A PROPOSAL for a NEW CLARITY SYSTEM

[oldminer]

Your opinions, please!!!!!

xxxxxx


A different Clarity system

This is not a GIA system. It is put forth as a suggestion for a possible alternative to the current GIA/AGS grading structure.

Features of this proposal:
Eye visibility of inclusions set a maximum clarity.
Durability faults set a maximum clarity.
Consistency of application for ALL sizes of diamonds.




No under table inclusions above VS1.
No eye-visibility of inclusions above SI1.
No durability fault inclusions above MI1.

Flawless: No inclusions or blemishing external features can be found with thorough 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any potential .defects. No defect found may be visible at 10X in this classification.

Internally Flawless: No inclusions or face-up visible blemishing external features can be found with 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects. Any external blemish must be invisible face-up. Any external blemish not visible face-up must be judged to be minor in nature and potentially removable by slight recutting or polishing.

VVS1: The very slightest pinpoint inclusions, or face-up visible blemishing external features that can be found with 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects. No internal inclusion visible through the table may be graded VVS. Any external blemish not visible face-up must be judged to be minor in nature and potentially removable by very slight recutting or polishing.

VVS2: The very slightest of pinpoint, cloud, feather inclusions, or face-up visible blemishing external features that can be found with 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects. No internal inclusion visible through the table may be graded VVS. Any external blemish not visible face-up must be judged to be minor in nature and potentially removable by very slight recutting or polishing.

VS1: Very slight pinpoint, cloud, feather inclusions, or face-up visible blemishing external features that can be found with 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects. Stones with internal inclusions visible through the table may be graded VS. Any external blemish not visible face-up must be judged to be potentially removable by recutting or polishing.

VS2: Slight pinpoint, cloud, feather inclusions, or face-up visible blemishing external features that can be found with 10X binocular dark field magnification. The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects. Stones with internal inclusions visible through the table may be graded VS. Any external blemish not visible face-up must be judged to be potentially removable by recutting or polishing.

SI1: Iinclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be visible without any magnification in some cases. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability, but may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

SI2: More numerous or slightly larger than SI1 inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be visible without any magnification in some cases. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability, but may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

MI1: Numerous or large inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be visible without any magnification in some cases. MI stones may have slight clarity faults sufficient to have a slight effect on durability, and may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

MI2: More numerous or slightly larger inclusions than MI1 which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be readily visible without any magnification in some cases. MI stones may have slight clarity faults sufficient to have a slight effect on durability, and may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

I1: Numerous, prominent, visible and/or large inclusions readily set the clarity without regard to other smaller inclusions that may or may not be present in the stone. External blemishes may be numerous and quite apparent. While all clarity grading is performed at 10X, a lower magnification would be sufficient to have set the clarity grade of all ‘I” clarity stones.

I2: Very numerous, large, visible and prominent inclusions readily set the clarity without regard to other smaller inclusions that may or may not be present in the stone. External blemishes may be numerous and quite apparent. While clarity grading is performed at 10X, a lower magnification would be sufficient to have set the clarity grade of all ‘I” clarity stones.

I3: All diamonds judged to be of lower clarity than the above I2 grade. This does not mean that all I3 diamonds are identical. One might further classify them into several more categories if there was a sufficient reason or market for them at some future time.

copyright AGA 2005, no reproduction or use in commerce without specific permission is granted.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/18/2005 10:37:47 AM
Author:oldminer

Your opinions, please!!!!!

xxxxxx

SI1: More numerous inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be visible without any magnification in some cases. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability, but may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

SI2: More numerous inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. External blemishes may be visible without any magnification in some cases. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability, but may have inclusions or blemishes visible to the unaided eye.

Si1 & SI2 have the very same description?

I think I may be viewing this from the perpective of a consumer. Is this new clarity system supposed to give the consumer more knowledge? Or is it to aide the dealer to sell?

If I view it solely from a consumer''s point of view, perhaps instead of using the MI grade - use the SI3. Also, within the SI grades could there be notations after the grade on a maybe 1-5 scale of durability issues/relative eye clean? Probably not unless in a perfect world.

I think clarity is more subjective to a person than color. I would think that some people prefer warmer stones; yet, I would assume (leaf of faith here) that not many people will want to see a bunch of junk in their stone.

 

[oldminer]

Thanks, corrected now in the above posting.

 

[belle]

there is probably not going to be an ideal system for the subjective issue of grading inclusions, but i think this is a good step in standardizing it somewhat. i agree with steve, throw out i3, or add a third classification across the board.

 

[JohnQuixote]

In a marriage of two recent threads:

SI1 (Eye Clean):   Inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. Without any magnification inclusions and blemishes are not visible at a distance of 8-10 inches under normal light and 20/20 vision. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability.

SI2 (Eye Cleanish):   More numerous or slightly larger than SI1 inclusions which do not require examining the stone at greater than 10X in order to set the clarity. Without any magnification inclusions and blemishes may be visible at a distance of 8-10 inches under normal light and 20/20 vision. SI stones do not have clarity faults sufficient to have an effect on durability.

This would work if one guy on the planet was doing the grading.

 

[oldminer]

John: I was thinking that possibly these good folks would make me the "one person". I promise to be reasonable and have my vision checked annually

A standard distance for eye-visiibility would be good. Possibly standard lighting strength, distance and type, too. The nice thing about using absolutes is they cound totally objective. "Eye visibility" even under controlled circumstances is a best effort, not a cure all. I would not use eye-cleanish in a real grading system. That implies a judgment call not what might be called an objective test.

 

[oldminer]

I3 is everything worse than all other grades. You could make it VI, Declasse'', or some other symbol to denote "below the gem quality grading scale"--BGQ.... Whatever you''d call it, it still would be the end of the line of gem quality. Of course, it could be VI1 and VI2, but I simply have not figured out how to define each division even a little differently.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/18/2005 4:03:15 PM
Author: oldminer
I would not use eye-cleanish in a real grading system. That implies a judgment call not what might be called an objective test.

It implies a judgment call? Tjhat''s a riot.

All clarity grading is a "judgment call"...ithe very nature of it is completely subjective. There''s nothing objective about it. You cannot structure an "objective" way to produce subjective results.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am neither against or for your proposal at this stage - but have some questions:

1. Dave, given that any change / new system will create havock and mayhem and ongoing debate - what is the main benefit of this proposed system an improvement?

2. If SI3 is bad, why would M be worthy of introduction?

3. Since there is the biggest price difference at SI2 - I1, it is logical that there be more grading options around that jump (But the same could be said for H - I, where the largest price jumps occur in the popular VS and SI clarities - should we have Hi and H2, or I1 and I2 ? - well no - because you would get the I1 and I2 mixed up with clarity grades - so H1 and H2 it is - therfore SI3 becomes an acceptable grade

).

Unless a grading system is accepted globally it will not fly. The WFDBA etc need a proposal.

 

[JCJD]

So.... basically this proposed grading system is the same as what is currently used by GIA, just integrating durability judgements? So, would that mean that someone looking for an eye-clean cost-efficient diamond could now buy a SI1 or SI2 blind, because the really bad dangerously included stones are M''s?

 

[oldminer]

No, this system is NOT GIA based. The SI2 I1 problem dissappears. The flat grading of alkl sizes, not sized based is very different. The placement of a distinct limit on Eye visibility is also not GIA. This would allow us to grade slightly cloudy diamonds based on is this eye visible or not visible.

Diamonds under this system would not grade like GIA grades them now in many cases, but it might in some be the same. It would shake the tree a whole lot. It is a proposal for discussion, not a royal command to change the system. My mind tells me the present system needs a big overhaul.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Well that sures clears up the SI3 confusion...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You crack me up Rich

 

[kdavis]

I''m not one of the experts on this forum

but as a consumer I think it would be easier to have a "durability" rating separate from the clarity, similar to fluorescence

I guess I will pose this question: is it possible for a VS quality stone to have a durability risk? is it possible for an SI1 stone?

after all, I think clarity is for grading the clarity, color is for color, etc.

 

[strmrdr]

Its a step in the right direction.
I agree dont use the same ratings as the current system otherwise there will be too much confusion and also leave room for deception.
Its an si1 .. whose si1? Which ever one gives it the best looking score.

 

[jasper]

Dave,

Here are some frequently asked questions:

1) At what distance is "eye-visible" grading done?

2) How long is the optical train of the 10x microscope from the in-focus diamond to the viewer''s eye(s)?

3) How good is the viewer''s vision supposed to be? Many U.S. Military Specifications (MilSpecs) say "vision corrected as necessary to normal visual acuity." What is normal visual acuity, and how is it supposed to be verified? How often is it supposed to be calibrated?

4) Is it OK for the viewer to use just one eye, or is a binocular-vision microscope required?

5) Is it OK for the viewer to use a loupe, or is a stationary microscope required?

6) How would a diamond with a 3-mil (75 micron) diameter black circular spot be graded? Ditto for 150 microns? 25 microns? 10 microns? 3 microns? 1 micron?

7) How do the answers to Question 6 depend on the location of the black circular spot?

How do the answers to Question 6 depend on the size of the diamond?

9) How do the answers to Question 6 change if the circular spot is white?

10) How do the answers to Question 9 change if the diamond is a fancy color?

11) If a diamond has had laser drilling, does the drill hole itself count as a clarity defect? What clarity does a typical laser drill hole correspond to?

12) If a diamond is fracture filled, is it automatically MI1 or worse? (Due to durability issues.)

13) If a person (with good eyesight, at 5-8 inches without magnification) who knows where to look can see that one of the shards of colored light comes from a particular spot under the table, what grade does the diamond get? (Due to a small white cloud, in lighting conditions where the diamond is producing lots of other fiery shards of light -- not due to fracture filling.)

-- Jasper

[email protected]
www.folds.net/diamond

 

[jasper]

Dave,

At risk of overwhelming you, here are a few more questions about your proposed clarity grading system:

14) What is the highest grade that a diamond with an unfaceted girdle can get?

15) How does "bearding" of the girdle affect the grade?

16) If a "polished" polycrystalline CVD diamond''s surface is the mottled color of a golden-brown cake, does it affect the clarity grade, or just the color grade?

17) Do laser inscriptions on the girdle affect the grade?

-- Jasper

 

[oldminer]

Classifications are human constructs to break down data into useable and understandable groups. They will ALWAYS be subjective and subject to practical revision. Classifications are not sacred and once they are unsuitable for use need revision....

1) At what distance is "eye-visible" grading done? 8 inches to 12 inches depending on what makes a viewer's eyes most comfortable. Obviously, if one sees something at 24 inches it can be seen at 8, too.

2) How long is the optical train of the 10x microscope from the in-focus diamond to the viewer's eye(s)? No idea.

3) How good is the viewer's vision supposed to be? Many U.S. Military Specifications (MilSpecs) say "vision corrected as necessary to normal visual acuity." What is normal visual acuity, and how is it supposed to be verified? How often is it supposed to be calibrated?
20/20- excellent normal corrected vision required.


4) Is it OK for the viewer to use just one eye, or is a binocular-vision microscope required? Eye visibility is both naked eyes or one if you prefer, but using you best vision is the right approach. Do not use a monocular microscope for diamond grading at all.

5) Is it OK for the viewer to use a loupe, or is a stationary microscope required? Use of a loupe only at SI1 and below is okay, but I would recommend binocular scopes to generally be the accepted norm of diamond grading..

6) How would a diamond with a 3-mil (75 micron) diameter black circular spot be graded? Ditto for 150 microns? 25 microns? 10 microns? 3 microns? 1 micron? A black spot may be bad enough to make a diamond I3(BGD) or if just eye visible as good as SI1 and if small enough to be invsible to 10X possibly even flawless. I have never measured spots, but I know 2 microns is likely invisible to 10X

7) How do the answers to Question 6 depend on the location of the black circular spot? Of course, location has an effect on clarity grade. Size, relief and location still are keys that work A tiny black spot under the table prevents grading a diamond VVS. A black inclusion of large size breaking the surface of the stone and likely to fall out creating alarge pit might put the diamond into the I2 range. Any steps in between are possible.

How do the answers to Question 6 depend on the size of the diamond? I clearly stated the size of the diamond has no effect on the use of this system. This is a huge problem with the existing format.

9) How do the answers to Question 6 change if the circular spot is white? To tell the truth I have no quibble that white inclusions have less ill effect than black inclusions, as a generalization. Unless it is an unusual circumstance, white inclusions have less relief and therefore somewhat less negative efect on the final grade.

10) How do the answers to Question 9 change if the diamond is a fancy color? Depends on if the diamond is improved by the inclusion or hurt by the inclusion. It is a rule of common sense, not science.

11) If a diamond has had laser drilling, does the drill hole itself count as a clarity defect? What clarity does a typical laser drill hole correspond to? Of course, laser drill holes are clarity faults and add to the clarity defects. Laser drilling might improve the look or salabilty but it rarely makes the clarity grade substantially better, Maybe a grade higher on occasion and possibly a grade or even two lower on occasion, but selling the diamond is the goal, not worrying about the grade of a problem diamond.

12) If a diamond is fracture filled, is it automatically MI1 or worse? (Due to durability issues.) YES, although major labs will not grade CE stones because no one really knows the true clarity, but only how it now appears.

13) If a person (with good eyesight, at 8 inches without magnification) who knows where to look can see that one of the shards of colored light comes from a particular spot under the table, what grade does the diamond get? (Due to a small white cloud, in lighting conditions where the diamond is producing lots of other fiery shards of light -- not due to fracture filling.) Eye visible inclsuions do not rise over SI1. Fire is not an inclusion, so don't confuse the situations.

14) What is the highest grade that a diamond with an unfaceted girdle can get? Flawless

15) How does "bearding" of the girdle affect the grade? From VVS1 and lower depending on amount, relief and depth

16) If a "polished" polycrystalline CVD diamond's surface is the mottled color of a golden-brown cake, does it affect the clarity grade, or just the color grade? It could be both. I suppose it also could be either. It depends on what the exact situation is.

17) Do laser inscriptions on the girdle affect the grade? Nope, not when they are within the girdle

Hope this is a worthwhile set of answers.

 

[oldminer]

"All clarity grading is a "judgment call"...ithe very nature of it is completely subjective. There''s nothing objective about it. You cannot structure an "objective" way to produce subjective results. "

Not really a true statement, You can have objective measures of the amount of clarity faults contained in a diamond and make a sliding scale that tells you the flAwless percentage. It would be a dumb, but objective system. It could be automated, but not done by a human grader. We are looking for ways here to add objective criteria in order to improve the repeatability and meaningfulness of our human, subjective clarity grading. The more objective measures we put into the system, the less subjective judgment will be required. Consistency of grading is the goal I''d target alogn with more meaningful criteria.

 

[jasper]

Hope this is a worthwhile set of answers.

Yes, this is a worthwhile set of answers. I especially liked your answers to questions 8 and 16.

Regarding questions 6-9:

One way to make the grading system more objective would be to establish standard examples of borderline stones, with borderline clarity defects. For example, a circular black spot under the table of 75 microns in diameter might be eye-visible to some of your viewers, and not to others.

This is similar to the borderline-color stones used for color grading. This is also a small step toward automated clarity grading, just like master-stone sets can be used to calibrate colorimeters.

A follow-up to question 11:

If a diamond has had laser drilling, does the drill hole itself count as a clarity defect?
Of course, laser drill holes are clarity faults and add to the clarity defects. Laser drilling might improve the look or salability but it rarely makes the clarity grade substantially better: Maybe a grade higher on occasion and possibly a grade or even two lower on occasion, but selling the diamond is the goal, not worrying about the grade of a problem diamond.
In your proposed system, what is the highest grade that a laser drilled diamond could get? (For a typical diameter laser drill hole.)

A follow-up to question 13:

If a person (with good eyesight, at 8 inches without magnification) who knows where to look can see that one of the shards of colored light comes from a particular spot under the table, what grade does the diamond get? (Due to a small white cloud, in lighting conditions where the diamond is producing lots of other fiery shards of light -- not due to fracture filling.)
Eye visible inclusions do not rise over SI1. Fire is not an inclusion, so don't confuse the situations.

This case illustrates a good SI1.

Under lighting that does not bring out the fire of the diamond, the cloud under the table requires 10x magnification to notice in the face-up position, and 20x magnification to see the shape of the cloud.

Lighting that brings out the fire of the diamond also brings out fire in this particular inclusion. If a person with good eyesight turns the diamond, while paying close attention to where the fire is coming from, they will notice that one arrowhead-shaped shard of colored light does not move the same way as the others when the diamond turns. This shard is the fire from the inclusion.

Your conclusion that "eye visible inclusions do not rise over SI1" is appropriate. Indeed, the inclusion can be seen with the naked eye in the pavillion view of this stone.

It is technically possible that this inclusion is simply reflecting light that is broken up into a spectrum by other facets of the stone. The eye perceives fire as coming from the inclusion, even if the inclusion did not break up the light into a spectrum all by itself.

-- Jasper
www.folds.net/diamond

[edited clarification of Question 13]

 

[oldminer]

If a diamond has had laser drilling, does the drill hole itself count as a clarity defect?
Of course, laser drill holes are clarity faults and add to the clarity defects. Laser drilling might improve the look or salability but it rarely makes the clarity grade substantially better: Maybe a grade higher on occasion and possibly a grade or even two lower on occasion, but selling the diamond is the goal, not worrying about the grade of a problem diamond.
In your proposed system, what is the highest grade that a laser drilled diamond could get? (For a typical diameter laser drill hole.)


A laser hole is a surface breaking, generally non-durability issue belemish attached to an inclusion. It is not more or less of any other clarity fault.

 

[moremoremore]

VS2: The stone is to be examined at all angles and with higher than 10X magnification in order to locate any defects



Hmmm, so the myth continues that vs2 inclusions can't be seen with the naked eye!

 

[oldminer]

NO MYTH is being continued. I can''t imagine what you are thinking of. I specifically said this IS NOT the GIA system. ANY eye visible clarity faults under this proposed system MAY NOT BE VS........Read it more slowly and see some of the logic here missing from our current system. 10X remains the standard, but small inclsuions demand searching under higher power as well in order to locate them.