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

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

What if the report say...additional clouds not shown or clouds not shown" ?

Usually it means the cloud is so ill defined that if they plotted it no one would ever buy the diamond.
So in general you can totallly ignore the comment. If the statement says Clarity grade based on clouds not shown it will be dead and dull, but David might call it a loupe clean internally flawless. Becaus eit can and often is loupe clean when you get that comment.
Now David - you must come to Vegas next week as it is your only chance to bash me up!!!!
Before reporting abuse, it was a joke David

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I would not be too quick to castigate GIA. Lab reports were originally intended to be used in conjunction with a jeweler who could interpret what the report indicated. Reports have a specific way of communicating important aspects of the diamond that would not necessarily be understood by a consumer. Collaboration with an ethical merchant would then be key for the consumer.

Google it Bryan, this is from GIA lab in their meta tags: GIA is the world's most trusted name in diamond grading and gem ... GIA Customer Service: +1 800 421 7250 ext 7590 or +1 760 603 4500 ext 7590 ... and analysis set the global standards that protect the gem-buying public

 

[Karl_K]

Confusing isn't it?
My thoughts, When John says globally rough is getting more included and more micro-inclusions below 10x. I'm inclined to believe that he knows what he is talking about.
When Garry says that there are a lot of stones with clouds that have issues even in the higher grades I believe he is 100% right.
I believe a lot of those stones get filtered out before they get to NY and David sees them and that from Garry's perspective all of the ones he sees have issues.
When David says he still sees stones with cloud based grades that are just fine I believe him.
So I was no use what so ever in ending the confusion!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Here's another theory. Collectively our consciousness has been raised to the issue of subtle transparency impacts, especially over the last 10 years or so. Our quest for optimal light performance combined with slicing and dicing images over the internet has revealed to many for the first time an issue that has always been there.
Thoughts?

 

[Octopus_loves_blingbling]

Wow.
Learned a lot from your discussions. What if the report shows that "additional pinpoints not shown." Is that as bad as sentence "additional cloud not shown?"

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Wow.
Learned a lot from your discussions. What if the report shows that "additional pinpoints not shown." Is that as bad as sentence "additional cloud not shown?"

Pinpoints are more discrete and usually not concentrated so they do not tend to scatter or block light as much as clouds sometimes can. I don't consider that comment to be cautionary for transparency. It's just an additional identifier.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wow.
Learned a lot from your discussions. What if the report shows that "additional pinpoints not shown." Is that as bad as sentence "additional cloud not shown?"

I know it’s easy to get the impression that “ additional clouds not shown” is the kiss of death for brilliance reading this discussion. A shame because it’s just not a black and white issue.
Bryan- you are very likely correct that people are hyper sensitive- more today than 10 years back.

Another reason seasoned pros have different tales is the different markets we operate in- as well as different focus of goods.
I look at a lot more Fancy Colored diamonds than I do at colorless.
Plenty of colorless stones come across our desk- but generally a more focused, filtered look.
When we need a colorless stone, we’re far more selective. Just as an example- clarity. A buyer for colorless diamonds is far more likely to specify clarity than a Fancy Colored buyer.
Also true that when a diamond has a lot of body color, transparency issues are less likely to be an issue.
I stand by my statement that many stones with clouds as grade setting imperfections are desirable in their clarity grade - but I’ll take a broader look to see if I’ve missed an issue others have identified.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Google it Bryan, this is from GIA lab in their meta tags: GIA is the world's most trusted name in diamond grading and gem ... GIA Customer Service: +1 800 421 7250 ext 7590 or +1 760 603 4500 ext 7590 ... and analysis set the global standards that protect the gem-buying public

Garry,
I do understand their stated mission and I think they have been doing a pretty good job of fulfilling it over the decades. As you know from many past discussions, I don't agree with everything they do and they are fair game for criticism given their importance to the entire diamond market. And it is always good to keep the pressure on when improvements are warranted.

But GIA exists not only for consumer protection but to educate and support the diamond and jewelry industry. Therefore, they are constantly in a balancing act. This is a big reason they were very slow coming to the cut grading party.

In the case of fully understanding what their reports are communicating, they have a legitimate expectation that knowledgeable and ethical jewelers and gemologists will properly convey the finer points to the consumer.

I do agree with you that they should more directly report on significant transparency issues whether it relates to clarity aspects or fluorescence. I don't expect them to do that any time soon however.

 

[Karl_K]

Wow.
Learned a lot from your discussions. What if the report shows that "additional pinpoints not shown." Is that as bad as sentence "additional cloud not shown?"

If pinpoints are numerous enough or dense enough to be an issue they "should" be reported as clouds.
From my limited compared to some here experience I have not seen a diamond where they rose to a level of being an issue without being called a cloud.
That does not mean they can't possibly exist but I would say they are not common.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I would not be too quick to castigate GIA. Lab reports were originally intended to be used in conjunction with a jeweler who could interpret what the report indicated. Reports have a specific way of communicating important aspects of the diamond that would not necessarily be understood by a consumer. Collaboration with an ethical merchant would then be key for the consumer.

Bingo!!
I could not have expressed it better Bryan.
It's so durn easy to point out the shortcomings of GIA.
But the truth is, as much as we want to complain about changing standards, their stability has been extremely beneficial to those of us in the diamond trade.
AND- the service they provide is very difficult to transform into a consumer-friendly product. They certainly are trying.
But as it stands now, those of us who make our living interpreting the reports, and correlating them to real world diamonds, that people want to wear, should still have a job ( hopefully)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Now David - you must come to Vegas next week as it is your only chance to bash me up!!!!

You never know old buddy- you'd better watch out for some crazy NY'er looking to kick your Aussie butt

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here's another theory. Collectively our consciousness has been raised to the issue of subtle transparency impacts, especially over the last 10 years or so. Our quest for optimal light performance combined with slicing and dicing images over the internet has revealed to many for the first time an issue that has always been there.
Thoughts?

Yes Bryan, you are on the money!
It may have always been the case - but certainly with the quality of video and photos etc now available I see it all the time.
For example, one of my preferred suppliers lists over 100 new stones every day and I go thru looking for stock and client orders. 5 minutes ago I saw a classic bad SI1 with VS2 plotted inclusions and clouds not plotted. If I was buying at a suppliers desk or trade fair I would never look at hundreds of stones a day as I now do in half an hour.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You never know old buddy- you'd better watch out for some crazy NY'er looking to kick your Aussie butt

hahahaha, catch me if ya can rock'n'roller

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hmm, this is interesting - the stone I mentioned above - there are no clouds as a grade maker or listed - Clouds Not Shown - but this stone is cloudy and dull - seriously so.
Bryan, David, GIA need better lenses and they need to look at stones in proper light with interested eyes.

 

[blueMA]

hahahaha, catch me if ya can rock'n'roller

Please, someone record the footage and post it here.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hmm, this is interesting - the stone I mentioned above - there are no clouds as a grade maker or listed - Clouds Not Shown - but this stone is cloudy and dull - seriously so.
Bryan, David, GIA need better lenses and they need to look at stones in proper light with interested eyes.

Yes that is a unusual. Probably because the cloud spans the entire stone and the feather and crystal were both prominent enough to support the clarity grade. Just goes to show that a report can only communicate so much. You ultimately need expert eyes on the stone. This is particulary important in the Si range and below.
There is a downside to what seems to be a fixation on seeking out Si stones that are 'eye clean'. Many people believe it makes no sense to pay up for high clarity grades. I used to be one of them! But especially when buying sight unseen, without expert vetting and/or imaging you are liable to run into unexpected issues.

 

[blueMA]

There is a downside to what seems to be a fixation on seeking out Si stones that are 'eye clean'.

This is because most consumers historically were told that SI1 are mostly eye-clean, just as people in the trades such as @david b had mentioned. From what I've seen, people want as large of an eye-clean diamond within their min color grade as possible, so when you're working on a budget, you have to compromise on the size to move up to a higher clarity grade. That's why people obsess over finding a good SI1.

Straight from the GIA site https://www.gia.edu/gia-about/4cs-clarity

• Very Slightly Included (VS1 and VS2) - Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification
• Slightly Included (SI1 and SI2) - Inclusions are noticeable to a skilled grader under 10x magnification
• Included (I1, I2, and I3) - Inclusions are obvious under 10× magnification and may affect transparency and brilliance

 

[Texas Leaguer]

This is because most consumers historically were told that SI1 are mostly eye-clean, just as people in the trades such as @david b had mentioned. From what I've seen, people want as large of an eye-clean diamond within their min color grade as possible, so when you're working on a budget, you have to compromise on the size to move up to a higher clarity grade. That's why people obsess over finding a good SI1.

Straight from the GIA site https://www.gia.edu/gia-about/4cs-clarity

• Very Slightly Included (VS1 and VS2) - Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification
• Slightly Included (SI1 and SI2) - Inclusions are noticeable to a skilled grader under 10x magnification
• Included (I1, I2, and I3) - Inclusions are obvious under 10× magnification and may affect transparency and brilliance

Agreed Blue. It is logical. And, as I say I was firmly in that camp myself for many years. It has been in the past 10-15 years that my tastes in both color and clarity have shifted upwards. Originally I was a Si H-I guy. Today my target for best overall value would be G VS1.
Regarding clarity, the potential for transparency impacts in Si stones (as discussed here) combined with a desire for top light performance, leads me (personally) a bit higher up the scale. Having said that, there are plenty of Si stones that are great if they are vetted carefully. It just hard to do online, especially with virtual inventory that has not been physically evaluated by the merchant offering it and may or may not even have dependable imaging.

Regarding the issue of transparency only being mentioned in the Imperfect category in GIA messaging, this is somewhat misleading in my opinion. But you have to remember, those of us here are probably more sensitive to and demanding of pristine optics than the majority of the market where GIA's largest constituency is based.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There is a downside to what seems to be a fixation on seeking out Si stones that are 'eye clean'.

I can totally understand wanting a higher clarity stone- even if one ca't see the reason it's SI with the naked eye.
I personally don't feel this way- nor does my wife ( I know that for sure
SO I'll admit, you have me curious: for someone in the position to make a first-hand visual observation, what are the downsides in your view of seeking correctly graded, eye clean SI stones?

 

[blueMA]

Regarding clarity, the potential for transparency impacts in Si stones (as discussed here) combined with a desire for top light performance, leads me (personally) a bit higher up the scale. Having said that, there are plenty of Si stones that are great if they are vetted carefully.

I agree, especially based on what I've observed nowadays. I ended up with an awesome SI1 G, and a VVS2 G for my pair of earrings but I kept my search scale wide open for my specific desired proportions. It absolutely would save time and effort if consumers were to shift upward to higher grades for optimal performance unless the lower grades are carefully vetted.

 

[blueMA]

downsides in your view of seeking correctly graded, eye clean SI stones?

IMPO - No downside, but it's like finding a unicorn. I love it when I do though, and in my case the price difference was huge between the stones, but no difference to the naked eye.

 

[Rockdiamond]

IMPO - No downside, but it's like finding a unicorn. I love it when I do though, and in my case the price difference was huge between the stones, but no difference to the naked eye.

I agree- if unicorns actually existed in great numbers.

 

[blueMA]

I agree- if unicorns actually existed in great numbers.

When you're trying to combine that with an ideal proportioned precision stone of desired specs, that number greatly decrease

 

[Rockdiamond]

Not really blue. Cutters taking the time to get to ideal proportions ( I'm speaking of "super ideal" as opposed to stuff you pick off a list) are going to vet for transparency issues.
True "super ideal" stones- now those are super rare.
Great looking SI1's - exponentially more common than true Super Ideal Cut stones.

 

[blueMA]

Not really blue. Cutters taking the time to get to ideal proportions ( I'm speaking of "super ideal" as opposed to stuff you pick off a list) are going to vet for transparency issues.
True "super ideal" stones- now those are super rare.
Great looking SI1's - exponentially more common than true Super Ideal Cut stones.

I didn't say good SI1s are unicorns. I was referencing to try finding good SI1 with the desired specs outside the ones carried by the super-ideal vendors.

 

[Karl_K]

Interesting tidbit.
The eyeclean super-ideal si graded stones back in the day were trading wholesale for more than vs2 graded stones of the same make because of the demand on PS for them.
The pool of cutters cutting them was small.
Today it is more profitable to cut cheated gia EX using the same skills than to cut super-ideals.

 

[blueMA]

Interesting tidbit.
The eyeclean super-ideal si graded stones back in the day were trading wholesale for more than vs2 graded stones of the same make because of the demand on PS for them.
The pool of cutters cutting them was small.
Today it is more profitable to cut cheated gia EX using the same skills than to cut super-ideals.

That is interesting indeed...and correlates to my own interesting observation.
While I was desperately trying to find a matching stone within the G-F colors, I noticed many E color stones that were priced for about the same or even less! The supply & demand at work there...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Interesting tidbit.
The eyeclean super-ideal si graded stones back in the day were trading wholesale for more than vs2 graded stones of the same make because of the demand on PS for them.
The pool of cutters cutting them was small.
Today it is more profitable to cut cheated gia EX using the same skills than to cut super-ideals.

To explain, there are programs that allow cutters to choose maximum out of roundness, crown and pavilion angle variations etc that still guarantee XXX. That enables there to be 1,000 more 0.999ct to 1.008ct diamonds than 0.99ct stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Straight from the GIA site https://www.gia.edu/gia-about/4cs-clarity

• Very Slightly Included (VS1 and VS2) - Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification
• Slightly Included (SI1 and SI2) - Inclusions are noticeable to a skilled grader under 10x magnification
• Included (I1, I2, and I3) - Inclusions are obvious under 10× magnification and may affect transparency and brilliance

Bryan, when do you think the class action will start?
My prediction is shortly after GIA faces up to the fact they are misleading people and actually include a transparency grade.

 

[bmfang]

Bingo!!
I could not have expressed it better Bryan.
It's so durn easy to point out the shortcomings of GIA.
But the truth is, as much as we want to complain about changing standards, their stability has been extremely beneficial to those of us in the diamond trade.
AND- the service they provide is very difficult to transform into a consumer-friendly product. They certainly are trying.
But as it stands now, those of us who make our living interpreting the reports, and correlating them to real world diamonds, that people want to wear, should still have a job ( hopefully)

The problem is that a large number of those working in jewellery shops do not know how to interpret these reports (and it’s even worse when the stones they sell are under a carat and therefore, only a Diamond Dossier is provides). I have met very very few sales associates at jewellery stores that have more than the basic understanding of the 4C’s. All they are concerned about is making a sale (and that’s what the jewellery chain or store has trained them for).

I ask them about the interaction of the basics on the specs (table, depth, crown and pavilion angles, impact of LGF percentage on the look of the stone, etc) and I get a blank look like a deer in the path of an oncoming truck. That’s not what I’m looking for when buying diamond jewellery. Hence why online is a much preferred option for purchasing these compressed carbon pieces.