Crystals in Diamond are worse than Feathers

[pyramid]

A gemmologist has told me that Crystals in a Diamond can be worse than a Feather as they can break the diamond open due to pressure!!!! Do any of the experts here believe this also? He says when choosing a diamond whether the inclusion is a feather or a crystal it will make no difference as they are just as bad as each other.

I think that this diamond I am saving for is going to have to be a VVS2

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My grandmother was killed by an expolding crystal in a diamond Pyramid.


















(Oh i love being able to have a joke with you Pyramid. Amercians do not understand our sick sense of humour do they?)


Actually if crystals were a problem like they are in sapphires and rubies, we would never heat diamonds, and we do, all the time. And the idea that feathers break - well you know I think that diamonds are pretty hard to damage other than by wacking their girdle, and then the more perfect the stone, the least stuff inside, the better the cleavage plane and the more likely they are to break. I simply do not see any connection with inclusions in most of the damaged chipped diamonds I see.

 

[pyramid]

A diamond pyramid - now that is something I would like to see, basking in the Egyptian sunlight

Thanks Garry, so it is not as bad as in rubies and sapphires, so nothing to worry about!

No offense to anyone but I never enjoy American comedy in the way I like the British comedy programmes but we don't make them here anymore. Oh, I used to watch Neighbours when Scott and Charlene, Jim, Daphne and Des, Paul and the twins, Mrs Mangle, Brad, Henry, Tod, Phoebe were in it but have lost touch with the programme now.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

They all lived in the same street as me P

 

[pyramid]

Ha, Ha which one were you Lou Carpenter?

 

[mdx]

G,day Pyramid
Here are some nice images of crystals and feathers
I know you love them

Johan

 

[Jennifer5973]

Wow--interesting and scary at the same time.

Gee, they make a website for EVERYTHING, don't they?

 

[moremoremore]

No offense taken pyramid...I might enjoy British comedy...if only I could understand a word being said

 

[Rank Amateur]

I like that theory Garry - the fewer the inclusions the less durable the stone!

Talk about your paradigm shift!

 

[pyramid]

mdx Thank you very much for posting that link I am finding it very interesting


moremoremore ha ha, I suppose there are faults over on this side too

 

[pyramid]

In the third picture of the first page on the link posted by mdx, what is the radiating stress fracture and what is the feathers, is the radiating fracture one of the two gouges which are at the edge and the feathers the wispy bits under the stone or is it the other way around? Just curious.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Cool photo's

Rank Am I am quite serious. Perfect diamond crystals have perfect octahedral cleavage. There is a theory that inclusions reduce the diamonds ability to cleave.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Hey Garry. I know you are serious about the internally flawless stones possibly being the most internally fragile. Makes the IF name and grade quite ironic.

BTW - You guys have some great swimmers there in Oz.

 

[oldminer]

Inclusions which reach, breech, the surface of a diamond create more durability issues than closed, non-surface reaching inclusions.




A tiny crystal inclusion may be far smaller than anything categorized as a tiny feather. A feather has to have some length to it, or it wouldn't be called by that name.




A small feather or a small crystal, neither reaching the surface are both about the same.




A feather which breeches the surface is possibly more an issue of durability than a surface reaching crystal. I doubt there is any data on the relative safety of the two.




A large crystal in a stone with a tiny feather has mostly an issue with the crystal.


A large feather in a stone with a tiny crystal has mostly an issue with the feather.


A large feather and a large crystal in the same diamond is not much of a good diamond....




Size of the inclusion, location in the stone, whether it breaks the surface, how visible the inclusion is all come to bear on the decision as to what controls quality and clarity. When you buy a diamond SI1 or better, rarely would inclusions create major headaches in normal wear.

 

[wanderlost]

WOW.... those are some awesome pictures.... does anyone else have more pictures of inclusions (or mdx, do you have some more?)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 8/18/2004 11:36:03 AM Rank Amateur wrote:

Hey Garry. I know you are serious about the internally flawless stones possibly being the most internally fragile. Makes the IF name and grade quite ironic.

BTW - You guys have some great swimmers there in Oz. ----------------

RA IF is IF at 10X. For crystalline perfection we need about 1,000,000X

Have you seen "Finding Nemo" - it is so hot here we learn to swim before we learn to walk

 

[Rank Amateur]

My kids are 7,6,3, and 1 - I've seen Finding Nemo 500 times.

I always picture you as the same guy as the dentist only with a loupe rather than a drill.

[Psycho music]Darla![/Psycho music]