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

[Rockdiamond]

The problem is that a large number of those working in jewellery shops do not know how to interpret these reports

You're preaching to the choir. The percentage of B&M stores that employ at least one person that could keep up with the typical day's PS discussions is tiny. Bear in mind- over the years, I've been on the defending side of B&M's not knowing what an ASET is ( for example).
It's a device well suited to a specific type of stone. There are some great sellers who offer other types of stones that trade routinely without ASET.
But more and more, as time passes.....I see less an less room for those diamond sellers who can't swim in these waters.
PS- you can indeed get full reports on stones .15ct and larger

 

[bmfang]

PS- you can indeed get full reports on stones .15ct and larger

Vast majority of stones under 1ct that I see here in Australia @Rockdiamond come with Diamond Dossiers rather than full reports. Maybe those in the trade like Garry might see more GIA reports on sub-1ct stones than a consumer such as myself.

Given availability of full GIA reports for stones sub-1ct, I would suspect the reason why most Aussie diamond merchants don’t “splurge” on the full report is 1) they are tightarses and 2) they don’t want the general public to be informed about inclusions particularly given that most general B&M Aussie jewellers I’ve seen don’t sell any stones above SI1 clarity (unless they happen to be independent jewellers with a more discriminating clientele or they sell stones graded by EGL USA, IGI, GSI or the myriad small labs that seem to pop up).

Heck, even the more “prestigious” jeweller Hardy Brothers (who still seem to trade off a Royal Warrant granted like a century ago) specify their higher quality stones to be SI1 whereas their parent company (Wallace Bishop) sells primarily SI2-I1 clarity stones (with SI1 being “on request”).

 

[blueMA]

the reason why most Aussie diamond merchants don’t “splurge” on the full report is 1) they are tightarses

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Vast majority of stones under 1ct that I see here in Australia @Rockdiamond come with Diamond Dossiers rather than full reports. Maybe those in the trade like Garry might see more GIA reports on sub-1ct stones than a consumer such as myself.

Given availability of full GIA reports for stones sub-1ct, I would suspect the reason why most Aussie diamond merchants don’t “splurge” on the full report is 1) they are tightarses and 2) they don’t want the general public to be informed about inclusions particularly given that most general B&M Aussie jewellers I’ve seen don’t sell any stones above SI1 clarity (unless they happen to be independent jewellers with a more discriminating clientele or they sell stones graded by EGL USA, IGI, GSI or the myriad small labs that seem to pop up).

Heck, even the more “prestigious” jeweller Hardy Brothers (who still seem to trade off a Royal Warrant granted like a century ago) specify their higher quality stones to be SI1 whereas their parent company (Wallace Bishop) sells primarily SI2-I1 clarity stones (with SI1 being “on request”).

I rarely look at the gIA reports when buying, even though 99% of the stones I buy have them. I work with manufacturers who use a lot of technolgies I have been part of the development of and I get 100 times more data than on a report.
I can buy better from a distance than i can in person these days.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Vast majority of stones under 1ct that I see here in Australia @Rockdiamond come with Diamond Dossiers rather than full reports. Maybe those in the trade like Garry might see more GIA reports on sub-1ct stones than a consumer such as myself.

Given availability of full GIA reports for stones sub-1ct, I would suspect the reason why most Aussie diamond merchants don’t “splurge” on the full report is 1) they are tightarses and 2) they don’t want the general public to be informed about inclusions particularly given that most general B&M Aussie jewellers I’ve seen don’t sell any stones above SI1 clarity (unless they happen to be independent jewellers with a more discriminating clientele or they sell stones graded by EGL USA, IGI, GSI or the myriad small labs that seem to pop up).

Heck, even the more “prestigious” jeweller Hardy Brothers (who still seem to trade off a Royal Warrant granted like a century ago) specify their higher quality stones to be SI1 whereas their parent company (Wallace Bishop) sells primarily SI2-I1 clarity stones (with SI1 being “on request”).

There's two reasons I can think of.
All due respect but it's not only the dealers- sometimes it's the consumers who are tightarse
On some smaller stones the additional couple of bucks might make a difference...
But there are other valid reasons- one biggie- the Dossier includes a laser inscription. A lot of consumers love that.
We have used Dossiers in the past- but checking the difference in price- there's $7 difference on a 3/4ct stone. I thought it was more. In the future, we will go for the bigger ones on the smaller stones.

BTW- the plot is truly not useful in almost all cases.

 

[blueMA]

But there are other valid reasons- one biggie- the Dossier includes a laser inscription. A lot of consumers love that.

Pretty much a necessity when buying over the internet. There could be a lot of contention over the identity of a stone without it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Laser inscriptions are fairly easy to remove- and GIA is not the only place that can do such engraving.....just saying.
You really need to vet the seller.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Pretty much a necessity when buying over the internet. There could be a lot of contention over the identity of a stone without it.

The reason dossiers and not full reports get an inscription is to make it harder to resubmit a stone to gIA in the hope of getting a better grade - then binning the worse of 2 reports

 

[KirstLWA]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) can I reach you in one of your stores tomorrow via phone?

Hopefully this question is allowed? I presume it is within forum rules that I can initiate contact?

If not, sorry!

 

[Rockdiamond]

The reason dossiers and not full reports get an inscription is to make it harder to resubmit a stone to gIA in the hope of getting a better grade - then binning the worse of 2 reports

Garry!!
Buddy!!
This makes no sense for many reasons.
1- if GIA believed inscription would solve the “problem” than why not do it on the larger, more important stones generally submitted for full GIA reports
2- as you know, inscriptions can be removed
3- this is really not an issue. Having submitted many stones twice I can tell you that it’s very rare that GIA changes a grade

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry!!
Buddy!!
This makes no sense for many reasons.
1- if GIA believed inscription would solve the “problem” than why not do it on the larger, more important stones generally submitted for full GIA reports
2- as you know, inscriptions can be removed
3- this is really not an issue. Having submitted many stones twice I can tell you that it’s very rare that GIA changes a grade

they use digitized clarity maps. DOH

 

[blueMA]

I don't want to seem sadistic, but I just love these banters on PS.

Out of a pure curiosity, how easy would it be for an unscrupulous individual to place a phony laser inscription on another stone?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I don't want to seem sadistic, but I just love these banters on PS.

Out of a pure curiosity, how easy would it be for an unscrupulous individual to place a phony laser inscription on another stone?

417,000 hits on Goggle:
https://www.google.com.au/search?rl......0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.Tb4y5NtMNRI

 

[blueMA]

417,000 hits on Goggle:
https://www.google.com.au/search?rl......0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.Tb4y5NtMNRI

Oh well.. I suppose all I can do is to match the H&A patterns, the cut quality, girdle, inclusions, etc.
At least mine looks legit...

 

[Octopus_loves_blingbling]

Hi,

Can we figure out diamond "transparency issues" by using ideal scope or ASET? It seems the "transparency issues" are quite different from light leakage. @Garry H (Cut Nut) @Texas Leaguer
:roll

 

[blueMA]

Hi,

Can we figure out diamond "transparency issues" by using ideal scope or ASET? It seems the "transparency issues" are quite different from light leakage. @Garry H (Cut Nut) @Texas Leaguer
:roll

Unfortunately not.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi,

Can we figure out diamond "transparency issues" by using ideal scope or ASET? It seems the "transparency issues" are quite different from light leakage. @Garry H (Cut Nut) @Texas Leaguer
:roll

Like BlueMa says, unfortunately not. ASET and IS only inform us about where light is drawing from, not the quality of the light being reflected/refracted back to the eye. If transparency is significantly diminished is can sometimes be seen in photos and videos. But... variables in lighting and image capture make that an unreliable method of detection. Because it can often be a subtle factor even inspecting the stone by itself can be inconclusive, unless you have a very trained eye. The best way to see it is by comparing to another diamond of similar size, color, and cut quality in a clarity of VS1 or higher. Any transparency deficit on the test stone will start to become apparent in that side by side comparison.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Agree with Bryan but even more strongly. Never because a cloudy stone can appear redder where there is some leakage.
And some inclusions look worse and some disappear

 

[TreeScientist]

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to all that have contributed so far.

I want to return to the "clarity grade based on clouds not shown," or, in the case of diamonds with only a doisser, where cloud is listed as the first inclusion. How exactly does a grader assign a clarity grade based on diffuse clouds? Perhaps this is more a question for someone who has been associated with a grading lab in the past (anyone know of industry members on here who fit this bill?) but, to me, it seems like this would be one of the most difficult tasks for a well-trained grader to accomplish.

Again, to me, it seems like assigning a grade based on visible, non-diffuse inclusions, like crystals, feathers, naturals, chips, etc would be fairly straight forward once you see enough diamonds with these characteristics at certain grades.

"Crystals(s) in the stone? Check"
"OK, how many and how easy for me to spot them at 10X? Check"
"OK, a few that are fairly easy for me to spot at 10X. It's an SI1."
(EDITED TO ADD: I know that diamond grading isn't this straight forward, but it's just an example, OK? )

But with clouds, you can't actually "see" the inclusion, meaning the individual pinpoints that make up the inclusion, at 10X. What you're "seeing" is a lack of transparency, or an area of haziness within the diamond that is indicative of a cloud. If the clouds are diffused throughout the entire crystal and could not be plotted, then it would fit into the "clouds not shown" category. But how on earth could you begin to say "the lack of transparency in this diamond is enough to warrant a VVS2/VS1/VS2/SI1 etc grade" and to actually differentiate a lack of transparency that is, say, a VS2 vs an SI1? Seems like this would be a very subjective determination to make, and would be one of the areas that is the most frequently "missed" in the grading of a diamond.

I've frequently seen statements such as "clouds not shown as a grade-setting inclusion is only problematic in the SI1 and below grades" but I would be hesitant to make a blanket statement in this regard. It seems like a diamond that is graded a VS2 due to diffuse clouds could easily have been assigned to the SI1 category on another day or by another grader who observed the transparency (or lack thereof) slightly differently.

In fact, if I was purchasing for myself, I would be hesitant to buy a diamond with "clarity grade based on clouds not shown" or with clouds listed first in a doisser (since you don't know if it was assigned the grade due to a single cloud or diffuse clouds) no matter what the grade... OK, maybe a VVS1 would be OK. But until transparency is openly listed on grading reports (it seems like the technology is out there, right @Garry H (Cut Nut)?) I will be overly cautious with diffuse clouds unless I was buying from a vendor with vetted, in-house diamonds.

 

[KirstLWA]

So this stone would be ok as it is a vendor vetted stone?

https://cdn.briangavindiamonds.com/files/diamond_images/lab_report/AGS-104098900014-REPORT.jpg

Only inclusions are clouds and have additional clouds not shown, but these clouds wouldn’t affect transparency? Do we know that because it is a BGD or because it’s a VS2... or both?

Thanks!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks
to all that have contributed so far.

I want to return to the "clarity grade based on clouds not shown," or, in the case of diamonds with only a doisser, where cloud is listed as the first inclusion. How exactly does a grader assign a clarity grade based on diffuse clouds? Perhaps this is more a question for someone who has been associated with a grading lab in the past (anyone know of industry members on here who fit this bill?) but, to me, it seems like this would be one of the most difficult tasks for a well-trained grader to accomplish.

Again, to me, it seems like assigning a grade based on visible, non-diffuse inclusions, like crystals, feathers, naturals, chips, etc would be fairly straight forward once you see enough diamonds with these characteristics at certain grades.

"Crystals(s) in the stone? Check"
"OK, how many and how easy for me to spot them at 10X? Check"
"OK, a few that are fairly easy for me to spot at 10X. It's an SI1."
(EDITED TO ADD: I know that diamond grading isn't this straight forward, but it's just an example, OK? )

But with clouds, you can't actually "see" the inclusion, meaning the individual pinpoints that make up the inclusion, at 10X. What you're "seeing" is a lack of transparency, or an area of haziness within the diamond that is indicative of a cloud. If the clouds are diffused throughout the entire crystal and could not be plotted, then it would fit into the "clouds not shown" category. But how on earth could you begin to say "the lack of transparency in this diamond is enough to warrant a VVS2/VS1/VS2/SI1 etc grade" and to actually differentiate a lack of transparency that is, say, a VS2 vs an SI1? Seems like this would be a very subjective determination to make, and would be one of the areas that is the most frequently "missed" in the grading of a diamond.

I've frequently seen statements such as "clouds not shown as a grade-setting inclusion is only problematic in the SI1 and below grades" but I would be hesitant to make a blanket statement in this regard. It seems like a diamond that is graded a VS2 due to diffuse clouds could easily have been assigned to the SI1 category on another day or by another grader who observed the transparency (or lack thereof) slightly differently.

In fact, if I was purchasing for myself, I would be hesitant to buy a diamond with "clarity grade based on clouds not shown" or with clouds listed first in a doisser (since you don't know if it was assigned the grade due to a single cloud or diffuse clouds) no matter what the grade... OK, maybe a VVS1 would be OK. But until transparency is openly listed on grading reports (it seems like the technology is out there, right @Garry H (Cut Nut)?) I will be overly cautious with diffuse clouds unless I was buying from a vendor with vetted, in-house diamonds.

1. What GIA teach anecdotaly has zip to do with whatGIA GTL do.
2. I think what the lab does is facilitate sales. There is a market for flawless looking VS and SI stones.
3. I have been saying for years that an honest stone is one with real inclusions

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So this stone would be ok as it is a vendor vetted stone?

https://cdn.briangavindiamonds.com/files/diamond_images/lab_report/AGS-104098900014-REPORT.jpg

Only inclusions are clouds and have additional clouds not shown, but these clouds wouldn’t affect transparency? Do we know that because it is a BGD or because it’s a VS2... or both?

Thanks!

I aee too few AGS stones to know what their policy is.

 

[TreeScientist]

1. What GIA teach anecdotaly has zip to do with whatGIA GTL do.
2. I think what the lab does is facilitate sales. There is a market for flawless looking VS and SI stones.
3. I have been saying for years that an honest stone is one with real inclusions

I agree with you, and I think it may have been made worse by the advent of these 20X videos on retailing websites, which blow these inclusions way out of proportion. Everyone wants to buy an SI1 that doesn't have a single noticeable inclusion in these videos. Well, if there isn't anything visible at 20X and it's an SI1, then there's probably something else going on with the stone, i.e., clouds or transparency issues.

I would much rather buy a VS2 that has a few inclusions that can be noticed in these 20X videos. There's no way in hell I'm going to see a small crystal that is barely noticeable in a 20X video with my naked eye anyway, and at least then I know why the diamond received a VS2 rating, seeing as the definition of VS2 is possesses inclusions that are noticeable (but not prominent) under 10X magnification.

 

[gm89uk]

I agree with you, and I think it may have been made worse by the advent of these 20X videos on retailing websites, which blow these inclusions way out of proportion. Everyone wants to buy an SI1 that doesn't have a single noticeable inclusion in these videos. Well, if there isn't anything visible at 20X and it's an SI1, then there's probably something else going on with the stone, i.e., clouds or transparency issues.

I would much rather buy a VS2 that has a few inclusions that can be noticed in these 20X videos. There's no way in hell I'm going to see a small crystal that is barely noticeable in a 20X video with my naked eye anyway, and at least then I know why the diamond received a VS2 rating, seeing as the definition of VS2 is possesses inclusions that are noticeable (but not prominent) under 10X magnification.

Agree muchos.

For me VS1 is overkill, well priced VS2 are a bonus, bargain SI stones are the most satisfying, and you become 'attached' to the inclusions you know are there in your diamond through the loup. Like a watch you know is yours because there's a peculiar but hidden scratch on one of the links.

 

[TreeScientist]

Agree muchos.

For me VS1 is overkill, well priced VS2 are a bonus, bargain SI stones are the most satisfying, and you become 'attached' to the inclusions you know are there in your diamond through the loup. Like a watch you know is yours because there's a peculiar but hidden scratch on one of the links.

Ditto. Plus it makes it super easy to identify the stone when you have a few "identifying inclusions."

My VS2 has two small whitish/transparent crystals under the table and a few more that can be seen from the pavilion side (crystal is the only listed inclusion). It's impossible to see them with the naked eye, but I can quickly see the two under the table with a 10X loupe. If I was ever in a position that I needed to identify the stone, there would be no need to look for the inscription. I could whip out a 10X loupe and know within 5-10 or so seconds of looking for them whether or not the stone was mine.

 

[TreeScientist]

And, like you, VS2 is my sweet spot because I know that a "honest" VS2 (to quote Garry) will still be eye clean but will have such identifying inclusions. A loupe clean (or 20X video clean, which it seems like most people are searching for) SI1 does not exist unless there's something fishy with it (cloudy). It's like finding a unicorn.

 

[blueMA]

And, like you, VS2 is my sweet spot because I know that a "honest" VS2 (to quote Garry) will still be eye clean but will have such identifying inclusions. A loupe clean (or 20X video clean, which it seems like most people are searching for) SI1 does not exist unless there's something fishy with it (cloudy). It's like finding a unicorn.

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, except it has slightly more pinpoints only visible with higher powered loupe. I have seen nothing else even close to that, even in VS1-VS2 range, out there coupled with a great cut. Extremely satisfying, but I don't expect to find one like this ever again. Literally a unicorn.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to all that have contributed so far.

I want to return to the "clarity grade based on clouds not shown," or, in the case of diamonds with only a doisser, where cloud is listed as the first inclusion. How exactly does a grader assign a clarity grade based on diffuse clouds? Perhaps this is more a question for someone who has been associated with a grading lab in the past (anyone know of industry members on here who fit this bill?) but, to me, it seems like this would be one of the most difficult tasks for a well-trained grader to accomplish.

Again, to me, it seems like assigning a grade based on visible, non-diffuse inclusions, like crystals, feathers, naturals, chips, etc would be fairly straight forward once you see enough diamonds with these characteristics at certain grades.

"Crystals(s) in the stone? Check"
"OK, how many and how easy for me to spot them at 10X? Check"
"OK, a few that are fairly easy for me to spot at 10X. It's an SI1."
(EDITED TO ADD: I know that diamond grading isn't this straight forward, but it's just an example, OK? )

But with clouds, you can't actually "see" the inclusion, meaning the individual pinpoints that make up the inclusion, at 10X. What you're "seeing" is a lack of transparency, or an area of haziness within the diamond that is indicative of a cloud. If the clouds are diffused throughout the entire crystal and could not be plotted, then it would fit into the "clouds not shown" category. But how on earth could you begin to say "the lack of transparency in this diamond is enough to warrant a VVS2/VS1/VS2/SI1 etc grade" and to actually differentiate a lack of transparency that is, say, a VS2 vs an SI1? Seems like this would be a very subjective determination to make, and would be one of the areas that is the most frequently "missed" in the grading of a diamond.

I've frequently seen statements such as "clouds not shown as a grade-setting inclusion is only problematic in the SI1 and below grades" but I would be hesitant to make a blanket statement in this regard. It seems like a diamond that is graded a VS2 due to diffuse clouds could easily have been assigned to the SI1 category on another day or by another grader who observed the transparency (or lack thereof) slightly differently.

In fact, if I was purchasing for myself, I would be hesitant to buy a diamond with "clarity grade based on clouds not shown" or with clouds listed first in a doisser (since you don't know if it was assigned the grade due to a single cloud or diffuse clouds) no matter what the grade... OK, maybe a VVS1 would be OK. But until transparency is openly listed on grading reports (it seems like the technology is out there, right @Garry H (Cut Nut)?) I will be overly cautious with diffuse clouds unless I was buying from a vendor with vetted, in-house diamonds.

Tree,
You ask a lot of great questions. You must be a scientist or something.
I don't know all the answers as I have never been a lab grader. But here are my observations from having a lot of interaction with the labs over the years.

First, it should be pointed out that many times clouds are observable. Sometimes they can be seen with the naked eye, especially when they exist as a small cluster of black pinpoints. These are the ones that typically get plotted.

But your real question concerns those amorphous and diffuse areas of micro inclusions, that are often not plotted. Considering that the two reasons for the plot are 1) to positively identify the stone and 2) to support the clarity grade, small areas of clouds - even diffuse ones- will be plotted in high clarity grades. In lower clarities, with other features present that identify and justify the grade, they may be left out of the plot and mentioned as "not shown".

Regarding those that are noted as 'clarity grade based on clouds', in the lower clarities this is essentially "lab speak" for a transparency issue. As to how a grader decides whether it is an Si level issue or a VS level issue, just like with other features it is a matter of how easy or difficult it is to see by an experienced grader. So this comment in an Si should be taken quite seriously (especially by shoppers interested in diamonds of elite light performance), whereas the issue is considerably less pronounced or even negligible in higher clarities. In some cases it is simply meant to communicate why the diamond was not graded higher.

Another thing to stress is that the comment 'not shown' does not necessarily mean that the cloud is not plottable. It can be because the other features identify and support the grade and is therefore redundant. Plotting it/them might also make the plot look 'messier' than necessary, with a tendency to prejudice a consumer against an otherwise nice diamond. As Garry reminds us, GIA and other labs are looking out for the trade as well as the consumer, and trying to find that balance.

 

[John P]

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.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Extremely satisfying, but I don't expect to find one like this ever again. Literally a unicorn.

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.

Even in SI clarity goods, the "clarity based on clouds not shown" comment does not mean that it's a sure thing that a transparency issue will be visible. In fact, it's less likely to be noticeable in SI goods than easily visible.