Clouds in VS2

rhhgrhrthreh · Dec 14, 2017

Backstory - I bought a SI1 ring off blue Nile with the crystal being the grade setting but the comments "additional clouds not shown". I received it an it was by the cloudiest stone I've ever seen. (https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD08850672 for those interested https://imgur.com/a/LQHmI)

Back to the drawing board and I swore i would never get one that mentioned clouds again.

However I have found the attached VS2 which has 4 different types of inclusion, but the dreaded comment clouds not shown. I assume these inclusions are listed because they are the most prominent, but I'm so worried about the clouds again.

It has lovely proportions, and whilst being at the lower end of VS2, (I would say very close to SI1), its probably eye clean.

Would anyone be worried about clouds not shown in this diamond?

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...h-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3742610

diamond-Round-1.00-Carat-H-VS2_4_first_.jpg

tyty333 · Dec 14, 2017

Ask JA if it suffers from any haziness? Tell them that you are worried about the clouds and that you just had to return a stone with haziness.

Edit...I think I can recall one time that someone had to return a VS stone due to haziness. We (PSers) always assumed at the VS level that it could not suffer from haziness or it would not be a VS stone.

rhhgrhrthreh · Dec 14, 2017

James Allen said it should be fine as there are 4 other different types of inclusions and its only VS2, so the clouds must be incredibly minor to not be plotted.

The problem is, I thought that last time!

gm89uk · Dec 14, 2017

ask a JA gemologist to review not just the sales rep, who has no more information about the stone than you do.

rhhgrhrthreh · Dec 14, 2017

Thanks. They still say eye clean and there will be very minimal clouds somewhere but they cannot see them

I've now got the Ideal scope.

Given the HCA score of 1.5 and the Crown and pavilion proportions, should it have better performance than this? It looks like leakage under the table to me. Its not ring of death and its not hearts and arrows, so I presume this is good enough AGS0 cut.

Also I've read on price-scope that if the inclusions show up on an idealscope then they will be visible? These are clear crystals (not black) and are clearly visible on the idealscope

rhhgrhrthreh · Dec 14, 2017

I would be ever so grateful if a PS expert could offer an opinion.

I feel likes it an ok idealscope, certainly not terrible, but doesn't compare to JA True hearts. Do they just over saturate their images or are they really that good?

Thanks @rockysalamander ill keep an eye on the 1.08 but it looks less clean than this one?

rockysalamander · Dec 14, 2017

I personally prefer a smaller table (57 or under). But, this diamond does not show any sign of haziness. The three inclusion near or just under the table should be eyeclean. I still prefer the TH ones.

Just FYI...The 1.08 has better light return than this one and has solid numbers well within the ideal range. It will tend to be more firey, but that may not be the kind of diamond you are looking for.

rhhgrhrthreh · Dec 14, 2017

That's exactly what I want, a firey diamond! Maybe i should look at a table less than 57% then. I was concentrating on pav angle >34.5% to get the fire.

As per other thread, he has now bought the 1.08, so good for him. I did actually see it yesterday and love the proportions but the cloud put me off, see above!

I have also figured out why James allen True hearts all look amazing. They have just massively ramped up the contrast and saturation.

This is the 1.08 we were discussing