Crystal inclusion on table''s edge

[a_dude]

I might be pushing here...

I am going to have this diamond shipped to an appraiser for a viewing, but I''m nervous/excited/anxious and would love everyone''s feedback. There is a crystal inclusion on the edge of the table. Based on the photo (40x magnification) do you think it will be outwardly obvious unless you are closely inspecting the stone? Also, I did a quick search and it seems like the forum is torn on whether crystals are particularly horrible types of inclusions. Does it make it even worse that its on the table''s edge?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AprilBaby]

Looks to me easy to hide under a prong.

 

[stone-cold11]

We can''t tell from a photo if a stone is eye-clean, you will have to see it yourself to make the final judgement.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/6/2009 6:30:18 PM
Author:a_dude
I might be pushing here...

I am going to have this diamond shipped to an appraiser for a viewing, but I'm nervous/excited/anxious and would love everyone's feedback. There is a crystal inclusion on the edge of the table. Based on the photo (40x magnification) do you think it will be outwardly obvious unless you are closely inspecting the stone? Also, I did a quick search and it seems like the forum is torn on whether crystals are particularly horrible types of inclusions. Does it make it even worse that its on the table's edge?

Thanks in advance!

There is really no way to tell from a photo regrettably, I take it you have asked WF concerning this and see what you think when you see it. Crystals shouldn't be more of an issue than any other inclusion but your appraiser will advise in this instance.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 10/6/2009 6:30:18 PM
Author:a_dude
I might be pushing here...

I am going to have this diamond shipped to an appraiser for a viewing, but I''m nervous/excited/anxious and would love everyone''s feedback. There is a crystal inclusion on the edge of the table. Based on the photo (40x magnification) do you think it will be outwardly obvious unless you are closely inspecting the stone? Also, I did a quick search and it seems like the forum is torn on whether crystals are particularly horrible types of inclusions. Does it make it even worse that its on the table''s edge?

Thanks in advance!

If what I am seeing at about 1:30 to 1:45 under the table and reflecting a couple of times out towards the edge is what you are referring to there is nothing to worry about in my opinion.

In my opinion, a clear crystal like this is VERY hard to see from the top without back lighting to make it stand out. It is near the edge of the table, but it is not a surface inclusion, so it''s position has no affect on the stability of your diamond. If I am seeing what you are referring to you have very little to be worried about, and in any case if there is anything to worry about your appraiser will let you know.

I am not aware of crystals being particularly horrible forms of inclusions, they certainly are not in my experience, so I would love to see references to the threads where you found this information, as I might like to go in and post my contrary opionion. Crystals are common and unless they have great stress related to them, which can happen and which can be seen under crossed polaroids, they are nothing to be concerned about.

Wink

 

[Todd Gray]

The crystal at the edge of the table as pictured in the 1:30 - 1:45 position appears to be translucent and is not alarming to me in any way... Check with White Flash regarding the visibility without magnification because that can not be assessed with any accuracy from a photograph. I have to say that diamond crystals are my favorite type of inclusion in any form, crystal, pinpoint, needle and (small) clouds (which are merely clusters of pinpoint size diamond crystals) because they are just tiny crystals that were absorbed by the larger diamond crystal as it formed - no big deal in my (professional) opinion.

Regarding the reflection of the inclusion within the diamond, this is common because the facets of the diamond act like tiny mirrors, because they ARE essentially tiny mirrors, so this is common.

Regarding the location of the diamond crystal at the edge of the table facet, this doesn''t bother me either and the grade of the diamond is relative to the size, location, extent and visibility of the inclusions so if the diamond crystal were located elsewhere, then you might be looking at a different clarity grade which would effect price, etc. so all is relative...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 10/7/2009 1:07:58 PM
Author: Todd Gray
The crystal at the edge of the table as pictured in the 1:30 - 1:45 position appears to be translucent and is not alarming to me in any way... Check with White Flash regarding the visibility without magnification because that can not be assessed with any accuracy from a photograph. I have to say that diamond crystals are my favorite type of inclusion in any form, crystal, pinpoint, needle and (small) clouds (which are merely clusters of pinpoint size diamond crystals) because they are just tiny crystals that were absorbed by the larger diamond crystal as it formed - no big deal in my (professional) opinion.

Regarding the reflection of the inclusion within the diamond, this is common because the facets of the diamond act like tiny mirrors, because they ARE essentially tiny mirrors, so this is common.

Regarding the location of the diamond crystal at the edge of the table facet, this doesn''t bother me either and the grade of the diamond is relative to the size, location, extent and visibility of the inclusions so if the diamond crystal were located elsewhere, then you might be looking at a different clarity grade which would effect price, etc. so all is relative...

Dang. I hate it. Todd gets a (professional) opinion and I only get an opinion. Guess I better get cracking and earn me one o'' them there (professional) opinions...

 

[a_dude]

Thank you alll......I meet with the appraiser this afternoon.

 

[FB.]

I think that an inclusion of that size is too small for most -if not all- people to see under most normal viewing conditions, even if the stone is as large as 2ct. A bit more info on the size and reported clarity would have been useful.
If the stone is VS clarity or better, you almost certainly don't need to worry. SI1 would probably be OK. SI2 would need eyeballing to be sure, but I would find it hard to believe that inclusion would be a grade-setting SI2.
I'd be far more interested in the cut of the stone (which looks quite good from the pic).

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 10/8/2009 7:59:37 AM
Author: a_dude
Thank you alll......I meet with the appraiser this afternoon.

Let us know how it looks in-person! Hope it meets your expectations!

 

[a_dude]

It looked fantastic in-person - beautiful stone, fiery brilliance...inclusion was completely undetectable to the naked eye.

The stone was a 3.04, H, SI1, GIA Triple Ex

WF also sent a 3.01, H, VS2, AGS 1 (light return and polish were ID, symmetry was Ex)...

Honestly both stones were impeccable....even when next to each other it was absolutely impossible to which was more brilliant. That being said, rather than always wondering if she would one day notice the inclusion - I went with the 3.01 AGS!!

It should be in my possession within the week and then off to Leon. Thanks again to everyone!