Could all Infinity I1 clarity diamonds have High light performance?

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2009 5:08:21 PM
Author: Serg
Take any nice shot with fine professional camera. Then add dust ( a lot of dust ) on external surface perfect professional lens and take same shot.

You can not see any dust on second photo but quality second photo is worse than quality first photo.

Quality second photo is worse because optical system with dust has worse MTF


Of course less quality camera with same quantity of dust will give worse image. But less quality clean lens could easy give better image than high professional dirty lens

If you have not the shot from clean professional lens you can not understand what other images have some problem with quality.


Diamonds with I1 inclusion ( as a lot of small points spreading in all diamond( due internal reflections) like milkiness ) has worse MTF than clean diamonds with same geometry.


Even you do not see inclusions ( because each point is very small) , all these points together could noticeably reduce diamond MTF. Photos from lens with less MTF have worse sharpness and brightness than photos from lens with bigger MTF


Diamonds MTF depends from facet Flatness too. When cutters want receive good H&A pattern ( high level symmetry) they should use very good polishing disk( low vibration at least), what create better Flatness.


I think( my hypothesis ) what “true H&A“ diamonds have better light performance mainly because such diamonds have very good facet flatness ( better MTF). Parameters are important also of course, But flatness could be more important than high level symmetry .


Some tipe I1 inclusion reduce high score MTF had been created by fine facet flatness . So such diamonds can not have highest MTF and High Light Performance

That is a very interesting parallel to make.
one of the sharpest lenses I ever owned when it broke and I took it apart I was shocked at the bubbles it had in the lenses.

Dust on a diamond like the inclusions under discussion comes back to the density of the clusters.
A camera in my experience will overstate the effect of dust on a diamond.
I have looked at a diamond, blown on it, looked for dust and not seen anything then snapped a picture only to see it had a lot of very fine dust all over on it in the picture.

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/27/2009 5:18:57 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/27/2009 5:09:35 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 6/27/2009 4:46:05 PM


Author: strmrdr


I disagree with most of them.



The large images show they are scattered small bits rather than one mass.



A case can be made for one or 2 of the arrow shafts maybe but it isn't clear enough to call them.



If the others were one mass then more would be included.

very very strange what you disagree even with facets 1 and 2

I went back and forth on them.

They are pretty scattered but there might be an underlying larger inclusion.

I will give you those and cover them with a prong when set.

Good step. Please check number 13 and 17 now. Please use photo from "normal" illumination instead your B/W IS.
there are 180 degree rotation between these two photos
you need very big prongs to cover all such facets . Big prong is Very valid idea for High performance diamond

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2009 5:34:30 PM
Author: Serg

Good step. Please check number 13 and 17 now. Please use photo from ''normal'' illumination instead your B/W IS.

there are 180 degree rotation between these two photos

you need very big prongs to cover all such facets . Big prong is Very valid idea for High performance diamond

IS and ASET don''t support those being an issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Like I said earlier when it comes to inclusions affecting light return analyzing these images might be fun it is not a good indication of what someone viewing the diamond will see.
Other than direct measurement unless Serg has some software I don't know about there isn't anyway to scientifically say for sure either how much it is affected.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is interesting to note that because there are Ideal-Scope, ASET and photo''s of all these diamonds, that we can easily understand the inclusions and their positions. It is argable that some consumers would not know how to do this.
However it seems that people would not like to buy the diamond being used as an example from its real photo.
I hope the time I spent with Jerg will help him improve the photo''s, but I think the inclusions will be less visible sergey, not more visible inspite of the bloom.

Hope we can see some examples John?

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/27/2009 8:20:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is interesting to note that because there are Ideal-Scope, ASET and photo''s of all these diamonds, that we can easily understand the inclusions and their positions. It is argable that some consumers would not know how to do this.

However it seems that people would not like to buy the diamond being used as an example from its real photo.

I hope the time I spent with Jerg will help him improve the photo''s, but I think the inclusions will be less visible sergey, not more visible inspite of the bloom.


Hope we can see some examples John?

re:I hope the time I spent with Jerg will help him improve the photo''s, but I think the inclusions will be less visible sergey, not more visible inspite of the bloom.

Garry, Visibility of inclusion is minor issue . Based on single photo You can not estimate visibility inclusion by human eye .
Bloom on Infinity photos is minor issue.

Main issues are:
1) some I1 type inclusions could significantly reduce Light performance for any type symmetry of cut. (May be for super symmetrical cuts its reduce Light performance even more than more diamonds with low symmetry)
2) Cut can not change Rarity inclusions pf VVS-SI type
3) Symmetry of cut is not helpful to decrease psychological visibility Big inclusions

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2009 10:28:29 PM
Author: Serg
Main issues are:

1) some I1 type inclusions could significantly reduce Light performance for any type symmetry of cut. (May be for super symmetrical cuts its reduce Light performance even more than more diamonds with low symmetry) can you say with 90% certainly that the inclusions in the diamond in question reduce the performance in a visible way?

2) Cut can not change Rarity inclusions pf VVS-SI type very true, lab clarity is a rarity grade, real world ranges of loupe clean to eyeclean to frozen spit with pepper is a visible clarity grade

3) Symmetry of cut is not helpful to decrease psychological visibility Big inclusions inclusion placement is helpful, high light return is helpful

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/27/2009 10:41:05 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/27/2009 10:28:29 PM

Author: Serg

Main issues are:


1) some I1 type inclusions could significantly reduce Light performance for any type symmetry of cut. (May be for super symmetrical cuts its reduce Light performance even more than more diamonds with low symmetry) can you say with 90% certainly that the inclusions in the diamond in question reduce the performance in a visible way?


2) Cut can not change Rarity inclusions pf VVS-SI type very true, lab clarity is a rarity grade, real world ranges of loupe clean to eyeclean to frozen spit with pepper is a visible clarity grade


3) Symmetry of cut is not helpful to decrease psychological visibility Big inclusions inclusion placement is helpful, high light return is helpful

re: can you say with 90% certainly that the inclusions in the diamond in question reduce the performance in a visible way?

It depends from inclusions. I sure what discussable here example reduce light performance in visible way more than increasing pavilion from 40.75 to 41,25 degree. (May be even much more)

re:very true, lab clarity is a rarity grade, real world ranges of loupe clean to eyeclean to frozen spit with pepper is a visible clarity grade

Labs and human tradition pay for Rarity are parts of our real world. BTW Infinity tries use same human tradition( pay for Rarity)

re:inclusion placement is helpful, high light return is helpful

1) Difference in LR between diamonds with high level symmetry and just good level symmetry is minor or may be even nothing
2) Crack orientation is very helpful to decrease visibility( a lot of cutters use it) , but I do not see in this Infinity example and in some others Infinity I1 diamonds any special inclusion placement to reduce visibility. what is special inclusion placement did Infinity use in this example?

 

[Serg]

re:inclusion placement is helpful, high light return is helpful

When you use body obscuration zone to hide small inclusions( mainly on photos ), you use zones with LOW Light return.
To hide big inclusions you need Bigger Zone with Low light return. To reduce psychological visibility of big inclusions you need low symmetry .
to reduce physical visibility of cracks you need right orientation ( perpendicular to crown facets)
You need avoid high level reflections specially for big inclusions. High symmetry increase level reflections ...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2009 11:15:48 PM
Author: Serg
what is special inclusion placement did Infinity use in this example?

Impossible to say with the data available.
Looking at the actual diamond or a 3d map of the inclusions would be needed.
Which is a huge big problem with using images to decide how much the inclusions affect light return.
3d is compressed into 2d and it is a 3d problem.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2009 11:23:52 PM
Author: Serg
re:inclusion placement is helpful, high light return is helpful


When you use body obscuration zone to hide small inclusions( mainly on photos ), you use zones with LOW Light return.

To hide big inclusions you need Bigger Zone with Low light return. To reduce psychological visibility of big inclusions you need low symmetry .

to reduce physical visibility of cracks you need right orientation ( perpendicular to crown facets)

You need avoid high level reflections specially for big inclusions. High symmetry increase level reflections ...

I want to think about this for a bit, I have a reply in mind but it hard to simplify it down to a forum post.

But it would seem that you do agree it is a 3d problem?

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/27/2009 7:55:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/27/2009 5:34:30 PM

Author: Serg


Good step. Please check number 13 and 17 now. Please use photo from ''normal'' illumination instead your B/W IS.


there are 180 degree rotation between these two photos


you need very big prongs to cover all such facets . Big prong is Very valid idea for High performance diamond

IS and ASET don''t support those being an issue.

1)IS and ASET lens have very poor MTF( very wide Airy disk). Poor lens hide small points,you see big blurring and finally average Grey-Reddish zones instead one zone with clear red color
2) See source IS and ASET images( before your B/W and ZOOM transformation what sagnificantly had reduced contrast) . Initial images support my statement very well. Please check again

so you have all necessary data to understand big impact this clarity to VF''s 13 and 17.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/27/2009 10:41:05 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/27/2009 10:28:29 PM
Author: Serg
Main issues are:

1) some I1 type inclusions could significantly reduce Light performance for any type symmetry of cut. (May be for super symmetrical cuts its reduce Light performance even more than more diamonds with low symmetry) can you say with 90% certainly that the inclusions in the diamond in question reduce the performance in a visible way?

I have mentioned before that I saw a 1/2ct GIA graded SI1 (which I was told by Tom Moses was a borderline SI2). it had a big cloud through the stone but was otherwise VS1.
It was translucent, approaching milky. It certainly had its light return and fire diminished.

However I am sure that stones like this would never be offerred by brands, be they Infinity, HoF, Tiffany or any self respecting retailer. In a line up anyone off the street could have noticed it was ''different''.

So yes, clouds of very very small inclusions even at SI1 can reduce light performance.
I have often warned consumers here not to try to find SI2''s that look like SI1''s from photo''s. an honest SI2 is usually far safer - especially if the marks are able to be covered by a prong.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/28/2009 9:32:32 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 6/27/2009 10:41:05 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/27/2009 10:28:29 PM

Author: Serg

Main issues are:


1) some I1 type inclusions could significantly reduce Light performance for any type symmetry of cut. (May be for super symmetrical cuts its reduce Light performance even more than more diamonds with low symmetry) can you say with 90% certainly that the inclusions in the diamond in question reduce the performance in a visible way?

I have mentioned before that I saw a 1/2ct GIA graded SI1 (which I was told by Tom Moses was a borderline SI2). it had a big cloud through the stone but was otherwise VS1.

It was translucent, approaching milky. It certainly had its light return and fire diminished.


However I am sure that stones like this would never be offerred by brands, be they Infinity, HoF, Tiffany or any self respecting retailer. In a line up anyone off the street could have noticed it was ''different''.


So yes, clouds of very very small inclusions even at SI1 can reduce light performance.

I have often warned consumers here not to try to find SI2''s that look like SI1''s from photo''s. an honest SI2 is usually far safer - especially if the marks are able to be covered by a prong.

Hi Garry, there is no question that a cloud in some cases can reduce light return.
What I''m looking for is proof that this one does beyond a 90% probability.
I don''t think it can hit that level from pictures.
My advise for a person who was considering this diamond if it was in a PS thread today would be talk to the vendor who is looking at it in person and or see it in person.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/28/2009 12:30:18 PM
Author: strmrdr


Hi Garry, there is no question that a cloud in some cases can reduce light return.
What I'm looking for is proof that this one does beyond a 90% probability.
I don't think it can hit that level from pictures.
My advise for a person who was considering this diamond if it was in a PS thread today would be talk to the vendor who is looking at it in person and or see it in person.

The buyer did exactly that. They compared it with other diamonds in person (this =562&src=loupe:2o8h065d]VS2 and =579&src=loupe:2o8h065d]SI1) and they selected the I1.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/28/2009 1:35:47 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/28/2009 12:30:18 PM

Author: strmrdr



Hi Garry, there is no question that a cloud in some cases can reduce light return.

What I''m looking for is proof that this one does beyond a 90% probability.

I don''t think it can hit that level from pictures.

My advise for a person who was considering this diamond if it was in a PS thread today would be talk to the vendor who is looking at it in person and or see it in person.

The buyer did exactly that. They compared it with other diamonds in person (this =562&src=loupe:2o8h065d]VS2 and =579&src=loupe:2o8h065d]SI1) and they selected the I1.

That''s kewl, I certainly don''t have a problem with the person buying it or it being sold to him/her under those conditions.

 

[strmrdr]

What it comes down to for me is can an i1 diamond be a high performance diamond?
The answer to that is YES! Mine and consumer posts at the start of this thread prove that.
The diamond in question was vetted by Paul, a dealer, and ultimately the consumer comparing it to similar diamonds and all 3 approved of it.
That adds up to more proof than any group of pictures can show.

 

[Lorelei]

I definitely believe there is a solid market for top cut I1 diamonds, in fact I am an owner of I1 clarity diamonds and would buy an eyeclean to eyecleanish I1 of top cut eagerly. The question being in this case could Infinity brand I1 clarity diamonds have high/ maximum light performance? I believe the answer is yes. But does it bother me that an inclusion might theoretically or actually lower the amount of light return or beauty of the diamond slightly? No. I think these diamonds are incredibly beautiful and have abundant performance that it wouldn't worry me as a consumer if in fact it was a case that maybe performance was down even a little. Also as we know I1 clarity grades are not created equal nor are grade setting I1 inclusions created equal so each diamond has to be taken on its own desirable visual and physical properties as usual. Also not created equal is the selection of I1 clarity diamonds, personally I believe that an expert like Paul chooses incredibly carefully all diamonds to represent his brand including those which are likely to receive an I1 on lab grading, also as we know not all are even suitable to be cut into Infinity, the I1's that do make it as an Infinity are a long way away from lower end I1's you can find. Bottom line - for me as a consumer purchaser I would much rather have an Infinity I1 which was eyeclean to eyecleanish than a common cut VS clarity.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/28/2009 5:32:31 PM
Author: Lorelei
I definitely believe there is a solid market for top cut I1 diamonds, in fact I am an owner of I1 clarity diamonds and would buy an eyeclean to eyecleanish I1 of top cut eagerly. The question being in this case could Infinity brand I1 clarity diamonds have high/ maximum light performance? I believe the answer is yes. But does it bother me that an inclusion might theoretically or actually lower the amount of light return or beauty of the diamond slightly? No. I think these diamonds are incredibly beautiful and have abundant performance that it wouldn''t worry me as a consumer if in fact it was a case that maybe performance was down even a little. Also as we know I1 clarity grades are not created equal nor are grade setting I1 inclusions created equal so each diamond has to be taken on its own desirable visual and physical properties as usual. Also not created equal is the selection of I1 clarity diamonds, personally I believe that an expert like Paul chooses incredibly carefully all diamonds to represent his brand including those which are likely to receive an I1 on lab grading, also as we know not all are even suitable to be cut into Infinity, the I1''s that do make it as an Infinity are a long way away from lower end I1''s you can find. Bottom line - for me as a consumer purchaser I would much rather have an Infinity I1 which was eyeclean to eyecleanish than a common cut VS clarity.

In esscence I think that is correct Loelei.
If infinity see a demand for their cut quality in retail stores where people can see what they are getting, and compare side by side, then I have no problem with them making the decision. I did see a stone that was rejected when i was at Infinty 2 weeks ago because it had a surface reaching crack.

Sergey''s point however concerns the idea that a diamond with inclusions that could reduce the light performance of the diamond should not be called a "high performance" diamond. In this case I think consumers who are buying the stones are clearly informed and make their own decisions based on a lower price.
These stones are high performance I1 stones.
Will they perform as well as a "high performance" flawless diamond? I think not.
Would a judge consider this misleading? I think not.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/28/2009 8:47:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
In this case I think consumers who are buying the stones are clearly informed and make their own decisions based on a lower price.

These stones are high performance I1 stones.

Will they perform as well as a 'high performance' flawless diamond? I think not.

Would a judge consider this misleading? I think not.

I agree.
That is pretty much the conclusion I came to when I looked into this months ago.
I have seen with my own eyes that an I1 diamond can* have similar performance to the eye to a similar cut stone with better clarity.
Is there a scientifically measurable difference, yes likely at least a small one.

* a lot on the market do have a visible performance hit, find a trusted source and verify if you want one

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/28/2009 8:47:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 6/28/2009 5:32:31 PM

Author: Lorelei

I definitely believe there is a solid market for top cut I1 diamonds, in fact I am an owner of I1 clarity diamonds and would buy an eyeclean to eyecleanish I1 of top cut eagerly. The question being in this case could Infinity brand I1 clarity diamonds have high/ maximum light performance? I believe the answer is yes. But does it bother me that an inclusion might theoretically or actually lower the amount of light return or beauty of the diamond slightly? No. I think these diamonds are incredibly beautiful and have abundant performance that it wouldn''t worry me as a consumer if in fact it was a case that maybe performance was down even a little. Also as we know I1 clarity grades are not created equal nor are grade setting I1 inclusions created equal so each diamond has to be taken on its own desirable visual and physical properties as usual. Also not created equal is the selection of I1 clarity diamonds, personally I believe that an expert like Paul chooses incredibly carefully all diamonds to represent his brand including those which are likely to receive an I1 on lab grading, also as we know not all are even suitable to be cut into Infinity, the I1''s that do make it as an Infinity are a long way away from lower end I1''s you can find. Bottom line - for me as a consumer purchaser I would much rather have an Infinity I1 which was eyeclean to eyecleanish than a common cut VS clarity.

In esscence I think that is correct Loelei.

If infinity see a demand for their cut quality in retail stores where people can see what they are getting, and compare side by side, then I have no problem with them making the decision. I did see a stone that was rejected when i was at Infinty 2 weeks ago because it had a surface reaching crack.


Sergey''s point however concerns the idea that a diamond with inclusions that could reduce the light performance of the diamond should not be called a ''high performance'' diamond. In this case I think consumers who are buying the stones are clearly informed and make their own decisions based on a lower price.

These stones are high performance I1 stones.

Will they perform as well as a ''high performance'' flawless diamond? I think not.

Would a judge consider this misleading? I think not.

re:These stones are high performance I1 stones.

It could be good solution.

BTW Rolex has two lines watches( expensive and more cheap for young consumers)

So Infinity could have two lines
1) High performance diamond
2) High performance I1 diamond
It will defense consumers who bought and are buying High performance diamonds

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/28/2009 9:06:19 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/28/2009 8:47:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
In this case I think consumers who are buying the stones are clearly informed and make their own decisions based on a lower price.

These stones are high performance I1 stones.

Will they perform as well as a 'high performance' flawless diamond? I think not. Maybe not, maybe some can...Maybe in some cases you would need to prove this with scientific measuring equipment... But as I said above from a consumer POV I think Infinity have beauty in plenty to spare so if performance was down a little then it wouldn't bother me, bottom line is Garry's quote at the top - clearly informed and make decisions based on lower price. That suits me!

Would a judge consider this misleading? I think not.

I agree.
That is pretty much the conclusion I came to when I looked into this months ago.
I have seen with my own eyes that an I1 diamond can* have similar performance to the eye to a similar cut stone with better clarity.
Is there a scientifically measurable difference, yes likely at least a small one. That is also entirely possible.

* a lot on the market do have a visible performance hit, find a trusted source and verify if you want one

Also as a consumer, I am glad that we have a brand such as Infinity which will craft lower clarity diamonds into top cuts, I might be unusual in as much as I will always go for the lowest eyeclean/ eyecleanish clarity I can so for me it is great to have these available in this grade, and lower colour also. A kicken L M N colour I1 Infinity appeals hugely to me!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/29/2009 1:42:15 AM
Author: Serg

So Infinity could have two lines

1) High performance diamond

2) High performance I1 diamond

It will defense consumers who bought and are buying High performance diamonds

I don''t see the need to separate them into another line.
High performance IF diamond to High performance I1 diamond is a reasonable range for a brand.
In the same way:
High performance D color diamond to High performance O-P color diamond is a reasonable range for a brand.
Reject I1''s with issues, filter out browns.
Put fancy colors into another brand.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/29/2009 4:23:06 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/29/2009 1:42:15 AM
Author: Serg

So Infinity could have two lines

1) High performance diamond

2) High performance I1 diamond

It will defense consumers who bought and are buying High performance diamonds

I don''t see the need to separate them into another line.
High performance IF diamond to High performance I1 diamond is a reasonable range for a brand.
In the same way:
High performance D color diamond to High performance O-P color diamond is a reasonable range for a brand.
Reject I1''s with issues, filter out browns.
Put fancy colors into another brand.

Storm and Lorelei I prefer Sergey''s approach, rather like ACA vs Expert Selection.

It overcomes any issues of consumers who buy online finding out later that the diamond they bought could be less sparkly than a cleaner more expensive diamond.

This would also enable another sales route for some other NQR stones that did not make the grade. From my own business point of view I would not use the same Infinity name, but some other variant. But issues like that are none of my business.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/29/2009 8:11:55 AM


Storm and Lorelei I prefer Sergey''s approach, rather like ACA vs Expert Selection.



It overcomes any issues of consumers who buy online finding out later that the diamond they bought could be less sparkly than a cleaner more expensive diamond.

This would also enable another sales route for some other NQR stones that did not make the grade. From my own business point of view I would not use the same Infinity name, but some other variant. But issues like that are none of my business.

I would have to disagree.
Its not misleading so it is up to Paul if he wants to include them in the range his brand covers.
It is not our place to tell him what to do unless it is misleading.
Its not misleading so that''s the end of the story.

I would consider buying one and so would Lorelei that speaks volumes.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/29/2009 10:11:40 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/29/2009 8:11:55 AM



Storm and Lorelei I prefer Sergey''s approach, rather like ACA vs Expert Selection.



It overcomes any issues of consumers who buy online finding out later that the diamond they bought could be less sparkly than a cleaner more expensive diamond.

This would also enable another sales route for some other NQR stones that did not make the grade. From my own business point of view I would not use the same Infinity name, but some other variant. But issues like that are none of my business.

I would have to disagree.
Its not misleading so it is up to Paul if he wants to include them in the range his brand covers.
It is not our place to tell him what to do unless it is misleading.
Its not misleading so that''s the end of the story.

I would consider buying one and so would Lorelei that speaks volumes.

Absolutely.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/29/2009 10:12:53 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/29/2009 10:11:40 AM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/29/2009 8:11:55 AM




Storm and Lorelei I prefer Sergey's approach, rather like ACA vs Expert Selection.




It overcomes any issues of consumers who buy online finding out later that the diamond they bought could be less sparkly than a cleaner more expensive diamond.

This would also enable another sales route for some other NQR stones that did not make the grade. From my own business point of view I would not use the same Infinity name, but some other variant. But issues like that are none of my business.

I would have to disagree.

Its not misleading so it is up to Paul if he wants to include them in the range his brand covers.

It is not our place to tell him what to do unless it is misleading.

Its not misleading so that's the end of the story.


I would consider buying one and so would Lorelei that speaks volumes.

Absolutely.

You can add me to the list, as a proud Infinity wearer who would trust Paul's and Wink's (my Infinity vendor) representations of this stone. Part of the reason I chose the Infinity brand (besides the performance, obviously) is that the range of stones offered gives consumers like me a wide range of choices in clarity, $$, and color in ideal cut stones.