Are all inclusions created equal?

[JenniJ]

Is there a difference in how the different types of inclusions (needles, crystals, twinning wraps, clouds, feathers) affect the look of a diamond?

Just curious. Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/16/2009 10:33:09 AM
Author:JenniJ
Is there a difference in how the different types of inclusions (needles, crystals, twinning wraps, clouds, feathers) affect the look of a diamond?

Just curious. Thanks!

Yes possibly but it depends on the clarity grade and the stone in question, whether it is eyeclean etc.

 

[Ellen]

Maybe this will help?

 

[FB.]

To some extent, inclusions could be considered to be equal.
If an inclusion is VS2 or higher, it will not be visible to the naked eye. In that sense, they are equal.
However, all VS2-graded diamonds are not created equal. Some have more inclusions than others - it's a combination of the size, type and location of inclusion that makes the overall grade.

Once you get into the SI2 class, you may have a mixture of inclusions that range from VVS1, through VS2 size (all eye clean), plus the "grade-dertermining" inclusions - perhaps a couple of medium-sized crystals under the table that are "borderline eye clean".
In VS2 or higher, I don't worry much about inclusions because they're almost always insignificant.
In the SI1 or lower, I look carefully at the type and position of inclusions. Knots on the upper facets can be very unsightly. Numerous feathers on the girdle can make the stone slightly more prone to breaking when knocked. Large crystals can make the diamond not eye-clean. Too many SI-grade clouds can lose some brilliance - an SI2 with a comment of something like "clarity grade based on clouds that are not shown" could be a slightly murky diamond. Large or numerous twinning wisps can cause streaks of brownish colour.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/16/2009 11:36:23 AM
Author: FB.
To some extent, inclusions could be considered to be equal.
If an inclusion is VS2 or higher, it will not be visible to the naked eye. In that sense, they are equal.
However, all VS2-graded diamonds are not created equal. Some have more inclusions than others - it''s a combination of the size, type and location of inclusion that makes the overall grade.

Once you get into the SI2 class, you may have a mixture of inclusions that range from VVS1, through VS2 size (all eye clean), plus the ''grade-dertermining'' inclusions - perhaps a couple of medium-sized crystals under the table that are ''borderline eye clean''.
In VS2 or higher, I don''t worry much about inclusions because they''re almost always insignificant.
In the SI1 or lower, I look carefully at the type and position of inclusions. Knots on the upper facets can be very unsightly. Numerous feathers on the girdle can make the stone slightly more prone to breaking when knocked. Large crystals can make the diamond not eye-clean. Too many SI-grade clouds can lose some brilliance - an SI2 with a comment of something like ''clarity grade based on clouds that are not shown'' could be a slightly murky diamond. Large or numerous twinning wisps can cause streaks of brownish colour.

Actually, not quite true on VS2. This is just one for instance, there have been a few over the years. Someone in the biz once said 1 in 100 VS2 stones will not be eyclean. So I think it''s fairer to say, the vast majority of VS2 are eyeclean.

 

[John P]

/www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/are-all-inclusions-created-equal-t122965.html]Are" all inclusions created equal?[/url]>>

In a Declaration of Independence sense perhaps so - since inclusions in natural diamonds form under similar conditions.

But just as "all men" are different every diamond is also different. There are tiny softspoken characteristics and loud unruly characteristics. Some inclusions of the same classification can appear in different colors, shapes and sizes.

This is why the clarity grade is not wholly dependent on inclusion-type. It is set based on size, number, position, type and visibility of inclusions present. The top few grades are exceedingly clean at 10X. As you get into VS and below diamonds with the same types of inclusions present can be several grades apart - depending on those factors; size, number, position, type and visibility. It''s case by case.

 

[FB.]

Ellen

I agree that nothing is 100%. I would expect that if you gave a dozen stones to three different graders, while most of the opinions would agree, you''d get a few variations in their opinions on one or two of the stones. Besides, we''re all human and can make mistakes. It is said that people who don''t make mistakes are those who don''t do any work.

It seems as if it used to be that SI-clarity meant "eye clean" and I-clarity meant eye-visible.
My regular jeweller (they''ve been in business a long time and know their stuff) buys-in good stones and only certificates most of them on request. If they grade a stone as SI "in house", it is always eye clean - and their I1 grade is borderline eye clean/visible. It would seem as if they apply an older, stricter clarity grading system that has been diluted away.
I have an uncertificated SI from them which looks more like a modern-grade VS1.

One complicating factor for non-eye-clean VS2''s is just how close and how long did people examine the stone and was it after looking at the cert to find where the inclusions are?
I have a VS2 that was eye-clean until I compared it with the cert in good light. With a thorough inspection in the right light, it is possible to sometimes see the tiny black spots under the table at a distance of about 5-6 inches. But without the incredibly detailed inspection (or a loupe), there is no way that any observer could identify the inclusions from minute specks of dust - if they could find them at all!

Eye clean means different things to different people. To some, it means "nothing visible at any distance, by any person, in any lighting, under any circumstances".
To me, eye clean means something like: "very difficult to see inclusions at 5-6 inches and impossible to find inclusions at 10-12 inches".

As long as the company selling teh diamond has a good returns policy, I''d say that you''re fine with VS2. It''s just as likely that the diamond will be returned for not being set properly in the mounting than have a VS2 that''s not eye-clean.

 

[Ellen]

Hi FB,

I hear what you''re saying, but it''s a bit different than stating unequivocally "if an inclusion is VS2 or higher, it will not be visable to the naked eye". That''s all I wanted to elaborate on, as it is not quite true.

 

[FB.]

Yes, Ellen.

But when people on here ask for "eye clean SI2", the eye clean part will be subjective, depending on the sharpness of the eyes looking at the stone and how long and how hard you look. A jeweller is likely to look at the stone at 10-12 inches.
Their definition of "eye clean" is not the same as someone looking at the same stone at half the distance (5-6 inches) where the stone may not be eye clean. By being half the distance away, the inclusions will be twice as easy to see.
I would love to see any examples of VS2 that are not eye clean at 10-12". I think eye-visible VS2's are sufficiently rare that they're not worth worrying about - especailly in stones below 0.75ct.

Anything that gets graded by a human being is subject to differences of opinion. I suspect that there are plenty of stones out there that have F colour on the cert, but actually aren't truly F colour due to the stone straddling the boundary for F/G or E/F colour and having been given the benefit of the doubt by one grader, or penalised by another.
I'm a scientist myself (nothing to do with diamonds) and I am painfully aware of how, sometimes, a tough decision has to be made as to which group something falls into. I am also aware of how pressure from clients or other sources can influence the test procedure and the results that get reported.

The SI3 grade appears to be popular in some circles (such as my regular jeweller) to describe an eye-clean I1. GIA and AGS do not acknowlegde the grade at all.

 

[Todd Gray]

IMO all inclusions are not created equal, just as all ideal cut diamonds are not created equal and not all diamonds which exhibit patterns of hearts and arrows are "Hearts & Arrows", etc.

A ''diamond crystal'' is not the same as a "DIAMOND CRYSTAL" and a needle shaped diamond crystal ''/'' is not the same as a twisting striation of the diamond crystal, i.e. "twinning wisp".

Small diamond crystals, needle shaped diamond crystals, pinpoint size diamond crystals, clouds of pinpoint size diamond crystals, etc. present little if any potential of becoming a durability issue. Knots, cavities, twinning wisps, substantial feathers, stacks of feathers located along the girdle edge of a diamond all have the potential of being a durability risk. I''m not saying that they are a durability issue, I''m merely saying that they have the ''potential'' to be a durability issue, just as there is the ''potential'' for the house that I live in to slide off of the hilltop someday - the ''potential'' did not prevent me from buying the house, but I did so with the realization that someday it could happen.

And then there is the matter of size, position, visibility to consider... Every diamond must be considered on it''s own merit and consumers should take the time to learn more about the different inclusion types and determine what is acceptable to them in terms of inclusion type, extent, visibility, etc. and shop accordingly.

 

[Rhino]

Good input all and yea ellen ... safe not to make blanket statements.

We just put the kabash on a picture perfect beautiful H&A, AGS "0" H VS2 which was priced very attractive we called in for a client. After inspection we found a surface reaching inclusion that was open and on the crown. If you were looking at the Report you''d never know it.

All the best,

 

[Stephan]

Date: 8/18/2009 1:45:07 PM
Author: Rhino
Good input all and yea ellen ... safe not to make blanket statements.

We just put the kabash on a picture perfect beautiful H&A, AGS ''0'' H VS2 which was priced very attractive we called in for a client. After inspection we found a surface reaching inclusion that was open and on the crown. If you were looking at the Report you''d never know it.

Was the report from AGS?
That is scary!