Deciding on the clarity. How fine is enough for you??

[mostlywatching]

I saw it mentioned a time or two in this thread, but really, for anyone coming in looking at this as a guide, it should be clarified that almost all of these comments are for round brilliant stones. At the very least, they are all applicable to brilliant cut stones.

I have a gorgeous .79 G VVS1 emerald cut. I wasn't particularly looking for VVS, but I wouldn't go lower than VS2 because I never came across an eye clean SI1 emerald in my search. I saw some wonderful eye clean VS1 and VS2 emeralds, but they didn't meet other requirements that I had for the cut.

In the diamond I did pick, the clarity was a bonus of sorts. It may seem silly to have a G color and VVS1 clarity, but since the emerald cut isn't as popular as, well, any other cut (except maybe the heart. I NEVER hear about them) it is harder to find exactly what you want.

My stone had the exact length to width ratio I wanted (an ordeal in itself) as well as an excellent cut and a reasonable color. At that point, my fiancee and I were willing to pay a tiny bit more for clarity because all the other parameters were so perfect.

I'd wear any stone that is eye clean, although I'd prefer not to have any inclusions under the table. A step cut is so unforgiving when it comes to inclusions. You really can't put a grade on it, you have to see the stones in person.

 

[lmurden]

I have a friend and she doesn't care what the clarity is as long as she got a diamond ring from her long time boyfriend of 4 years. Me on the other hand would find it unacceptable to have a diamond that faced up clean but with visible inclusion on the sides.

Also I physically get the chills when I see a diamond at magnification with inclusions all throughout the diamond. For me and my fiancee' mental stability we went with a VS1 because it's not too expensive but an excellent quality. I really think it's a mental thing, because if I ever had the opportunity I would definitely go for it and get a D/FL in a minute!

 

[oldminer]

Thank you for so many very thoughtful and educational replies. This is the kind of thread where everyone gets to put there own valid opinion out there for others to consider. The best thing about this, is that an opinion about what clarity suits you is very personal. From IF to I3, someone will possibly be happy with such a clarity, but predicting who will like which level of clarity is only done by having a very good handle on the individual preferences of the person who will wear the diamond.




Safety in choice combined with reason in cost lies at the mid-point---VS2.


Better quality lies above it, less quality lies below it.


The risk of eye visible inclusions rises rapidly below VS2


The benefit of better appearance is not a major variable at VS2 or better.


No one would want a frozen spit H&A diamond. It would not be brilliant in spite of great cut. Few would opt for an "off-color", badly imperfect or IF stone if given the chance to make a more balanced decision. Buying D/E-IF is a goal for some of us, but certainly not the majority. To each their own.




If anything, sellers should listen closely to the preferences of individual customers. Prospective buyers should get to know what their intended would really like to wear.




Thanks for all the great replies...

 

[lmurden]

Right On!

 

[I wanna rock!]

Thank you for the opportunity to give my opinion on this topic.

First my answer. If I could afford it, I would buy a D color internally flawless diamond, because that is the best you can buy. Of course, the cut would be "ideal."

However, I strongly agree with a previous comment. Clarity is graded using 10 power magnification. A diamond that grades out as IF at 10 power may have imperfections at higher levels of magnification. Clarity is also subjective and can differ by a grade or 2.

Color is also subjective, but less so than clarity. You can't buy any better than D color, so go with D.

Carat size is not subjective. The weight is what it is.

If size is most important, then sacrifice on clarity and then on color. Never sacrifice on cut.

At what point does clarity affect the performance of a diamond? By performance, I not only mean that it's eye clean, but the light reflecting/refracting properties of a diamond? Will a crystal will change the direction of light more than a pinpoint. How about the imperfections in an SI2? Do they affect light more than the imperfections in a VVS2? It seems that they would? Afterall, doesn't carbon ABSORB not reflect/refract light???

 

[alexah]

For my e-ring, i didn't want to see any inclusions, yet I wanted to be able to ID my stone quickly w a loupe so i wanted (and got) a VS2.

For the right hand ring stone I just purchased, I wasn't so concerned about clarity (altho i only looked at eye-clean stones) I was only looking at SI2s to keep the cost managable.

 

[headlight]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 4:10:20 PM I wanna rock! wrote:


At what point does clarity affect the performance of a diamond? By performance, I not only mean that it's eye clean, but the light reflecting/refracting properties of a diamond? Will a crystal will change the direction of light more than a pinpoint. How about the imperfections in an SI2? Do they affect light more than the imperfections in a VVS2? It seems that they would? Afterall, doesn't carbon ABSORB not reflect/refract light???----------------

EXCELLENT questions! I have often wondered this myself and would love some expert feedback on this. For example, my stone is SI2 -- keeping all other things equal, if it was an SI1 or a VS2, would it's visual, naked eye appearance differ?

Thanks, I wanna rock, for bringing this point to the thread.

 

[oldminer]

Let's just consider the round shape. At the best level of cut, such a diamond is full of life and very sparkly. This helps mask inclusions and also is the characteristic we look for anyway. So, great cutting is doubly important if one is considering going lower in the clarity arena.




Nearly all SI1 round, finely cut diamonds of 1.00ct or smaller will be totally "eye-clean".


Many SI2 will still be eye-clean, but some will begin to suffer loss of light performance due to inclusions before your eyes can truly detect it. This is, in a sense, eye-visible, but we are generally using this term for inclusions and not for degradation of light performance... Both have similar impact, however.




The above it is a very small sample of the "impact' clarity has on the appearance of diamonds. There is no way to hide off-color compared to missing inclusions that some folks can see and others simply can't see with their eyes.




It would be foolish to throw out specific clarities as "dangerous" or not "eye-clean" because clarity grading is somewhat carat weight and carat size dependent. Every diamond has to be examined for the overall, total package. Once eye-visibility goes into the light performance issue, all bets are off. We break diamonds into the C's, but we look at them as a single unit when they are being worn. This is the best way to make a final judgment of how well the selection has been made. Generally, the best selections reflect reasonable compromise, not total committment to any single characteristic. If one was to say the quality of cutting is the main feature to concern yourself with, I would generally agree, but keeping all the C's in balance is also crucial.

 

[headlight]

Thanks for your quick input.
My stone is 3.29 ct RB, so I would assume that the impact of SI2 is different than for a stone of say 1 ct. (don't know if its impact is "better" or "worse", but I would suspect different!).

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 3:07:13 PM oldminer wrote:





As an expert, I have a personal range of clarity grade and types of acceptable inclusions in mind when I examine or buy a diamond.
----------------

Just out of curiousity Dave, what's your personal preference?

It used to be I would only look at VS2 and maybe SI1 stones until I came across some of the great looking SI2 and I1 stones here. Heck, I just bought an I1 Jubilee that was appraised SI1 by Fuller's. As you said, the I1 decsion was based on an overall balance of the 4 Cs AND a visual inspection of the particular grade determining inclusion.

Different situations will warrant differnet clarity trade-offs. I'd be willing to make larger trade-offs for earrings or pendant versus an E-ring. Most people are on fixed budgets so it's a matter of getting something larger or more sooner versus waiting; within one's comfort level.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 4:10:20 PM I wanna rock! wrote:



At what point does clarity affect the performance of a diamond? ----------------

There are two things I would mention here: the type of inclusions (hazy ones) and reflections (reflected inclusions and strong fish eye).

So, why not test my data bank a bit:

Obviously, an inclusion cannot restrict light return more than it's shadow can. You can see an inclusion precisely because it absorbs light or reflects it differently than the surrounding crystal. So... what you see is what you get.

Some types of inclusion come to mind as potentially problemtic even in an SI2 diamond: graining and twinning whisps. Some diamonds get lower clarity grades based only on such scathered inclusions - you will likely not see any individual inclusion, but the whole stone looks hazy and less brilliant. There may be other types of inclusions that produce the same effect, but I do not know them by name. The "issue" can be very drastic and diamonds start looking white like moonstones when such inclusions have the upper hand. Of course, such extreme cases will not be called SI2 but rather "fency white".

A more common problem are reflected inclusion: one spot placed just so that you can see crisp reflections of "it" all around the stone. Not that this obstructs brilliance, but one "reflector" may appear as 100 inclusions, just as big and dark! Inscriptions done on wide girdles can also get reflected. Also, the "fish eye" could make a diamond look badly included when the lighting conditions are right.

These reflection issues are related to cut as much as clarity. Good proof that an unispired cut can definitely make the best material look awful

 

[oldminer]

Noobie:




"Different situations will warrant different clarity trade-offs. I'd be willing to make larger trade-offs for earrings or pendant versus an E-ring."




You have it exactly right. I didn't state my personal preferences because people give me more than my just due as an expert. My opinion on a single diamond for a particular use may and will vary as the situation changes. The quote of what you said above is a near perfect way to handle this process.




Every diamond has a home, somewhere. I have seen some that were UGLY that had found happy homes. Go figure. My opinion of 'beauty" need not be anyone elses. It is important to make valid choice for oneself based on knowledge, personality, budget and awareness of alternatives. My saying what I prefer would only seem arbitrary to nearly everyone and truthfully, it would be.

 

[valeria101]

Cut meet clarity

You can actually read the inscription from that half dozen reflections. The girdle reflection shows as a wide band around them. What is the meaning of VVS clarity with all that going on inside the stone?

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 4:45:46 PM oldminer wrote:




My saying what I prefer would only seem arbitrary to nearly everyone and truthfully, it would be.


----------------

Thanks Dave. This statement would be true for all of our own individual preferences.

I was only curious and did not mean to put you on the spot. I respect people for what they want from IF D stone to the biggest ones they can afford. My only desire that they fully understand what the trade offs are.

 

[I wanna rock!]

Thanks Valeria101 for that example. I've never seen a laser inscription reflected like that. I guess what you all are saying is that you have to judge the diamond's performance as a whole. It may be that a crystal or cloud may actually add to the light performance of the diamond.

Valeria101, I have a 1.17 ct D VS1 with internal and surface graining. You mention that graining may affect performance. However, would that still be as likely in a VS1 clarity diamond? The diamond was graded by GIA.

Thanks.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 4:45:46 PM oldminer wrote:


Noobie:


'Different situations will warrant different clarity trade-offs. I'd be willing to make larger trade-offs for earrings or pendant versus an E-ring.'


You have it exactly right. I didn't state my personal preferences because people give me more than my just due as an expert. My opinion on a single diamond for a particular use may and will vary as the situation changes. The quote of what you said above is a near perfect way to handle this process.


Every diamond has a home, somewhere. I have seen some that were UGLY that had found happy homes. Go figure. My opinion of 'beauty' need not be anyone elses. It is important to make valid choice for oneself based on knowledge, personality, budget and awareness of alternatives. My saying what I prefer would only seem arbitrary to nearly everyone and truthfully, it would be.

----------------

dave,

if a client sends you an ugly diamond, what's the polite way of telling them? do you tell them to pass and look for another stone or do you ask them what are they paying for the stone and go from there. how often do you tell your clients to reject a stone?

 

[wanderlost]

that really is a facinating image with the laser inscription reflected into the stone.... I would have to say that in this case that the diamond has fallen several clarity grades due to this (just as if a natural on the girdle were reflected to show itself multiple times inside a diamond). I wonder if there is anything to be done (short of polishing it off) or if GIA/AGS or the brander would compensate you for this.


As to what my clarity preferences are:
I'm able to spot many inclusions (including in some VS1s) easily and (of course) more with the use of a loop. This is not to say that I can spot every inclusion in every VS2 or even SI2.... however, due to the time restrains put on my diamond search, and the fact that I would be able to spot inclusions in <0.01% of VVS stones, ~25% of VS stones, and 85% of SI stones..... I narrowed my search to exclude SI stones altogether, and searched 'VS2 or better (would really prefer a VS1 or better)' as some very patient vendors tried to help me find the 'right' stone. (incidentally - I was quite suprised by a recent post to see a BEAUTIFUL stone that was in fact an I2 (that took very close inspection to find the inclusions... - clearly in the 0.01% of I stones out there)...)

In any case, of the stones that were some of my favorites... there was a J-IF... and the one I decided on.... a G-VS1/2 (which I've given up trying to find the inclusions on with a loop and a back-lit scope - no need to 'ruin' it).

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 5:28:42 PM I wanna rock! wrote:



I guess what you all are saying is that you have to judge the diamond's performance as a whole.

----------------

Thanks

that is exactly what I meant.


But I am sorry if I caused doubt about a VS1... Let me show you what I had in mind when saying that inclusions can affect brilliance. Pictures usually help much better than words. So here (LINK) is a carefully pictured example of a SI1 with twinning wisps as primary inclusion - I still think that spider web did little if anything to affect brilliance, but it can get thicker down to SI2 and below. Since I've been out of geology labs for a while, I cannot provide the matching example for hw much worse this can get though.

And here (LINK) is one of those hazy stones (the 1.81 cts marq in the pic). These can get bots more transparent and straight opaque, and one may get a rather trasparent but stll hazy stone like this among standard clarity grades. I could not tell how rare such encounters are, but I only know of one SI2 with such "haze" as primary inclusion described as "clouds not shown" on the certificate.

I would definitely not worry about these about a VS1 diamond. Graining should be not only invisible, but hard to locate by any means at such high clarity.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[oldminer]

Vtigger
"if a client sends you an ugly diamond, what's the polite way of telling them? do you tell them to pass and look for another stone or do you ask them what are they paying for the stone and go from there. how often do you tell your clients to reject a stone?"

I always assume a diamond presented to me pleases the person who brought it in for an appraisal. They may not like the grade, but my assumption is they like the overall package, which does include the price. Often, price is the very best part. I tell them the grade. I tell them the value. We discuss where they are with the stone and I see if it fits their needs. I nearly never tell someone to reject a stone, but encourage people who have made a mistake to go do something about it before they are stuck. In other words, the rejection process is theirs and rarely, if ever, mine.

 

[lmurden]

Does anybody think that the phrase "Eye Clean" is a misrepresentation or over used? Sometimes I can't figure out what someone means when they say it's eye clean. Do they mean from all angles or just from the top? Why can't there be a separate phrase for inclusions that are not visible from any angle? Why isn't there a phrase for inclusion visible from the sides? Does this make sense to anybody what I am trying to say? For some reason "Eye Clean" irritates me because I don't know what exactly they mean.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 8/24/2004 7:35:25 AM oldminer wrote:

Vtigger
'if a client sends you an ugly diamond, what's the polite way of telling them? do you tell them to pass and look for another stone or do you ask them what are they paying for the stone and go from there. how often do you tell your clients to reject a stone?'

I always assume a diamond presented to me pleases the person who brought it in for an appraisal. They may not like the grade, but my assumption is they like the overall package, which does include the price. Often, price is the very best part. I tell them the grade. I tell them the value. We discuss where they are with the stone and I see if it fits their needs. I nearly never tell someone to reject a stone, but encourage people who have made a mistake to go do something about it before they are stuck. In other words, the rejection process is theirs and rarely, if ever, mine.
----------------

But dave,

i'm sure you get a lot of internet stones that your clients haven't seen ,because it was shipped direct to you from the vendor . but in my case, i have seen the stone. i still want an opinion from the appraiser. i had my stone shipped to your office and (chris) did an excellent job. he told me it's one of the best performing stone he has seen. he called the stone H SI1 eyeclean... same as the GIA cert. i asked him if this was a piece of crap, would you tell me to reject it and his answer was 'YES'. that's what i like to hear from the appraiser. if i send you an ugly stone, i would like to know,so i can look for a better stone plus you wouldn't be insulting me,because i haven't pay for the stone yet.is it that hard to tell your clients to reject a ugly stone ?

 

[WinkHPD]

----------------
On 8/24/2004 9:07:57 AM lmurden wrote:

Does anybody think that the phrase 'Eye Clean' is a misrepresentation or over used? Sometimes I can't figure out what someone means when they say it's eye clean. Do they mean from all angles or just from the top? Why can't there be a separate phrase for inclusions that are not visible from any angle? Why isn't there a phrase for inclusion visible from the sides? Does this make sense to anybody what I am trying to say? For some reason 'Eye Clean' irritates me because I don't know what exactly they mean.

----------------

In the trade we specifically mean eye clean to be from the top. Period! If you want it to be eye clean from all angles, be sure to EMPHATICALLY explain it to the person you are talking to so that he understands that you really don't want an eye clean stone as it is defined in the trade, but an eye clean stone as you define it.

I do not mean to sound harsh, but you are taking a trade accepted definition and wanting it to be defined to your standards, so make it absolutely clear to the person you are asking to check the stone for you, or you will be spending a LOT of money on postage.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

----------------
On 8/23/2004 1:01:29 PM lmurden wrote:

I have a friend and she doesn't care what the clarity is as long as she got a diamond ring from her long time boyfriend of 4 years. Me on the other hand would find it unacceptable to have a diamond that faced up clean but with visible inclusion on the sides.

Also I physically get the chills when I see a diamond at magnification with inclusions all throughout the diamond. For me and my fiancee' mental stability we went with a VS1 because it's not too expensive but an excellent quality. I really think it's a mental thing, because if I ever had the opportunity I would definitely go for it and get a D/FL in a minute!

----------------

This is a wonderful insight into yourself! Knowing this allows you to make better choices to get the stone that wil make YOU happy, and when buying a stone, that is THE most important factor of all!

Wink

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 8/24/2004 8:26:47 PM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
On 8/24/2004 7:35:25 AM oldminer wrote:

Vtigger
'if a client sends you an ugly diamond, what's the polite way of telling them? do you tell them to pass and look for another stone or do you ask them what are they paying for the stone and go from there. how often do you tell your clients to reject a stone?'

I always assume a diamond presented to me pleases the person who brought it in for an appraisal. They may not like the grade, but my assumption is they like the overall package, which does include the price. Often, price is the very best part. I tell them the grade. I tell them the value. We discuss where they are with the stone and I see if it fits their needs. I nearly never tell someone to reject a stone, but encourage people who have made a mistake to go do something about it before they are stuck. In other words, the rejection process is theirs and rarely, if ever, mine.
----------------

But dave,

i'm sure you get a lot of internet stones that your clients haven't seen ,because it was shipped direct to you from the vendor . but in my case, i have seen the stone. i still want an opinion from the appraiser. i had my stone shipped to your office and (chris) did an excellent job. he told me it's one of the best performing stone he has seen. he called the stone H SI1 eyeclean... same as the GIA cert. i asked him if this was a piece of crap, would you tell me to reject it and his answer was 'YES'. that's what i like to hear from the appraiser. if i send you an ugly stone, i would like to know,so i can look for a better stone plus you wouldn't be insulting me,because i haven't pay for the stone yet.is it that hard to tell your clients to reject a ugly stone ? ----------------

oldminer
where are you ? need some answers to this post.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 8:00:21 PM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
On 8/24/2004 8:26:47 PM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
On 8/24/2004 7:35:25 AM oldminer wrote:

Vtigger
'if a client sends you an ugly diamond, what's the polite way of telling them? do you tell them to pass and look for another stone or do you ask them what are they paying for the stone and go from there. how often do you tell your clients to reject a stone?'

I always assume a diamond presented to me pleases the person who brought it in for an appraisal. They may not like the grade, but my assumption is they like the overall package, which does include the price. Often, price is the very best part. I tell them the grade. I tell them the value. We discuss where they are with the stone and I see if it fits their needs. I nearly never tell someone to reject a stone, but encourage people who have made a mistake to go do something about it before they are stuck. In other words, the rejection process is theirs and rarely, if ever, mine.
----------------

But dave,

i'm sure you get a lot of internet stones that your clients haven't seen ,because it was shipped direct to you from the vendor . but in my case, i have seen the stone. i still want an opinion from the appraiser. i had my stone shipped to your office and (chris) did an excellent job. he told me it's one of the best performing stone he has seen. he called the stone H SI1 eyeclean... same as the GIA cert. i asked him if this was a piece of crap, would you tell me to reject it and his answer was 'YES'. that's what i like to hear from the appraiser. if i send you an ugly stone, i would like to know,so i can look for a better stone plus you wouldn't be insulting me,because i haven't pay for the stone yet.is it that hard to tell your clients to reject a ugly stone ? ----------------

oldminer
where are you ? need some answers to this post.----------------

oldminer,Rich or Neil can you guys give some answers to this post ?
thanks