Clarity: twinning wisps??

[megeve]

I have been reading up all the past threads about having only twinning wisps as inclusions and I, basically learned that this type of inclusion is a good inclusion to have - white, transparent and cannot be seen with naked eyes, only under a loupe - can one of you knowlegeable PSers please confirm this? Is this true???

However, in a SI2 clarity with 3 long twinning wisps, 2 long ones off the table (along the long side of ec stone) and 1 long one on the center of table, also under comments: additional twinning wisps not shown - would I be able to see them in this low clarity?

Are there any PSers with only twinning wisps inclusions in their SI2 diamonds? Can you please tell me what you can or cannot see in your stones?? And your experience with these clarity and inclusions in all lightning?

I looking at an ec with SI2 clarity and I am being very paranoid about seeing these inclusions with my naked eyes but would like some of your opinions for or against before I reject it.

 

[Lorelei]

Meg,

You might know that EC's can show inclusions more easily than other shapes, so what I would do is contact the vendor and ask them if this diamond is eyeclean being an SI2 clarity - I would be surprised if it was said to be totally eyeclean....But do check if you are interested in this diamond to get a good description. Does it have a GIA report?

 

[megeve]

Yes, it has a GIA report. Thats where I got the clarity plot of these twinning wisps.

Vendor said its possible to make out the inclusions but only if you have a very good vision but only really close and the inclusions are not obvious in the stone. So I do not know how to make out of this statement as I understood this inclusion is white, transparent and invisible to naked eyes. Is it true, Lorelei, one can see inclusion like twinning wisp in ec?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 8:43:44 AM
Author: megeve
Yes, it has a GIA report. Thats where I got the clarity plot of these twinning wisps.

Vendor said its possible to make out the inclusions but only if you have a very good vision but only really close and the inclusions are not obvious in the stone. So I do not know how to make out of this statement as I understood this inclusion is white, transparent and invisible to naked eyes. Is it true, Lorelei, one can see inclusion like twinning wisp in ec?

Meg,

This info might help. http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/Clarity/InclusionGallery/ Scroll down to twinning wisps. As to visibility, apparently it is true that they may be invisible to the naked eye in some circumstances, but with an EC I would be more cautious at SI2 clarity. Also what size is the diamond? Inclusions can be more visible in a 2ct diamond than with a .60 for example. As to the description from the vendor, I would take that to mean that they are visible at close scrutiny but at normal viewing distances possibly not so much.

 

[Fly Girl]

I just want to say that the vendor''s photo is a dead give-away. It took me only seconds to find the stone. So you may want to reserve it quickly.

Gorgeous rock!

I have a diamond with twinning wisps, but it is a round brilliant, and I never see them. I finally did spot them once under a microscope before the diamond was set. I suspect you would be able to spot them under certain lighting conditions. I remember one PS member who was upset because they could spot an inclusion when they held the diamond up under their reading lamp at a particular angle and squinted just so. If that sounds like you, then you need to go to higher clarity to be sure.

But, I think for the money I''d save, I could learn to love a great big gorgeous white EC like that one.

 

[Lorelei]

Ditto - I knew immediately which vendor so do reserve it if you want it! He does have a return policy if you wanted to see for yourself as far as I am aware anyway...It is a big diamond so clarify as best you can with the vendor concerning any visible inclusions and whether he does have a return policy so you can view the diamond and see if it is right for you. As FG notes, peoples' tolerances for visible inclusions vary, what might drive one person nuts may be perfectly fine with another!

 

[Moh 10]

I also found it in 15 seconds; maybe it was 10.

His photography/lighting is a dead give-away for any PSer.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 10:30:48 AM
Author: Moh 10
I also found it in 15 seconds; maybe it was 10.

His photography/lighting is a dead give-away for any PSer.

LOL!! Yes indeed!

 

[Moh 10]

All his diamonds have light bursting out of them.

He must get the best rough.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/29/2008 10:40:59 AM
Author: Moh 10
All his diamonds have light bursting out of them.


He must get the best rough.

LOL.

But yes, if you want it, reserve it!

 

[megeve]

OMG, you guys are just too smart for me!!! I have asked Adm. to delete the pic for me: Thank you, Adm for your help!!

Now back to the topic at hand: did you guys actually see any inclusions whatsoever?? Please the truth!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 10:56:05 AM
Author: megeve
OMG, you guys are just too smart for me!!! I have asked Adm. to delete the pic for me: Thank you, Adm for your help!!

Now back to the topic at hand: did you guys actually see any inclusions whatsoever?? Please the truth!!

LOL!

I can see what appear to be crystal inclusions near the top of the diamond and what looks like a feather to the lower right at around 4 o'clock but it looks pretty clean for an SI2 of that size and shape. Other than that it is hard to tell due to the faceting and light going through the diamond.

 

[megeve]

Thanks Lorelei. According to the report, its only twinning wisps, no crystal and no feathers. What do you think personally? would it be eyeclean just from seeing the pic? The pic is magnified 40x(?)? I dont get much more info from vendor than what they have told me.

 

[Moh 10]

Photography and lighting can emphasize or de-emphasize inclusions.

Some vendors, like GOG are considerate enough to provide an additional pic that is lit with special lighting that emphasizes the main inclusions, with little red arrows to help you see them.

Whiteflash takes a different photography approach.
Their pics make the diamonds look super duper clean; even many of the SI1s and some of the SI2s appear to have no visible inclusion in their 40x pics.
Different approaches will appeal to different people.

Unfortunately photography is considered to be a objective and accurate technology when, in fact, you can easily bend the truth with photography/lighting.

IOW, what we see in that pics is meaningless.
And if you haven't read between the lines this vendor is using lighting techniques that make his diamonds look supernatural.

Photography aside, in-person the lighting itself can help reveal or conceal an inclusion.

You are considering a stone that GIA says is SI2.
Yes, it is possible to find SI2s that are eye clean.
Yes, some types of inclusions are less visible than others.
Yes, twinning wisps are less visible than black carbon blotches.

Whether this one is really eye-clean (for your definition) is a risk.
I don't think anyone can help you, short of recommending you decide if you can trust the vendor to look at it and judge its eye-cleanness, or buying it, examining it and returning it if it is not what you want.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 11:11:07 AM
Author: megeve
Thanks Lorelei. According to the report, its only twinning wisps, no crystal and no feathers. What do you think personally? would it be eyeclean just from seeing the pic? The pic is magnified 40x(?)? I dont get much more info from vendor than what they have told me.

Meg, I wouldn't want to offer a definite opinion on whether it would be eyeclean going by that picture as there are so many factors which could influence whether it is or not, and I don't want to advise you wrongly. I think the thing is to see it in person and decide if it is eyeclean to you, as that is what matters in the long run! Maybe you could arrange to have the diamond sent to an appraiser near you so you can view it in person? Then examine it in as many different lights as you can as in my experience, some inclusions can pop out in some lights and not in others.

 

[megeve]

Moh & Lorelei, thank you, you have waken me up to my sense!!

You are right - his photography technology has kind of blended the inclusions in that pic. For a tiniest moment, I have hope that this might be an absolutely eyeclean stone, but nevertheless, its still a GIA SI2 stone. Thanks again for being my extra pair of eyes!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 11:36:15 AM
Author: megeve
Moh & Lorelei, thank you, you have waken me up to my sense!!

You are right - his photography technology has kind of blended the inclusions in that pic. For a tiniest moment, I have hope that this might be an absolutely eyeclean stone, but nevertheless, its still a GIA SI2 stone. Thanks again for being my extra pair of eyes!!

You are most welcome and thats the thing, a large EC of SI2 clarity may be eyecleanish if you are lucky ( but very rare at that size and shape IMO) - but would it be eyeclean enough for you? Also with seeing inclusions, I wouldn't be able to say whether I thought the diamond was eyeclean regardless of the photographic techniques used as I am doubtful anyway with such a large EC of that clarity - chances are it isn't. But the crux of the matter is - is it eyeclean or acceptable to the person buying it? And the only real way to know that is by viewing the diamond in person.

 

[Moh 10]

Meg, I am not saying that this is not an eye-clean stone.
I am not saying he intentionally used lighting on this particular stone to conceal inclusions.
It may very well be the right stone for you.

Just be aware that photography is NOT neutral and objective.
I would never use it to make eye-clean decisions.
In skilled hands a picture tells the story that the photographer wants to tell.
(Let's not even get into manipulation on software after the fact [have you seen that Dove video?], and no I am not implying this is happening.)

Photography influences buyers and marketing people have known this for 150 years.

Internet shoppers are buying diamonds worth thousands of dollars sight unseen.
We partially basing our decisions on pictures.
Photography techniques can dramatically change the appearance of a diamond and unfortunately these techniques are not standardized.

 

[megeve]

No, it would not be eyecleaned enough for me. I have been searching for an ec for a long time not lower than g and not lower in clarity that vs2. I have so far gone only by numbers as I do not have the opportunity to see stones or vendors as I am living in Europe, Switzerland to be exact!! I have found a few stones in Bluenile but it all boils down to not knowing whether the stone will perform or not. So when I came across this SI2 stone being able to see how bright and sparkly it is without inclusions, I had the hope it might be it. Well cest la vie!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2008 11:56:50 AM
Author: megeve
No, it would not be eyecleaned enough for me. I have been searching for an ec for a long time not lower than g and not lower in clarity that vs2. I have so far gone only by numbers as I do not have the opportunity to see stones or vendors as I am living in Europe, Switzerland to be exact!! I have found a few stones in Bluenile but it all boils down to not knowing whether the stone will perform or not. So when I came across this SI2 stone being able to see how bright and sparkly it is without inclusions, I had the hope it might be it. Well cest la vie!

Oh I am sorry Meg! I really hope you can find the one soon! You could contact that vendor and ask him if he has any others that might suit you, or what about Whiteflash or Good old Gold, James Allen, Wink etc? They might be able to help you! Also I found this one, you would need to ask for detailed pics but it is in your price range and might be eyeclean.

http://www.dimendscaasi.com/diamonds/diamondDetail.asp?stockNum=25735E34

 

[Moh 10]

"Bright and sparkley without inclusions" can certainly be emphasized with photography/lighting techniques.

Is the diamond itself actually better? No.

Here's a tip.

Look at many pics on vendor's site, let's call that vendor A.
Do they all look a certain way?

Next, look at many pics on vendor B's site.
Do they all look different, perhaps less exciting and less eye-clean for clarities like GIA SI2, than the pics from vendor A's site?

What does that tell you?
Which has your interests in mind?
Which is playing off the right brain instead of the left brain?

 

[megeve]

Moh, I understand what you are trying to say, no problem! If I am living in the US, I would just order and return it if its not totally eyeclean - thats my absolute criteria. But since I am not, its difficult for me to return stone as a lot of factors are involved like duty tax etc. That being said, you have been helpful!

 

[megeve]

Lorelei thanks, I have tried WF before however they do not have many stones within my specs in their possession. They have chosen a few virtual stones for me and could only provide sarin, for more info like aset, they would have to call them in. And me being picky as I am, I might not always like the very lst choice and it will end up costly for me. So at the moment, I am just looking till hopefully I will find one which is in my specification but I am not in a hurry. That being said, Bluenile does have more choices in their selections but no aset info. So I am back to square one.

 

[John P]

Megeve, there is no way to tell whether a diamond is eye-clean from a photo.

Not only is lighting a critical factor; different people see different things.
Younger people focus better close-up. Nearsightedness and personal physiology make for differences, etc.
Your best bet is to interface with a seller you trust - and get very specific as to what you expect.

On the whole I agree with much Moh10 has said. However,

Date: 11/29/2008 11:14:31 AM
Author: Moh 10

Whiteflash takes a different photography approach.
Their pics make the diamonds look super duper clean; even many of the SI1s and some of the SI2s appear to have no visible inclusion in their 40x pics.
Different approaches will appeal to different people.

Moh may not have intended the above as critical but it could read that way. In fact, many of the SI stones at Whiteflash (and other boutique sellers) are “super-duper clean” as a by-product of specialized selection. Based on the abundance of delivery-reactions posted here it's fair to say that customers of Whiteflash find those photos representative. I agree that they’re not creating a technical gemological record in darkfield, but that is not their intent.

It's definitely possible to manipulate gem photos to acquire drool-worthy “glamour shots" (Robert Weldon is a master of this - in a good way). But if a seller here regularly tried to conceal features by manipulation that skirt would get blown up pretty fast; the number of returns and complaints would quickly become apparent on the forum.

Top sellers on PS work to have attractive and standardized (in-house) photos, so diamonds on X property are all treated the same way. The fact remains that no setup can convey "eye-clean" decisively. That judgment is something on which you must interface with a live human. Do so with confidence. If it's not as-advertised the PS sellers know you would report that here, so it's only logical for them to approach those discussions with diligence.

 

[Moh 10]

John, it was certainly not intended as critical.
Helpful and constructive are my goals.

I have bought from WF (and GOG) more than once.
I love WF and refer friends to them often.
I am a civilian, not in the industry.

Still, I believe strongly that GOG presenting (as you have revealed, since photography techniques are understandably considered so sensitive and proprietary by vendors) darkfield pics with red arrows pointing to inclusions as the ultimate in disclosure.
I wish WF, DBL and all vendors would join the style of photography communication that includes using lighting techniques that reveal the bad as well as the good in their goods.

I think selling on the Internet is enhanced by presenting the whole picture.
If photography is to be useful to compare between vendors the techniques/lighting must be the same.
Darkfield photography can greatly assist customers making decisions about inclusions.

Perhaps PS could enforce agreed-to photography/lighting standards in order to remain/become a PS vendor.
I know Garry has voiced his opinion on this for videos.
He's probably long since given up on standards for still photography.

 

[John P]

No worries Moh. Your posts are thoughtful and informative, which is what we all aspire to.

As you said, different approaches appeal to different people. No doubt you realize that some internet shoppers are willing to buy from sites with no photos. A massive segment of people are comfortable purchasing in the Blue Nile single-photo model. Still others prefer all the details GOG provides. People tend to gravitate toward their own comfort levels, which is why different approaches can be successful.

I do understand perfectly what you're saying. No other manufacturer provides the number of diamond images, reflector photos, inscription close-ups and 3D files - executed at factory level - for dealers that we do. And while this appeals to a niche crowd of (dare I say) nerds like our management

... we must accept that what we do isn't useful for all consumers. Our dealers verify this regularly to us. In fact, some of our retailers don't use any of the photos, reflectors or add-ons we provide!

I wish WF, DBL and all vendors would join the style of photography communication that includes using lighting techniques that reveal the bad as well as the good in their goods.

While the gemologist in me agrees with your desire for documentation I've worked long enough in this sector to know that new and cautious shoppers are easily made nervous by insignificant things like a tilted ideal-scope or an invisible crystal magnified-to-death. Between the enthusiast's dream and complete absence of photos there is a middle ground that is suited to the "average" consumer. Over the past several years BN might argue that they have found it (a hard argument to counter) but I hold out hope that "standard documentation" will grow education continues to spread. Either way, it will not stop the efforts by those of us who put out an abundance of information. For the niche crowd who does find all of it useful we want to have it available.

Perhaps PS could enforce agreed-to photography/lighting standards in order to remain/become a PS vendor.

I would welcome that. Not just with mag photos though. Reflectors, H&A and darkfield too (for those who choose to put foward reflectors, H&A and darkfield). I am also sure you understand - as does Garry - that it's not likely to happen.

 

[Moh 10]

I have the perfect answer John.

At each website the first screen they see is one with two buttons.
On the right will be one button for right brainers, and on the left a button for left brainers.

Each will take him/her to the site optimized for these very different customers.

Seriously, I understand that people vary.
The ones who matter most are the typical shoppers, whom I suspect are much more right brained than I or the typical gemoligist.
So, Jonathan may want to remove those darkfield pics afterall.

Most diamond shoppers prefer being reassured by pretty pics to being challenging by inclusion pics they are not likely to take the time to understand.

The posters who fall into the category of, "Oh I just Love it because it stole my heart and made me feel all goosebumpy, and besides numbers are just gobbltie-gook to me, and reports don't matter as much as how you feel deep down in your heart" outnumber those who judge by the science by 10 to 1 here.

 

[megeve]

John - appreciate your insight and I will bear that in mind. Right now, I have to chew on all the informations I have gathered here and see how I go from here. Thanks

Moh - I agree with you, a PS enforced agreed-on photography/lighting standards on this board will make purchasing so much easier for consumers!