clarity

[EdSkinner]

What is everybodys hang up about seeing an inclustion in the stone? Some of them can be pretty neat. One time we bought a stone that was I1. One of the gemologists I work with, Mike Jordan, looked at it and thought it looked like a little man in a sled. So we sent it to GIA. The head gemologist there agreed with Mike, and took a picture of it. We sent the the stone to Terry Walsh in Warren Maine and he made a snow flake pin for it. We then sent the piece to a store in Portland, ME. along with the letter from GIA and the photo. It sold the first day. Inclusions can really make a unique stone. I really don''t understand why people are so parinoid about clarity. So what if you can see something in it. As for the 4 C''s in my book clarity is the least important. So much for that, opinions anyone?

 

[pyramid]

I do not worry about clarity as being able to see a feather in the diamond, unless it is black and sticks out like a sore thumb. I am more worried about the affect that an inclusion like a feather would have on durability of the diamond. Maybe I have read too many post on other forums which use this as a scare tactic but it is so that I would not go below VS1 or maybe VS2. Is that just being stupid as it means I would have to buy a smaller stone for the same price?

 

[wallace]

That is a really great story! Do you have any pictures? I would be interested in seeing more of that. I like your helathy and ccreative attitude about inclusions - diamonds are natural - so they are not perfect. Accepting what is unique about each stone by definition gives it value. The inclusion tells an interesting story about the history of that stone. I wouldn't want that for an engagement or wedding ring, but it makes great art!

 

[valeria101]

No trouble with inclusions either. Completely clear stones look fake - more like lab equipment components thann gems - and the precission cutting does not help at all in this department. Included crystals are the most fun, I think

 

[fire&ice]

I would much rather have smaller hard to spot visual inclusions than feathers. As long as the inclusion doesn't detract (i.e. - all you saw except - unless specific like your example), I think they are kinda zen.

The reason why I don't like flaws that you can not see is they are more dangerous in the long run.

I do think that e-rings may hold a higher standard to be more eye clean because one is asked to see the ring more frequently. It would be hurtful for someone to make a comment about an e-ring.

 

[maristidou]

You might have seen these questions in my posting "Urgent feedback on 1.25 F VS2 Ideal RB stone $8700" but since this is a forum about clarity I thought I'd repost them.

I take it I am more concerned about inclusions than most of you but I still would like to know what you think:

Is the difference between VS2 and SI1 only about the number and size of inclusions?
Are there types of inclusions that are less desirable? If yes, does the clarity grade take that into effect? Which ones have the least effect visually and structurally? ( I know Tiffany's rejects diamonds with knots, black inclusions etc.)
Does the possition of the inclusion alone (i.e. if it's close to the girdle or low by the culet vs. in the middle of the table) affect the clarity grade or is it up to the smart consumer to find stones with inclusions that can be hidden by prongs or the right setting.

There is nothing wrong with choosing an SI or even an I stone but I would want to understand my stone and the way those inclusions will affect its appearance and durability.

I appreciate any comments.

Melina

 

[caratgirl]

My problem with inclusions is that I have an eagle eye, much to my wallet's distress! Also, I think that what bothers me the most are multiple center-oriented inclusions, versus a few larger ones on the outer edges of a stone. The multiple small inclusions are not visible most of the time, but in different lighting they appear (to me) like the diamond is dusty. That, quite frankly, bugs me. My friends that can't see this phenomenon think I'm crazy, of course. If it is a stone that is not for an e-ring, though, I am much more flexible, and would go to SI2 for earrings or a pendant.

 

[wallace]

Valeria - Well said - I would love to see a liquid inclusion - I think that would become ny favourite.

This threads question about inclusion certainly makes a distinction between what you are looking for and how you want to wear this piece. For a traditional setting, e-ring, wedding band etc. and traditional even fancy cuts will sort of demand the standards we have set in place about clarity and inclusions ( and colour).But making fun jewelery, as described above, makes all that fly out the window.

Maristidou - I have been trying to recall where I found articles (I think the library - real books) about inclusion types and location. I AM JUST AN AMATUER _ PLEASE NOBODY BE OFFENDED BY MY LITTLE RESEARCH _ I am putting out what I have learned in order to invite more professional comment and to learn for myself.

Is the difference between VS2 and SI1 only about the number and size of inclusions? I think the size and number of inclusions together.
Are there types of inclusions that are less desirable? I think so. e.g.It seems that different types of inclusions are better/worse. Internal v. external flaws - some feathers and needles reach to the external surface of the stone and make it more vulnerable.(this is a gross example).
If yes, does the clarity grade take that into effect? I think insofar as the the overall size of the inclusion and number are concerned ... I would also love to know if inclusion types afect clarity ratings.
Which ones have the least effect visually and structurally?( I know Tiffany's rejects diamonds with knots, black inclusions etc.) Don't know about TIffs but yes, I think they can affect visuall/structurally - but not really at the clarity levels you are talking about - and the quality of the cut will depend most.
Does the possition of the inclusion alone (i.e. if it's close to the girdle or low by the culet vs. in the middle of the table) affect the clarity grade or is it up to the smart consumer to find stones with inclusions that can be hidden by prongs or the right setting. I would love to know this, too. It may be a matter of personal taste - what can you live with - but I was shown an E SI1 with a graphite inclusion in the dead center of the stone. Not visible to the naked eye... until you turned the stone sideways. Actually turned out to be two graphite or some other dark pinpoint substances stacked on top of each other. THis was visible and even seemed amplified in light refraction. The GIA cert. only showed one inclusion as it only a bird's eye view. The salesman did everything he could to get me not to look through that loupe! Then he gave me a long spiel about how it meant nothing. What do you think of that? Yes - caveat emptor - buyer beware (but not neurotic). I think the inclusion placed there would affect light refraction in a more obvious way than similar inclusions on the edge of the stone - esp. where the prongs can hide them.

So - how much do you have to know yourself? I would live to know. Perhaps Mr. Skinner or Valeria will better, more expert input. I preface again this is only frommy experience in buying a stone - trying to learn for the last year.

These are all excellent questions and I hope someone will be able to help clarify... (Sorry so long

- there were lots of questions).

 

[EdSkinner]

Wallace:The pictures went with the piece. It was probally about 12 years ago. My favorite clarity is VS2/SI1 range. Anything above VS2 to me is money spent on something that will not make a difference, and could have been spent on color, cut or ct.

 

[EdSkinner]

Pyramid:I agree with you about not having a sore thumb in the stone. But in general small feathers are not going to affect the durability that much, unless you take up karate and start breaking bricks with your jewelry on (don't laugh it happened). What concerns me is people who go out and get a IF/VVS and the stone gets dammaged. Now your IF stone is a lower clarity and may or may not be able to be repaired. On the other hand, a stone that already has ftrs in it, may get dammaged and the clarity may or may not change.

 

[wallace]

Basset Hound (Mr. Skinner) - Too bad about the pics - if you do anything like that again - please post! If you do not mind my asking, why did it come up now after 12 years, ie what made you think of it? IMO, you right about the clarity.
Thanks.

 

[EdSkinner]

Wallace: I have only been a member since the end of january this year. I have never been in a chat area before and I wanted to see what really concerned the members before I ever opened my mouth. This is my first post. Clarity just seemed like a good way to start. The difference between SI1 and VS2 is opinion. What is a VS2 to me may be a SI1 to caratgirl because of her eagle eye. There is no exact point of demarcation where one become one or the other, clarity as well as color grades overlap. Size, nature and location matter and everybodys definition is alittle bit different. Yeah I guess stones with inclusions open to the surface are more undesirable. If you have a small one I don't really see a problem. Big white opaque feathers from the girdle extending into the crown and pavilion, they are no good. They may open up more when they are set or the stone might fracture or break. I think pin points and crystals are more desirable than open feathers. Clear feathers that are open to the surface and into the stone are hard to see with the naked eye. Alot of dealers look to get gradings in the SI range for these, but the marks are dangerous, depending on how deep they run, and I would be at I1 because of the durability factor. You are going to be able to see inclusions better throuh the pavilion because of the facet alignment. But when you face it up you may not be able to see it because of the facet alignment. I have been trying to read your post and answer you questions, but it has been a long day and my eyes are tired. Iam going to bed. Good night. Don't let the bed bugs bite.