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

[oldminer]

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. Consumers want a nice looking stone, a durable one, one they can afford, and one that can be worn with pride by the recipient. We all recognize the sentimental and romantic nature of such a gift, but we do all appraoch this with our own cultural and educational biases.

Why do some people want a flawless stone?
Why would someone else select flawless, IF or VVS?
Why does a person want a VS stone and not IF, VVS, or a lower grade?
Why are so many willing to accept SI stones? How do people feel about "eye-clean" issues?
Although we don''t discuss it much on Pricescope, there are many I1 and I2 clarity diamonds sold to very contented consumers. Are they just uninformed, or are there other reasons for their decision to buy at the bottom?

Just some food for fresh thoughts!!! What do the Pricescope particpants think on these matters?

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
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. Consumers want a nice looking stone, a durable one, one they can afford, and one that can be worn with pride by the recipient. We all recognize the sentimental and romantic nature of such a gift, but we do all appraoch this with our own cultural and educational biases.

Why do some people want a flawless stone?
Why would someone else select flawless, IF or VVS?
Why does a person want a VS stone and not IF, VVS, or a lower grade?
Why are so many willing to accept SI stones? How do people feel about 'eye-clean' issues?
Although we don't discuss it much on Pricescope, there are many I1 and I2 clarity diamonds sold to very contented consumers. Are they just uninformed, or are there other reasons for their decision to buy at the bottom?

Just some food for fresh thoughts!!! What do the Pricescope particpants think on these matters?
----------------

dave,
i think it's harder to satisfy people's mind than their eyes. i bought a 3+ ct H SI1, that i sent to your office to have it evaluated, and chris who did an excellent job, said it was eye clean and one of the best preforming stone he has seen. even though i can't see the inclusion face up, but in the back of my mind, i know there is a dark inclusion right in the center of the table i might need to upgrade the clarity in the future to satisfy my head,i'am sure for some people its the color.

 

[Robyn12]

I want a VS1 or VS2 stone because it seems to me like it's a safe choice, without being silly. With an IF or a VVS stone, IMO, you are paying much more for something you'll never see. With an SI stone (especially in fancy cuts) it seems there is a chance you may see an inclusion from some angle... So to me, VS1 or 2 is a happy medium.

And while I would consider an SI stone, I would never consider a VVS or higher.

It is funny though, how everyone has their own take on this.

 

[researcher]

IMO, as long as it's TRULY eye clean (and by eye clean I mean you can't see the inclusions no matter which way you turn the stone--when it's loose) I'm happy with the clarity level

Thanks for creating this thread so people with questions can get answers all in one place!

 

[purduephotog]

Dave-

To me Cut was the most important, then size. Colour didn't hold, until I started seeing some 'variation' in just how yellow some were. Yes I know they are machine graded but some just appear more intense than others.

That said, I just was shown an I1 that was clean all the way thru, and the sides had the defects that could be covered with a prong (so i'm told). I would have considered that stone save for the fact it was about 1K out of my already pinched budget.

If I didn't feel the 'pressure' to compete with her sister's fiancee, I'd consider going to an even higher quality rock. But honestly, there's not much competition there

just a desire to have a beautiful stone on the hand of a woman that has brought love into my life.

 

[researcher]

Good point, purduephotog!
I think clarity is usually last on the list for people who are more educated about stones. We tend to be more willing to pay for aspects of diamonds that are more readily apparent. Because diamonds are not, in most cases, an investment, people want to have something that looks amazing. It therefore seems that cut, carat, and color come into play first (although people will dispute the order).

 

[GLudlow]

I'll throw my hat in as a non-diamond expert.

Socially, diamonds are supposed to represent purity, perfection and permanance. Hence the use as an engagement ring. Where the perception comes from doesn't really matter.

I think that people want VVS or IF/FL because if the think the stone is dirty or tainted, it's not representative of the things they hold valuable. Just like most of us would balk at a stone with large black inclusions, some might think a feather represents a break, or a small cloud impurity. I think this is the basis for it.

But beyond that I think it's also a status thing. Some people demand the "best" and, due mostly to ignorance, they think a FL stone is always better than a VS1 that is perfectly cut.

Another potential reason is that the cut is a *human* thing, which only serves to express the inner beauty of the diamond. Color and clarity are "inherent" traits and cannot be reproduced or created (they can be enhanced through cutting, naturally). So people who value the symbolic over the visual would prefer a badly cut D FL than a perfectly cut G SI1.

Just my thoughts!

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 3:46:37 PM Robyn12 wrote:

I want a VS1 or VS2 stone because it seems to me like it's a safe choice, without being silly. With an IF or a VVS stone, IMO, you are paying much more for something you'll never see. With an SI stone (especially in fancy cuts) it seems there is a chance you may see an inclusion from some angle... So to me, VS 1 or 2 is a happy medium.

And while I would consider an SI stone, I would never consider a VVS or higher.

It is funny though, how everyone has their own take on this.----------------

Robyn12,
i agree 100%, my choice, i would never go better than a VS1. my first choice would be a nice VS2.

 

[Hest88]

In spite of everything I know, if I could afford it I'd happily take that D, IF. There is a psychological satisfaction in knowing that what you have is "pure"--whatever what means.

However, I also think that if you approach average consumers--who know just the basics about diamonds--and asked them what a perfect diamond would be, they'd definitely spout that D, IF without a clear understanding of how that contributes to the beauty of a stone. It's just what they were told, and it's the easiest thing to grasp. It's like hearing somewhere that a BMW is the best car and clinging onto that without the least bit of further research.

 

[aljdewey]

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


Although we don't discuss it much on Pricescope, there are many I1 and I2 clarity diamonds sold to very contented consumers. Are they just uninformed, or are there other reasons for their decision to buy at the bottom?

Just some food for fresh thoughts!!! What do the Pricescope particpants think on these matters?
----------------

Great topic, Dave.

I think that many folks "overbuy" on clarity as a safety net. When I first came here, I saw so many posts on "BEWARE" SI1 stones and "how HARD it is to find eye-clean stones" that I *mentally* reached an arbitrary comfort level. "I will not go below VS2." That was reinforced by one or two clarity-sensitive people who lamented how they saw BLACK SPOTS!!! in nearly all SI1s. Yikes, I thought...no way I'd buy that!

As I learned more and saw more purchases, I realized that many people were getting GORGEOUS SI1 stones, and my thinking started to change. Gee, maybe it was possible to find eye-clean SI1 stones after all!

When it came time to buy, I was considering stones from WF, and Brian told me he really felt better about an SI2 he had. He said it was cleaner than the SI1!

OH, NO....there's no WAY I could possibly consider SI2, I thought. Because again, I didn't know any better. I did, though, trust Brian to be my eyes, and bought the SI2 stone secure in the knowledge that I could return it. When I received it - WOW! I was converted. If I had my way now, I'd NEVER buy anything higher than an eye-clean SI2.

The danger with labels (like SI1 and SI2) is that they pigeonhole us into seeing through someone else's definition instead of seeing what we see with our own eyes. We look until we see what we think we *ought* to see instead of seeing what our eyes see on their own.

It's harder to release those "pre-conceived" notions when you can't see the stone yourself. When you lack confidence in your own judgment, it's easier to err on the side of higher clarity....it's like a golf handicap!

I think that if many of the online folks were lined up with diamonds in person in front of them and told to pick what their eyes liked, there would be a great drop in the average clarity.

If they could see the stone BEFORE they knew where the "warts" were, they wouldn't see the warts as much. But point out the wart FIRST, and that is the thing people will fixate on. Such is the scenario of online buying where people see the data (warts and all) *before* they see the stone.

I think forums like this are great, but an unfortunate side effect...they make everyone *purists*. No longer is it ok to see an *TINY* inclusion through the side of the diamond. (GOOD LORD...how many people look through the side of a diamond when it's on someone's hand? I can barely get a good glimpse of someone's ring without being obvious!)

People who are willing to be open-minded are more likely to reap the benefits of the values afforded by I1 etc. stones, I think. Are they uninformed? I don't think so...in fact, just the opposite. I think they know enough to know that there are real treasures to be had if you know where to look.

Just my thesis on your questions.

 

[WinkHPD]

What a refreshing take on things! I really enjoyed you sharing your "conversion" with us about what you would or would not accept.

I recently showed a client a 1.03ct stone that was an F color H&A cut I1. She is exstatic with the stone because it was less than her budget, but much bigger than the stones that we had been looking at that were in her budget.

I also just recut a stone that was sold as an I1, but came back from GIA as an I2 (which I think harsh) but because it is EightStar cut, it still looks incredible. I have never before seen such a beautiful stone lableed an I2. From a normal viewing distance it is eye clean, but from up close there is a host of small but eye visible inclusions.

It really comes down to the beauty of the stone. I have seen ugly IF stones and beautiful I2 stones and every thing in between. Hard to imagine either end of that scale, but an IF really can be pretty drab at 56% depth and 70% table. Sometimes I regret that we jewelers ever got into the paper game, it sure takes out the eye for most buyers, while I strongly feel that the paper should be only for protection after the eye has done its work.

Wink

 

[Lincoln]

I agree with you, aljdewey. Your story sounds identical with mine. I told the appraiser that I had no interest in looking through a loupe nor seeing a photo of inclusions in my SI2. Out of sight, out of mind. My fiance agrees.

 

[nighthawk]

WOW-
IGNORANT, CLUELESS /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/nono.gif[/img] all things i am learning that i was, sure glad i didnt by my diamond yet.

This is the greatest website I have found about diamonds.

I originally was willing to shell out $7500 for a 1 carat very good cut VVS1 G diamond I thought was the best I could afford. Why?

Because it met the four C's perfectly when I asked questions to myself about what I wanted in a diamond. I wanted a diamond that was at least a carat, clear as could be, and that would set my fiance's hand on fire, not literally.

Wherever you go people tell you about the 4C's, 4C this..4C that... and all I could 4C was an empty wallet to get what I wanted. Thanks to this forum, the abundance of information I can now feel confident that I can find a diamond that I want.

Bottom Line: I want a diamond that is eye clean>on fire>eye colorless>at least one carat.

The old american way:if its newer its better>>if its costs more its better

 

[WinkHPD]

You will find a lot of stones from dealers here that fit that description for a lot less than $7,500.

Wink

 

[Lincoln]

Nighthawk - I'd say you could cut your budget roughly in half and get a good 1ct diamond (not VVS1, but eyeclean and well cut.) Hope that makes your day.

 

[headlight]

Great thread!

Sure, in my fantasy world, I would love to own a flawless, D color stone.

And I've owned all sorts of combinations, but I had not owned the rock I so longed for (i.e. carat weight) so I finally got my 3.29 RB.

But, given that costs are what they are in that size, and I was to stick with a budget (not usually a word in my vocabulary), I had to sacrafice somewhere.

So, I got an SI2, H color stone. Also, not ideal cut.

To get that carat weight in a VS2, F color, ideal cut would be somewhere in the ballpark of $45k!

I know that this is not my last diamond. And I do have 100% trade-in value toward the next go-around.

I have been giving a lot of thought to what is REALLY important for me on the trade-in down the road, and what I can "give up". From everything I've learned here, it seems that cut, then color, then clarity is the order of importance... and then somehow factoring in one's carat requirement into the formula.

I am not going to upgrade until the new GIA reports are out with the cut grades. My goal, staying with same approx. carat weight, is to a high level of GIA cut grade, F color, and I guess SI1 to keep it within the realm of reality (would rather go with VS2, but you know how the jump in price goes).

Just from those specs, I know that I will be "going up" in diamond beauty from what I have now. I knew that the stone I have now was not one I would have forever; it got me into this carat range, and the next go-around will be to upgrade its overall quality.

I am on the "installment" plan!

 

[dimonbob]

I have a diamond wholesale friend that specializes in large SI2-I2 well cut diamonds. None of them have diamond grading reports or Sarins. He sells them all day long and is getting rich. They are not my kind of diamonds but somebody out there is buying a lot of them.

You can get a 3ct J I2 for somewhere around $7000 or you can get a 1.06 E VS1 for $7498.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Lincoln]

How exactly do 100% trade-ins work? Since there's always a market price to deal with in commodities (ok, near commodities), something just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Greentree]

I have a basic understanding of how to use a loupe, but not much skill in detecting flaws. If an inclusion is obvious enough that I can see it without help, I'll continue looking.

On the other hand, a diamond that is carrying a slight tint doesn't bother me at all. If the stone is perfectly cut, it's tint will go completely unnoticed. I really don't like paying the steep premium for a D-E-F stone. Trading color for cut in order to stay within your budget seems like the right thing to do.

 

[Patty]

I have a SuperbCert I1 stone. At certain angles, I can see the inclusion...a crystal under the table. I love that this diamond was so inexpensive and all most people will ever see is a beautiful stone.

I think it's all about the cut. If it sparkles like the dickens, no one will notice a "flaw."

If I had a completely unlimited budget for diamonds, the highest clarity I would go would be MAYBE a VS stone. For me it's much more about the value than the cost. I love getting a good value for my dollar and with an I1, you can get a much bigger size for your money.

Even so, my husband still thinks that spending $7000 on a ring is a LOT. I keep reminding him of all the money I saved him by getting an I1 stone. He says, "Yeah, but $7000 still isn't cheap!"

 

[chialea]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 6:39:08 PM Lincoln wrote:

How exactly do 100% trade-ins work? Since there's always a market price to deal with in commodities (ok, near commodities), something just doesn't sit right with me.----------------

Let me hazard a guess from two things I've heard:
1. The price for diamonds never goes down.
2. Diamonds don't show wear under normal circumstances.

Assuming that most of your customers wait multiple years before coming back to buy another stone, you can most likely make money selling the stone again, even after "buying" it back at what you sold it for, even if you discount it somewhat for being "used".

Plus they probably got more profit off of the new stone. It doesn't sound like such a bad deal if you put it like that, no?

 

[headlight]

Lincoln, I don't know how trade-in/up policies work with other jewelers, but with mine the deal is that I get 100% of what I paid for the stone (and also, subsequently the mounting) toward another stone. So, say I have my eyes on a stone that is (for round numbers sake) $40k and I paid $20k for the current stone, I would need to shell out another $20k for the deal. And the same would apply for the price I paid for my custom three-stone mounting I had them make a year after purchasing the stone (it was initially set in a plain, 6-prong solitaire).

The advantage for me is that I am not one who keeps her "e-ring" stones "forever"; I have had three different center stones in 15-1/2 years. I have had 5 (if you include the solitaire that the current stone was mounted in for a year) mountings in that same time period! Thus, one can imagine the dollars lost in the trade-in process when no trade-in policy exists.

The next question, I suppose, would be how do I know that the jeweler will still be in business? Of course, no one can know for sure, but the jeweler is a well-known, third generation family business that has been in business since 1928, with 6 locations in two states. I cannot have any more reassurance than that. And if they should go under, then I just deal with it as I have on all the previous upgrades -- take my "lickings" and move on to whatever bauble catches my fancy, similar to all the depreciation my husband incurs the minute he drives his high-ticket luxury vehicles off the dealer's lot!

 

[Lincoln]

I guess a diamond shouldn't depreciate, unless of course the man-mades catch on. Good enough explanation for me.

 

[headlight]

As was stated previously, I'm sure that the jeweler made enough profit on the sale of the initial stone, as will he with the sale of the upgrade/trade-in transaction, making this whole trade-in "thing" a win-win.

It opens the door to the consideration of upgrades to a customer who might not have considered such a purchase, hence more business to the jeweler. The customer "thinks" he/she is getting an "added value" to their initial purchase. Gives an element of security to the buyer knowing that the jeweler stands by his product/work enough to "take it back" down the road.

Also, it gives as much "insurance" as possible to the jeweler that the customer stays loyal.

 

[hoorray]

I think initially clarity and carat are the only 2 things uneducated-about-diamond people know. I don't think most people even know that D is the highest color, much less that cut means more than "round". Think of the novice diamond buyer. They are handed a loop to examine the stone with, and that's it. So, those looking for a "quality stone" go for higher clarity.

What taught me that I don't ever what anything higher than VS is when a jeweler told me how much per carat each clarity jump cost base on the rap sheets, when I was looking for a bigger upgrade stone. Each step up was going to cost in the thousands -- that's huge in my book for something you can't see. I still like VS level for the peace of mind, but will always consider the SI stones as long as I can get expert help with them. And, I agree that there is the "mind thing" of knowing about the "flaws". The fewer and smaller they are, the more comfortable the mind is.

My perfect stone is the blazing ideal, d-e color (I'm still a sucker for color), VS1, VS2 clarity, as big as feels right for the purpose. I'll settle for less on most fronts if I can get comfortable with it, but that's my prefered combo.

 

[derekinla]

Great thread,

I think the novice diamond consumer learning about the 4C's is often misled by the "example inclusion plots" that you see plastered everywhere in brochures, posters, books etc.... Although the aim of these diagrams is to educate, I do believe the uninitiated and anxious consumer probably walks away with a negative impression of stones graded SI and below. This probably explains the initial apprehension about compromising on clarity. I think it's worth repeating that these plots and the basis of the clarity grading system in use is based on a face up evaluation at 10x magnification. 10x magnification seems to me somewhat arbitrary and a stone graded “flawless” may very well reveal “impurities” and carbon specs at 30x, 100x, 200x etc…. Since most folks don’t walk around with loupes or microscopes in their pocket, one could argue that the most important “real world” aspect of clarity (putting symbolic considerations aside) is whether or not a stone is eye clean. Why pay for something you can’t see?

 

[searcher]

Clarity is easily quantifiable, and it offers consumers a rational way to evaluate quality. I've heard a million times that a good cut will mask inclusions and make the diamond face up whiter, but this is a needless compromise. I think cut fanatics are looking for a way around market economics and they've hit on cut as this mystical phenomenon where the proper alignment of every last angle and facet will cause light to behave in a way that will dazzle everyone who sees their clumpy yellow rocks. I don't think they are saving people money either, when they advocate perfectly symmetrical stones with top scores on every system out there. Cut is very important, but to max it out at the expense of everything else is a little like buying a nitro-burning funny car to get to work everyday. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I'm aware that diamonds are a limited natural resource, yet they are being marketed to more and more people. Is this behind the trend toward lower clarity? Why is the diamond industry attempting to create man-made value?
My comfort zone is VS. I trust diamond graders as scientists, and I'm not going to second-guess their system. I just don't want to see inclusions. If I were trying to outsmart the diamond market (which I think is like trying to win money at the track), I'd take an off-size, some fluorescence, some asymmetry, and color down to H before I'd give up VS.

 

[just-ice]

Thanks for the thought provoking lesson Dave. 25 yrs ago my hubby (then fiancee') looked at engagement rings with absolutely NO information base other than the B$M's reccommendations.
We went to an elite jeweler at the time, we thought the stone was too expensive. Went to another reputable dealer. The first stone he showed us was well below the prior jeweler. We asked him what was the difference and I will never forget, he just said "Ahhhh" and placed another stone beside it. I thought the difference in "sparkle" was just amazing. My (now) hubby wanted to get the larger stone for the same price...I coaxed

him to stay with the higher quality, not really having a clue about it.
Now we are only talking 0.50 ct here...I also had a diamond from a former life...and I could not wait to get home and compare the two! I knew the difference would just be blinding! When I was able to place them side by side.......guess what?? there wasnt that huge noticeable difference! It had a little more brillance but only if you would scrutinize....lol...what a lesson! But to this day, it is still stunning and I still get compliments on it.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 9:13:07 PM searcher wrote:



My comfort zone is VS. ... I just don't want to see inclusions.

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

Well, great, just stay away from any VS stone with visible inclusions

It does happen, and the worse the cut and the larger the stone, the more likely to find such a piece.

It may not be true that a great cut can make a great jewel out of any kind of material, but it can obviously demonstrate both that diamonds are the most transparent of crystals and among the most reflective.


Clarity grading is not a science, unless the definition changed yesterday

. Garding results are not repeatable...

 

[searcher]

----------------
On 6/11/2004 8:59:12 AM valeria101 wrote:
<BR
Clarity grading is not a science, unless the definition changed yesterday

. Garding results are not repeatable...
----------------

That's not true. Grading results from the reputable labs are repeatable within a grade or two almost all the time. There is extensive formal training involved in becoming a grader. Just because a machine hasn't replaced professional judgement doesn't mean that what graders do isn't science. Careful visual observation under controlled conditions is acceptable in many other fields including radiology, pathology, forensics, etc. Ignoring clarity reports and blindly trusting yourself, a jeweler, and an appraiser is a less rigorous way to evaluate clarity.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.