Amazed AGS deemed this an SI2

[David0722]

I bought this diamond from GOG and I still can''t believe it''s an SI2!! How can this be? Rhino said it''s because it''s close to the center of the diamond. But still, I''ve seen VS2/SI1 diamonds with multiple clouds and black spots. When I first saw this diamond in person, I couldn''t find it with my eye or a 10x loupe! Now that I "know" the stone, with my naked eye it takes me about a minutes to locate. With the loupe, I can only find it after carefully focusing to the right depth of the diamond.

Regardless of why it''s an SI2, I''m VERY pleased with this SI2 from GOG! http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2281/

 

[wonka27]

Yeah...that doesn''t look like much at all.

Hey, why question it though...you''re living right with this one. You probably got a nice deal on a colorless diamond because it was SI2.

Congrats and enjoy....

 

[aljdewey]

Awesome find......this is why I''m such a fan of eyclean SI2s.

My SI2 doesn''t show anything to the naked eye, and even with the loupe I have to HUNT for it.

Those deals are sweet!

 

[diamondsrock]

normally I''m not crazy about si1 or si2 stones but that looks like a clear winner. If that spot was more to the side I''ll bet it would have been an si1.
Enjoy it, it looks fantastic!! Let us know what you think of it when you get it.

 

[Stone Hunter]

WOW that''s great. It looks nothing like the SI2 I looked at here at a B&M. That one was scary. Yours is great.

 

[oldminer]

You are the recipient of a very good looking SI2. Sometimes the grading favors the consumer.

You are off to a good start.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Given the location of that feather (?), the grade is a bit harsh, but defensible. The grader probably had a hangover, and this was the first stone he saw that morning.

 

[David0722]

Date: 8/17/2006 3:35:59 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
Given the location of that feather, the grade is a bit harsh, but defensible.

''tis a cloud.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 8/17/2006 3:37:26 PM
Author: David0722

Date: 8/17/2006 3:35:59 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
Given the location of that feather, the grade is a bit harsh, but defensible.

''tis a cloud.

That''s why I edited the post to add a (?).

The micrograph is a bit unclear on my screen.

 

[RockDoc]

Remember you're all looking at this stone's image from the top. The image is not lit well from behind. It is a rather dark image. Additionally it is taken at very high magnification. This affects the ability to focus on the stone at different depths, as the focus becomes far more critical when photographing an image at high power.

I've seen some AGS SI-2's where the inclusion from the top looks very small but looking from the side, the inclusions MIGHT extend downward and be a tad more "serious" than what is show in a topview and plot drawing.

Secondly, the inclusions may reflect around the stone, which would cause AGS to grade it SI-2, or the cloud could have a grey/black appearance when examined under the traditional lighting with a loupe. Mutliple views using varied amounts of magnification are necessary, but reconciled using 10x.

I'm not saying this is factual for this stone, just saying that in my experience of looking at AGS SI-2's, this is what I've seen, and how graders would react to this.

Certainly if the inclusions were actually like the photograph the dealer who submitted it would be asking AGS to reconsider the clarity grading.


Just be aware that only " half what might be there is being shown". Expert gemologists at AGS, generally don't "hit" a stone with a low clarity grade without some basis for doing it.


Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Clouds have the capacity to dull the passage of light.

The worst stone is an SI2 or I1 with clouds that are not at all visible under 10X loupe - it will have lost some brilliance and fire.

So folks - dont go and kill your self trying to out fox the graders at labs.

Your stone does not need to be such a stone David because the cloud is quite large and visible.

The only thing I would also add is that this cloud is shown under back lighted microscope - and since the pavilion is not leaking much light - the cloud is poorly illuminated.

I do not agree in principle with microscope driven grading because when we wear diamonds they are front lit - and the inclusions we see under front lighting can be markedly different. Yours may or not be such a case david - general comments only.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:40:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The worst stone is an SI2 or I1 with clouds that are not at all visible under 10X loupe - it will have lost some brilliance and fire.

Then how is the SI2/I1 grade determined, if not under 10X?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:49:44 AM
Author: JulieN

Date: 8/18/2006 1:40:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The worst stone is an SI2 or I1 with clouds that are not at all visible under 10X loupe - it will have lost some brilliance and fire.

Then how is the SI2/I1 grade determined, if not under 10X?

JulieN beware sones where "clouds not shown" are the only or primary grade maker.

They are there - they can be seen under higher mag - and their effect can be seen. The effect is classed as a clarity featy=ure because we do not have a classification for semi transperant in the West.

Indians have a term "luster" which cover this - it is used there because for a long time they ended up with these dreggs - so they developed a grading system for them - they cause can be milky fluoro, whitish ghosty graining or clouds. These clouds are very common in fancy yellow diamonds and then they can actually assist the deepening of color saturation rather like red on red burmese ruby or Kahmir sapphire.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

David, the terrific thing is that you have examined this stone YOURSELF and see that the inclusion is very insignificant! Looks like you made a great choice to me!

 

[strmrdr]

kicken stone
congrates!!