

[Dancing Fire]

But I'm telling you that on the market, correctly graded SI1 diamonds are frequently eye clean.

David....up to what diameter? .50ct - 3ct?

 

[Rockdiamond]

We are in total agreement blue- it's definitely not easy to find the best cut SI1 eye clean stones as a general rule.
For readers of this forum, it's a lot easier than in general.
It's so durn easy for a seller to just push buyers away from SI goods ( up to more costly VS stones) based on unfounded fears. Like the one that most SI goods are bad.
That's one reason why I persist in making the points I do. I believe that honest, informed discussion really helps consumers.
Yes, we have access to a lot of great cut, eye clean SI1 diamonds. And so do Bryan, John, and many other sellers here. Mixing consumers and sellers confuses the issue.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David....up to what diameter? .50ct - 3ct?

BUDDY!!!
I guarantee you I can find an eye clean 10ct today, if I was looking for one. I've even seen eye clean, SI clarity Emerald Cuts in very large sizes

 

[blueMA]

It's so durn easy for a seller to just push buyers away from SI goods ( up to more costly VS stones) based on unfounded fears. Like the one that most SI goods are bad.

Well it only took me several months for me to find a good one. I don't think it's unfounded fears - if one wants to save time, you'd be better off to look at VS levels nowadays from what I've seen recently.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

BUDDY!!!
I guarantee you I can find an eye clean 10ct today, if I was looking for one. I've even seen eye clean, SI clarity Emerald Cuts in very large sizes

As DF suggests, finding large Si stones that are strictly eye-clean, without the kind of transparency issues we are talking about here, is very rare indeed. As stones get larger in overall size, so does the allowable inclusion size in any given grade.

 

[blueMA]

As DF suggests, finding large Si stones that are strictly eye-clean, without the kind of transparency issues we are talking about here, is very rare indeed. As stones get larger in overall size, so does the allowable inclusion size in any given grade.

Recently a lady wanted a 4-5 carats upgrade and the majority of the helpful shoppers on PS had tough time finding a single decent SI1 stone for her.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-ring-upgrade-to-4-5-ct-diamond.241017/

 

[Rockdiamond]

As DF suggests, finding large Si stones that are strictly eye-clean, without the kind of transparency issues we are talking about here, is very rare indeed. As stones get larger in overall size, so does the allowable inclusion size in any given grade.

There's actually 2 DF's here Bryan

While I agree that standards change as size goes up, it's not proportional.
That is to say, the size of an SI1 imperfection in a 10ct stone is not 10 times the size of that in a one carat.

The term "rare" is being used without any sort of qualifiers.
10ct stones are rare in general.
But if someone tries- they can be found.
Same for eye clean SI 10 carat stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Recently a lady wanted a 4-5 carats upgrade and the majority of the helpful shoppers on PS had tough time finding a single decent SI1 stone for her.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-ring-upgrade-to-4-5-ct-diamond.241017/

Blue- I support the PS community and have done so for years. But the difficulty people shopping online face- no matter how experienced they are at scouring the web- is simply not the same as actually scouring the real market. Drawing conclusions based on internet only searches will produce incorrect conclusions.
There are still cutters who refuse to list their stones online.

 

[blueMA]

There are still cutters who refuse top list their stones online.

Ha! That sure is interesting indeed.. I was beginning to suspect that based on your fierce defense of the SI stones. It's too bad that my local retailers don't seem to have access to them either.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

There's actually 2 DF's here Bryan

While I agree that standards change as size goes up, it's not proportional.
That is to say, the size of an SI1 imperfection in a 10ct stone is not 10 times the size of that in a one carat.

The term "rare" is being used without any sort of qualifiers.
10ct stones are rare in general.
But if someone tries- they can be found.
Same for eye clean SI 10 carat stones.

We all know there is only one DF and only one RD. Both unique and both as rare as an eye-clean Si 10ct with no transparency issues.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ha! That sure is interesting indeed.. I was beginning to suspect that based on your fierce defense of the SI stones. It's too bad that my local retailers don't seem to have access to them either.

We again agree. I used to make my living selling diamonds, wholesale, to jewelry stores. Unfortunately, many ( maybe even most) of the best stores simply can't compete on diamond sales nowadays. This makes it exceedingly difficult for folks to find a really good selection of diamonds locally.

I'm not defending anything except the truth, for readers.
Buy a flawless diamond if that's what you want.
If a trustworthy seller advises that SI diamonds can indeed, be eye clean, they are not fibbing. They're not that rare that such a claim need be dismissed out of hand. By all means, vet seller and stone regardless.


Additionally, going back to the title of the thread- "transparency issues" would be quite easily recognized, if they are indeed issues.

 

[december-fire]

We all know there is only one DF and only one RD. Both unique and both as rare as an eye-clean Si 10ct with no transparency issues.

@Rockdiamond ,

@Texas Leaguer is correct; only one DF.

Signed,
df

 

[blueMA]

Unfortunately, many ( maybe even most) of the best stores simply can't compete on diamond sales nowadays. This makes it exceedingly difficult for folks to find a really good selection of diamonds locally.

The reason people seek SI1 stones isn't to find the rare almost flawless SI1 stones. It's for the cost savings. So if the other online vendors with huge inventories could offer VS or even VVS certified stones for less than hard-to-find great SI1 stones available through a few select vendors at higher cost, it's a no brainer to seek the higher grade stones which is precisely what's happening nowadays. This is exactly what happened in my case, and I ended up purchasing bonus rings with the cost savings.