Clouds and Brilliance Question in AGS Ideal SI1

[trailhiker]

First, let me thank everyone who has posted helpful advice, as the archives have been a great resource during my search for an engagement diamond. I would like to ask for help with the following:

I recently purchased an 1.22 RB, Ideal, G, SI1 (AGS). Depth 60.3%, Table 56.3%, Crown 34.2, Pavilion 40.7. HCA score is 0.8, excellent on all dimensions. AGS Ideal light performance, polish and symmetry. Negligible florescence. Pointed cutlet.

Attached is the clarity plot (no inclusions marked on the pavilion). The certificate notes "the clarity grade of this diamond is based on clouds that are not shown". As you''ll see below, this did not raise a red flag and was a mis-step on my part, as I''ve now read on the forums that some suggest caution when buying an SI stone where clouds are the basis for the grade.

I purchased online from a noted PriceScope vendor and took to a local independent appraiser. He did not see the cert beforehand and generally things matched up, although he initially thought the diamond exhibited florescence that was more than negligible. But a check against the light confirmed the report''s negligible assessment. He thought the clarity could warrant a VS2, and thought it was a nice looking stone.

I then took the diamond to a non-chain, family-owned jeweler, as my girlfriend has her heart set on this particular setting. He was very professional, but didn''t say much before setting. Afterward, he asked if I knew the diamond had strong florescence. I relayed that the appraiser initially thought that could be at play, but that it wasn''t registering as such. He had a few things to say about a particular online vendor and reliability, and while he didn''t trash online buying, it was a bit awkward for a moment. I did see hints of blue, as to be expected somewhat inside his store, but they weren''t particularly troubling. I was now more concerned about not having a sleepy stone.

Of course, this starts to play on my mind as I continue to look at the diamond (it looked brilliant prior to setting, but I''m still new to all of this). I researched the forums and saw the discussions regarding cloud-only inclusions in SI stones and the potential affect on brilliance.

Attached are the AGS clarity plot, one picture taken outside in overcast and another with a little more sunlight (I realize the diamond will behave differently depending on the environment...it is also the only time I have or plan to wear women jewelry . I''d like anyone''s thoughts around:

- Given this plot of the size and location of the clouds, are they big warning flags? For having clouds, are these particularly troubling sizes and locations?
- Are the clouds that are not shown typically the smaller ones that generally aren''t plotted when it isn''t an issue?
- How much is the potential reduction in brilliance? Would clouds reduce it some (say 5%), or a lot, such as in half? I have no idea of the magnitude.

I realize the diamond was graded SI1 for a reason, so given what I paid, I expect some loss in performance relative to higher graded diamonds. I''m not trying to beat the experts, just trying to understand how much I might be losing in brilliance here because of it, especially since the cut looks pretty good (e.g. I don''t want the clouds to significantly negate the advantage of the cut, which is what I was going for in the first place). Like most, I want to maximize the value of my dollar, but I''m also willing to go up if it makes a sizable difference. I plan on taking the ring to the appraiser this evening to get his thoughts, as well as take a good hard look at the clouds.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!


Clarity Plot

Ring Image 1

Ring Image 2

 

[jet2ks]

Bring up your concerns to the appraiser, this is something that needs to be looked at in person, not via photos. If they didn''t say anything the first time, I doubt that the clouds are really affecting the performance of the diamond. That being said, the pics of your diamond look really nice.

FYI, you will need to attach the photos to your posts. Links to outside hosting sites are against forum rules and will be pulled by the moderators.

 

[trailhiker]

Jet2ks,

Thanks!

Admin,

My apologies on the links. I am trying to edit remove, but not having luck.

Let me see if I can embed.

 

[trailhiker]

ring picture #1

 

[trailhiker]

ring picture #2

 

[Regular Guy]

here ya go...

For my money...if you go back to an appraiser...check that...if you consider pursuing this with an appraiser paying any further cashola...please consider reading JohnQuiote come John Pollard's comments, ask them about liquid detergent and shimmering (before engaging them)...and see if they have any idea of what you are talking about whatsoever.

 

[trailhiker]

Ira,

Thank you for the link and your thoughts. I didn''t see your post before visiting the appraiser, so I wasn''t able to ask him about detergent and shimmering, but we had a good conversation (I read John''s post...is the detergent test something I as a novice could run?).

I had the chance to see the clouds through the scope that were identified on the plot, and the appraiser agreed these were not a concern on cut, due to their makeup and location. More generally, the diamond has a very slight cloudy quality to it, which aligns with the original suspicion of florescence, which we have since ruled out.

And this is the quality that I think I''m picking up on. I asked what the difference would be between this and another diamond without this quality, and he thinks the improvement would be slight (when pressed for an unscientific order of magnitude, he thought maybe 10-15% improvement, but not a large difference). And probably the likely reason why this was graded SI1.

In general, he believes the stone has impressive brilliance and that the clouds aren''t terribly concerning to its cut. When viewed from about 18-24" away or more, the diamond looks really sharp. Where I''m getting hung up is when I view it closer to the eye, maybe a foot away, where it doesn''t look quite the same and a little milky to me. Given I''m new to all of this, I don''t know what is common -- do RBs tend to look brilliant, but less so, up close, but quite vibrant as distance from the diamond to the viewer increases? (I suspect some basic physics would say yes?).