Clarity Question

[vigorgs]

I have a question about clarity, should a VS2 have inclusions visible to the naked eye??? I have a VS2 GIA certified diamond and I can see something in it. I brought it to my local jeweler and he explained that GIA may have loosened their grading on Princess Cuts. Another jeweler said all diamonds have natural markings.

I just can''t understand why a VS2 would have anything visible to the naked eye.

Can anyone with more experience with diamonds explain or let me know if you need any more info to figure this out???

Thanks

Chris

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

it is normal - it is not new, and it will probably be very very hard to see, and probably impossible from face up perpendicular - this is especially true of princess cuts - even down to VS1.

Often it is very easy to see an incluision from the side of a diamond thru the pavilion.

 

[vigorgs]

OK, I can understand all that and it makes sense, BUT I thought VS2 and higher ment inclusion that could NOT be seen with the naked eye??? Also what clarity would you recommend so that we truly could not see an inclusion with the naked eye???

Thanks again

 

[Kaleigh]

You can''t make a general statement that VS2''s are eye clean. Many are, but some aren''t. You have to judge them on a stone by stone basis.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2007 12:36:41 AM
Author: vigorgs
OK, I can understand all that and it makes sense, BUT I thought VS2 and higher ment inclusion that could NOT be seen with the naked eye??? Also what clarity would you recommend so that we truly could not see an inclusion with the naked eye???

Thanks again

Any diamond where the primary inclusion is a cloud.
But they are less brilliant.

Is it soo baad that you can see it? It means you will always know it is your diamond - until prysobia kicks in (usually from about age 45) and then you will be lucky to even be able to see the diamond anyway

You simply need to let the vendor know this is your criteria and they can ensure the stone meets your standards. in stones under 1ct there are plenty of SI1''s and even SI2''s that can meet your rules.

But you can give up

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/2/2007 1:08:44 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/2/2007 12:36:41 AM

Author:

Any diamond where the primary inclusion is a cloud.

But they are less brilliant.

Gary, if you dont explain yourself soon I am going to start getting really upset. Have you read all the other threads with questions about whats going on and why you have suddenly gotten so serious about clouds in VS2s affecting light performance. what the heck is going on?

 

[vigorgs]

This particular diamond is 1.59 carats and is rated with clouds and comment (additional clouds not shown). It is extremely brilliant. The plan was to mount it in a setting that would show off the sides but the inclusions are so visible. Good point though about always knowing it''s yours.

Would you say I should go with a VS1 or a VVS2 and better???

 

[Gypsy]

I might be missing something, but it sounds lilke you are saying that you can see the inlcusion from the sides not necessarily from the top. That makes perfect sense to me, diamonds are graded table up only in terms of clarity. Knowing this I'm not surprised (and I am surprised that any even vaguely educated jewler is surprised or makes disparaging comments on the GIA) you can see the inclusions from the side. If you can see it through the table, then it's still not strange as it's always important to ask, even with a VS2, if it's eyeclean. Some portion of them aren't. What am I missing in this post? Were you just not aware that diamonds are graded table up?

 

[vigorgs]

I was told by several jewelers that they are graded from the bottom. Also, the jeweler in question explained he was GIA certified about 25 yrs ago and his instructor made it clear that VS2 and up should not be seen from the side or bottom. Although what you are saying makes sense.

I still have the question though, what grade should I go for to not have eye visible inclusions in a princess cut????

 

[Gypsy]

No. COLOR is graded from the bottom, the culet. CLARITY is graded from the table.

It's not a grade thing, it's a case by case thing. Like I said stones are graded for Clarity face up. So if what you want is a COMPLETELY eyeclean VS2 from all angles you need to have your jeweler, one you trust, look at the actual stone from all angles (or look yourself) and tell you what they see-- or don't see as the case may be. Short of taking a HUGE cost increase of VVS grade, there is a chance that an individual stone below that grade might have inclusions visible from the side. So just be sure to explain what you are looking for. People on here have completely eye clean from all angles SI stones. It's stone specific.


Also, the reason you can see an inclusion in the diamond from the side is that there is more transparency from the side... it's more like a window... the table isn't, it's got all those angles and light shooting up. It's also why with emerald cuts and asschers and other step cut stones it is difficult to find an 'eyeclean' (even from the top) SI and sometimes even VS2. More transparency.
Good luck!

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 9/2/2007 1:59:43 AM
Author: vigorgs
Also, the jeweler in question explained he was GIA certified about 25 yrs ago and his instructor made it clear that VS2 and up should not be seen from the side or bottom. Although what you are saying makes sense.

Here''s something else that might make sense.

This jeweler is one you DID NOT buy from. You go in there confused and unhappy with your stone. You may or may not have a return policy on your diamond... and you may or may not have mentioned to him. But what he does know is that if he gains your trust, toots his own horn and you DO have a return policy or if you are SO unhappy and have no return policy that you might ask him about getting a different stone: he MIGHT get a sale.

If you truly want an educated opinion from a person on any jewlery matters, you should go to an independant (one not affliated with any jewelry store) appraiser.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2007 1:16:44 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 9/2/2007 1:08:44 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/2/2007 12:36:41 AM

Author:

Any diamond where the primary inclusion is a cloud.

But they are less brilliant.

Gary, if you dont explain yourself soon I am going to start getting really upset. Have you read all the other threads with questions about whats going on and why you have suddenly gotten so serious about clouds in VS2s affecting light performance. what the heck is going on?

When there are few marks on a cert clarity plot, or not much to see in a diamond microscope photo some of you think you caught a graders mistake and you can have a win.

You can not win. Without the experiance and the stone in your hand and the right equipment lighting etc, you will probably end up with a diamond with reduced brilliance and fire as a result of a cloud that is in my opinion much worse than a small microscopic or hard to see inclusion.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My advice is to go with VS1. My e-ring diamond is VS1 and I can''t see inclusions in any position (and I looked at several VS1''s). It is also almost impossible to see any with a 10x loupe. I do have some VS2 earrings where I can see an inclusion from the side of one stone, but it doesn''t bother me since no one, including me, can see earrings from the side.

 

[vigorgs]

Gypsy.......everything you are saying makes sense, although I was aware of the whole sales pitch you described in your second post......this particular Jeweler gave great advice, "if you don''t love it then return it".....inclusions or no inclusions you have to love it......thank god I do have a return policy......I guess I will have to examine the stone from all sides and hopefully not have to go up to a VVS2........

diamondseeker2006..........thank you that is really what I was looking for.......a starting point.....something to go off of, like the fact you have looked at several VS1 and they have been eye clean but VS2 have not........Now I can start there and save some time.......

thanks again to everyone you have really help with my education and buying process........

 

[Gypsy]

DS''s suggestion of a VS1 is a great one. I personally have a VS1 and I can''t even loupe the inclusions. I usually need my GIA cert telling me vaguely where they are and a 20x mag to find even one of them. And I have a step cut.

BUT that may not be the case with EVERY Vs1. I was told when I purchased it that if one of my tinny microscopic inclusions had been located in a different place (not in the center of the table, but off to the side) my stone would have probably been graded VVS. We''ll see what Neil Beaty (the Independantg appraiser I''m sending my ring off to this week, so that he can send it to the designer who is making my new setting, who will send t back to him for a final verification and evaluation and appraisal report) has to say about that, but knowing how hard it is for me, personally to see the inclusions, I wouldn''t be surprised to see Neil agree with what I was told.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 9/2/2007 1:59:43 AM
Author: vigorgs
I was told by several jewelers that they are graded from the bottom.

Color is graded from the bottom, clarity is graded from the top.

Also, the jeweler in question explained he was GIA certified about 25 yrs ago and his instructor made it clear that VS2 and up should not be seen from the side or bottom.

This is incorrect. The face up view is the determining position.

 

[simplysplendid]

Hi, why does it matter whether you can see the inclusion from the side or bottom? The important thing is the face up, right? Afterall when the diamond is set, no one is going to see it from the bottom and depending on how it is set, the side as well..

 

[vigorgs]

The plan was to mount the diamond in a setting that would show off the entire thing......

The setting has already been picked out and yes it does expose the sides of the diamond.......

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2007 3:53:53 PM
Author: vigorgs
The plan was to mount the diamond in a setting that would show off the entire thing......

The setting has already been picked out and yes it does expose the sides of the diamond.......

Then it is very likely you will see a VS2 from the side because most princess cuts have their inclusions dead center just under the table and the large side triangular facet leaves them no place to hide.

You either change stones, live with it, or i suggest you think of it as an a identifying beauty spot

 

[vigorgs]

Gary,

It''s funny you say that........first of all that is EXACTLY where the inclusion is........Second our initial response was to return it but after your earlier post about an identifying mark we have be considering the beauty mark scenario

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2007 9:55:04 PM
Author: vigorgs
Gary,

It''s funny you say that........first of all that is EXACTLY where the inclusion is........Second our initial response was to return it but after your earlier post about an identifying mark we have be considering the beauty mark scenario

thx - I try to be a good observer.

My answer to the question: who would you sit between on a long flight - Da Vinci and Einstein

 

[simplysplendid]

Date: 9/2/2007 3:53:53 PM
Author: vigorgs
The plan was to mount the diamond in a setting that would show off the entire thing......

The setting has already been picked out and yes it does expose the sides of the diamond.......

Hi, but when you say you can see the inclusions from the sides, do you mean at very close scrutiny? Is it visible at a normal distance (say 1ft or 2) where someone may view it from when the hand is held up? People don''t normally stare and scrutinise the diamond at close range..t

 

[vigorgs]

Let me make it very clear for everyone.............it is not like we are being picky at all......You can see this inclusion from 1 foot or 2 away......in fact it was the second thing we noticed after opening it up

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

If its that visible I say def get rid of it. If its bothering her now, she probably wont ever truly appreciate it when she sees it, which might not bee too infrequently.

I guess its about time for me to chime in here, I didnt do it because I was purchasing a round. I purchased a round VS2 and it came to me. I noticed the inclusion from the side early on, but then I couldnt find it again for a while. After a few days I dicovered that to see it I had to hold it up and look at it from the side against a light colored background, and it was reflecting a few times, though not too badly.

I decided to send it back and hunt for a new diamond. when purchasing I asked the vendors to look at the diamonds for me from all angles in close scrutiny and I wanted one that was totally eyeclean. This I found,　though not without alot of berating and yelling to get it done, and I almost went with a VS1 myself, but they had an inhouse VS2 I was curious about which sure enough was reported to be eyeclean.

the keys that made me feel confident about it were, the inclusion was on the side. I dont know all of what Gary is talking about with his concern for clouds. Mine had only one inclusion listed, a cloud, that went over about 1 1/2 facets near the girdle. I thought that would be a likely candidate to be eyeclean because the cloud consist of numerous very small inclusions, meaning that there wasnt one very noticable crystal, but maybe 5 or six very small dots that were close enough in proximity to be noticable but not large as to be seen with the naked eye.

My next fear was for light performance impacts, first I asked the guys at JA who said it was beautiful and would not ahve an impact, then I asked here where people on PS (I swear Gary was on of them at the time) assured me not to worry about it that there was nothing to worry about in a VS2.

Fortunatly in my case I dont believe there was, because the inclusion plot has it clearly marked, and when I look with the loupe it can be extremelly hard to find, UNLESS i look from directly above the diamond in grading type lighting. In that case I can see four small white dots, with a couple of even small off to the bottom of the line that basscally make a connect-the-dots line with a tiny little dipper at the end. They are not particularly clustered together, but fromt he right angle they are very small and light, but still quite visible and clearly a VS2 grade setter.

I believe this is one of the types of inclusion you woud aim for in a VS2. If it is one crystal or feather right under the table, especialy if it is black, there is no way you are going to miss it, it would simply be visible from the side. But there should be a number of VS2s out there that consist of white/clear inclusions, several small ones that are fairly visible from the grading position--obviously a TRUE VS2--that are in and of themselves to small and light to be seen with the naked eye from any angle, and are positioned so as not to be reflecting or causing any other problems.

I believe Garys warning about clouds may be justified, but I believe what he is saying is that there may be some clouds that consist of hundreds of very very small crystals, such that the individual crystals themselves did not set the grade but rather a large hazy area (thus affecting performance) was visible and was described as a cloud. So as long as you find a cloud that is not one of those "hazy" areas (which I am going to venture they usually are not in a VS2, but maybe gary can clarify on that) then you shouldnt have anything to worry about clouds.

My advice is to bassically set up your parameters as I did. Set your color range-D-G, set your Clarity range, IF-VS2, then set your minimum ct weight (and here I clicked the AGS0 box as well but I dont know about doing that with princess cuts) run a search, organize by price, and go downt he list one at a time and analyze the cuts of each one, open up the ones that you are interested in in a seperate tab. Then go through each of those and look at the plot inclusions. If you have a VS1 automatically put it in the "ask them more" pile, and if you have a VS2 look at the inclusion plot. If it looks like it has a reasonable inclusion plot that if the inclusions are clear/white might be eyeclean from all angles, then put it in the "ask them more pile" as well.

then when you have narrowed down your selection to just a few, call them up. Have them check the VS2s first and then find out what they way, then have them check the VS1s, then you have all the data typed up on your computer and you can run through and select a final one or 2 diamonds, if one of them is a VS2, go through and berate them more and more, ask them to make sure, have there head gemologist look at it and describe your fears about seeingi t from the side and mention you are concerned about any light performance affects. You may well end up with a VS1, but it is still a very real possiblity to find a VS2 that would allow you to either save money or improve your color, so I say keep the option open at the very least.

Anyway, it might not help, but I figured I would share my experiences, and try to post a couple more questions towards Gary if he feels like answering.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

there are no brilliance dulling clouds in this stone - we know this because it has a concentrated fair sized inclusion. That is good, not bad Working hard.

You better re-read my comments above that I wrote to help you understand the issue of cluods.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Thanks Gary. I have just been a bit concerned about it because, while your clarification post make a good bit of sense, you have also made a number of short broad statements that have in my mind come across as though you recommended VS1 or better--or rather are anti-VS2 and lower with performance based reaons. then we have other people saying that inclusions with performance impacts would be graded SI2 or lower.

Throw into the mix that the certificates, especially when talking about clouds, are usually faxed or poorly copied and are somewhat unclear online.

Then to really make the topic evenmore confusing alot of the images provided seem to be set up in such away as to somewhat mask inclusions due to backlighting or whatever else prevents them from being visible(though to be fair I am sure such images are hard to capture).

to go back to my own diamond as an example. Online the inclusion was very vague and difficult to see, but in person my mom wouldnt miss it even without her reading glasses. The online copies just wasnt sufficient and didnt show the inclusion clearly, so in many others I am sure that the copy looks much "cleaner" online than it would in person.

And using my own again, on the image I was provided of the diamond it was impossible to see the inclusion. The gemologist even looked at it and circled what she thought was the inclusion (which is confusing to me because on seeing it with my own eyes what she circled is OBVIOUSLY not the inclusion, and infact must have been a smudge or something). But the actual inclusion was totally invisible under the magnified image, while being fairly visible in proper grading conditions (though it would be hell for the average person to locate).

Thus, several problems arises online where someone is looking at a diamond, and alot of them have clouds. It says "additional clouds not shown so that already presents some confusion for most people, then we have several comments telling us to be wary of SI, and even VS2 inclusions but the keys to determining if it falls in that frightful category of performance affecting inclusions because of the above reasons.

Throw ontop of all that one more thing, that we have no idea how frequently these problems you are talking about arise. Then all I can think is, just stay away from clouds if you cant see it for yourself before you purchase. But, that might not be logical as it might not be anymore of a problem than something like, say overblues in strong fluo. It exist, but odds are in your favor, and if the gemologist says its not a problem, then it probably isnt.

So bassically, those strong comments you have made recently have left me confused about what the odds are of finding bad VS2 SI1 diamond cloud type inclusion, and the information provided online only makes it looks like almost every diamond has a problem, which certainly isnt the case, but then you come on and make a short broad reaching comment that makes it sound like it might in fact be a large %, leaving me for one very uncertain, and probably others.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

GIA wrote
Grade-determining clouds in the SI2 and I
clarity grades diminish the appearance of fire.
in http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/cut_fall2004.pdf

Date: 9/3/2007 2:15:33 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Thanks Gary. I have just been a bit concerned about it because, while your clarification post make a good bit of sense, you have also made a number of short broad statements that have in my mind come across as though you recommended VS1 or better--or rather are anti-VS2 and lower with performance based reaons. then we have other people saying that inclusions with performance impacts would be graded SI2 or lower.

Throw into the mix that the certificates, especially when talking about clouds, are usually faxed or poorly copied and are somewhat unclear online.

Then to really make the topic evenmore confusing alot of the images provided seem to be set up in such away as to somewhat mask inclusions due to backlighting or whatever else prevents them from being visible(though to be fair I am sure such images are hard to capture).

to go back to my own diamond as an example. Online the inclusion was very vague and difficult to see, but in person my mom wouldnt miss it even without her reading glasses. The online copies just wasnt sufficient and didnt show the inclusion clearly, so in many others I am sure that the copy looks much ''cleaner'' online than it would in person.

And using my own again, on the image I was provided of the diamond it was impossible to see the inclusion. The gemologist even looked at it and circled what she thought was the inclusion (which is confusing to me because on seeing it with my own eyes what she circled is OBVIOUSLY not the inclusion, and infact must have been a smudge or something). But the actual inclusion was totally invisible under the magnified image, while being fairly visible in proper grading conditions (though it would be hell for the average person to locate).

Thus, several problems arises online where someone is looking at a diamond, and alot of them have clouds. It says ''additional clouds not shown so that already presents some confusion for most people, then we have several comments telling us to be wary of SI, and even VS2 inclusions but the keys to determining if it falls in that frightful category of performance affecting inclusions because of the above reasons.

Throw ontop of all that one more thing, that we have no idea how frequently these problems you are talking about arise. Then all I can think is, just stay away from clouds if you cant see it for yourself before you purchase. But, that might not be logical as it might not be anymore of a problem than something like, say overblues in strong fluo. It exist, but odds are in your favor, and if the gemologist says its not a problem, then it probably isnt.

So bassically, those strong comments you have made recently have left me confused about what the odds are of finding bad VS2 SI1 diamond cloud type inclusion, and the information provided online only makes it looks like almost every diamond has a problem, which certainly isnt the case, but then you come on and make a short broad reaching comment that makes it sound like it might in fact be a large %, leaving me for one very uncertain, and probably others.

I have seen SI1''s with clouds that I do not like - the brilliance also has been reduced as well as the fire as GIA reported above. And grainy SI''s where there are no other obvious inclusions.

That is to say that these stones are flawless or VVS but good labs have given them what they believe to be fair grades that are lower to reflect the trade off between brightness and fire.

Now these stones are almost always offered as being of exceptional clarity - they are sold as graders mistakes or someone tracks them down because they want a VS1 at an SI price.

I would take a better sparkling SI over a VS1 any day.

But I see your problem - when working with poor quality scans of reports and photo''s (which are a waste of time generally because of depth of feild issues) etc.

Just avoid diamonds where there is a cloud mentioned and vendors say it is an otherwise exceptionally clean stone.

Or as i have written many many times - do not ever be frightened off by a diamond with big enough inclusions to really be the grade it is meant to be. Trying to outsmart professional lab graders is a fools game.

As an experianced trader, the only time I have ever really found a bargain is the stones graded bad through a microscope with back lighting where the inclusions are harder to see from the front with little or no backlight. Once set there is no backlight!

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 9/2/2007 11:36:26 PM
Author: vigorgs
Let me make it very clear for everyone.............it is not like we are being picky at all......You can see this inclusion from 1 foot or 2 away......in fact it was the second thing we noticed after opening it up

Return the diamond. If you don''t love it, you DEFINITELY shouldn''t keep it. Can''t wait to see the diamond that you do fall in love with, it''s going to be a beauty.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/3/2007 4:12:35 AM
Author: Gypsy

Date: 9/2/2007 11:36:26 PM
Author: vigorgs
Let me make it very clear for everyone.............it is not like we are being picky at all......You can see this inclusion from 1 foot or 2 away......in fact it was the second thing we noticed after opening it up

Return the diamond. If you don''t love it, you DEFINITELY shouldn''t keep it. Can''t wait to see the diamond that you do fall in love with, it''s going to be a beauty.

Ditto from me, too. We ordered a VS2 and ended up returning it because I didn''t like the inclusions with a loupe! It had little feathers (aka cracks) and I just didn''t like that. So by going to VS1, I didn''t have to worry about the clarity. It is time consuming to send stones back and forth, so I felt that going to VS1 would solve the problem. A lot of people here do not care about clarity, but I wanted all the 4 C''s to be good!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/2/2007 1:59:43 AM
Author: vigorgs
I was told by several jewelers that they are graded from the bottom. Also, the jeweler in question explained he was GIA certified about 25 yrs ago and his instructor made it clear that VS2 and up should not be seen from the side or bottom. Although what you are saying makes sense.

I still have the question though, what grade should I go for to not have eye visible inclusions in a princess cut????

This is one of the big reasons why our industry is so poorly thought of by the public. Several jewelers telling you something so completely wrong can NOT be good for our reputation. It begs the question, were these real jewelers, or were they selling ladies shoes last week? Most mall jewelers are NOT real jewelers but sales clerks who should not be making up the information to fit their personal desire to bad mouth a stone you have already possibly purchased in order to try to sell you one of theirs.

Diamonds are to be clarity graded only from the top in setting the grade, although it is clearly easier to locate an includion from the side or bottom view and then turn it over to see if it is still visible. Many times I find tiny pinpoints in this manner, and then knowing that they are there I can find them from the top. Grading diamonds is part science, part art, and MUCH experience. Making stuff up is CRAP and inexcusable on the part of the people who do it and their bosses who let them. By the way, it is incredibly easier to grade a lower grade stone than a higher grade stone. The inclusions just jump out at you and you don''t have to search for the tiny pinpoints that would set the grade in a VVS or drop the grade in a potentially flawless gem.

This comment is incorrect, he may have been GIA educated, but he was NOT certified. If his instructor made it clear that VS2 and up were not visible to the eye from the side or bottom, then the instructor made it clear in direct contradiction to the written works of GIA since I was a student there in 1975. Did he do his work via correspondence, a one week or less class or in a residence class? Regardless of how he did it he obviously needs a refresher course to relearn the work correctly, as it was clearly presented differently in his written coursework, regardless of what his instructor might have said.

I just sold an I1 that would have fit your bill. It is not the grade, it is the stone. I have seen a 2 or 3ct GIA graded VS1 round with a clearly visiible from the top black pinpoint in the middle of the table. I even argued with GIA instructor about the grade and was told this was the only inclusion in the stone and it was a size that might have allowed the stone to pass as a VVS2 had it been clear instead of black. This was in a refresher class being taken at the Tucson Gem Show ten or twelve years ago and not one person in the class got that stone correct and we were all up in arms about it being a lucky grade.

Obviously you are entitled not to like this fact and to return the stone to the vendor and choose another one. If it is something that is only seen from two opposite sides and not from the other two sides then you can have it set so that the inclusion does not show, but if it is clearly visible from all four sides, then call your vendor and arrange for another stone to replace this one. Your vendor will work hard to find you what you want, and you may not have to go up in clarity at all, or you may have to, it partially depends on you. I have a client who for many years could see inclusions in VS2 stones from the top that neither I or his fiance/wife could see, and I AM good at it. Now, fifteen or twenty years later, his high tech job and the strain it put his eyes under have reduced that ability to a more normal acuity and he can comfortably buy VS2 and even SI1 stones

I wish you well in your quest, and I apologise on the behalf of my industry that you were fed so much excrementally convenient yet incorrect information by people who should have known better.

Wink