Diamond has too much salt & pepper?

[Daneish]

I am looking at a diamond that got a 0.9 HCA, is D and SI2. I wasn't looking for the D color, that's just what came up. It is eye clean and I got a picture if it and looks pretty salt and peppery. Do you think this will affect the brilliance and be too visible?

Thanks.

 

[Cowboys4Life]

It does look a little peppery.. But if it is eye clean and has an AGS score under 2, I don't see it being a problem..

If it does bother you; you could always go down in color, say to a F, G or H, and upgrade the clarity to a VS2 or SI1 to keep the budget in about the same price?

 

[Daneish]

It does look a little peppery.. But if it is eye clean and has an AGS score under 2, I don't see it being a problem..

If it does bother you; you could always go down in color, say to a F, G or H, and upgrade the clarity to a VS2 or SI1 to keep the budget in about the same price?

It is a GIA image. So no Light return score. I am also considering the diamond below. It is a 1.6ct F color that is also SI2. But as you can see no inclusions. I like that the first one had a med fluoro. This one has no fluoro so I'm trying to decide if I would miss it.

 

[Gypsy]

So here's the thing. The first one might be safer choice than the second.

Why? Both diamonds are an SI2. You can tell that the first diamond is graded that because of the carbon.

The second diamond looks clean. So that means it could be graded on a bad feather that breaks the surface.

It doesn't matter what the diamond looks like at 40x.

What you want is a safe diamond. So you need to look at the GIA report, and see what the inclusions are that the clarity is based on and (sometimes) where they are located.

Then what you NEED is a gemologist you trust with good eyes to look at the stones and tell you what they see, and whether anything affects the safety of the stone. And then you can go from there.

Also make sure you understand what the vendor definition of eyeclean is. It varies. Make sure it matches yours. That first one may be clean from the top at 10 inches, but not from the side, or from 8 inches... or whatever. Just make sure you understand and are the same page as the vendor gemologist about what eyeclean means to you.

Make sure you have a good return policy. And if there is a question about something being eyeclean to your specifications then have the diamond shipped to you prior to setting so you can see it for yourself.

 

[Daneish]

The GIA report for the second diamond lists 1 largish crystal. It seems to be invisible in this picture. Should I worry?

https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2166733425&weight=1.60#

 

[treasurehunter]

The first stone is not eye clean no way , eye clean if your an 80 year old lady perhaps.
You get what you pay for and most SI2 won't be eye clean especially if it has one large crystal in the table the angle of the photo or something must be off there , the best bet would be to lots of little inclusions the crown of the stone or twinning wisps

 

[WinkHPD]

The first stone is not eye clean no way , eye clean if your an 80 year old lady perhaps.
You get what you pay for and most SI2 won't be eye clean especially if it has one large crystal in the table the angle of the photo or something must be off there , the best bet would be to lots of little inclusions the crown of the stone or twinning wisps

Maybe you have super vision and can see into things that others can not. How can you possibly say that the stone is not eye clean unless you are an 80 year old lady when you have not seen the diamond?

Many stones that look too included in a highly magnified image are completely eye clean to the vast majority of the population.

This is not my diamond and I have no dog in this fight, but I feel it grossly unfair of you to denigrate a diamond you have not seen with declarations that it must be ugly because you can see the greatly magnified inclusions in a photo.

Wink

 

[treasurehunter]

With all those black things how can it be eye clean ? Not in all lighting conditions surely.

 

[Daneish]

Thank you both for your opinion I really appreciate getting as much info as possible.

What do you think about this diamond in terms of overall value? It is the peppery one from the original post.

http://www.zoara.com/diamonds/p_round_excellent_cut_d_si2#p=2706943

 

[TC1987]

It is a GIA image. So no Light return score. I am also considering the diamond below. It is a 1.6ct F color that is also SI2. But as you can see no inclusions. I like that the first one had a med fluoro. This one has no fluoro so I'm trying to decide if I would miss it.

It has allover haze. "Clarity grade based on clouds not shown" in on the GIA report and that's why it doesn't look as clear as the first diamond. (eta We're not seeing the crystal, but the stone is graded SI2, and the pic looks hazy, so I deduced from all of that: We're seeing the "clouds not shown," and those clouds are throughout the diamond or at least the table region.)

A GIA graded F or even G should be plenty white, face-up. The G might show a very slight tint from the side, but probably most people wouldn't even notice unless comparing that G to a colorless D/E stone. So the fluor is kind of a moot point in an F, is my opinion. (yymv)

 

[WinkHPD]

With all those black things how can it be eye clean ? Not in all lighting conditions surely.

Perhaps not with back lighting, but I have seen diamonds that looked far worse in magnified view that look fantastic to the eye. I have an I1 diamond here that arrived today and it took me nearly ten minutes to find the white crystal inclusion with my unaided eye but in the magnified picture it is FAR worse than the picture we were shown.

Much of the "pepper" in that diamond appears to be reflections of a few black inclusions, but I would love to see that diamond in real life to see if it is a legitimate SI2 or a "lucky" grading report. That would be a very fun diamond to play with. I am willing to bet that under most conditions it will be eye clean to an observer who sees it on the lady's hand. Under close examination it might not be, but that would be the fun, to see how it looks in bright lights, how it looks on a cloudy day, how it looks in fluorescent lights.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you both for your opinion I really appreciate getting as much info as possible.

What do you think about this diamond in terms of overall value? It is the peppery one from the original post.

http://www.zoara.com/diamonds/p_round_excellent_cut_d_si2#p=2706943

Forum rules prohibit me from assisting you on the value of another vendor's diamonds. There are many people here who can assist you with that though.

Wink

 

[TC1987]

Thank you both for your opinion I really appreciate getting as much info as possible.

What do you think about this diamond in terms of overall value? It is the peppery one from the original post.

http://www.zoara.com/diamonds/p_round_excellent_cut_d_si2#p=2706943

It would be priced a good bit higher than $12,000-something if it was eye clean.

Reject both of those, is probably what you should do. Unless the experts have a different opinion.

 

[Daneish]

I think I might roll the dice on it. The company has a great return policy and would tell me what they think when they receive it.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Daneish]

I ended up finding this stone. It is a 1.6ct, 0.9 HCA, E color with strong Fluoro and SI1 clarity. They are checking to make sure it's not over blue.



Would you take this over the first one? Losing a tenth of a ct but gaining some clarity.

 

[Gypsy]

Again, need more information. What are the grade setting inclusions. And are there feathers that break the surface?

 

[Daneish]

Again, need more information. What are the grade setting inclusions. And are there feathers that break the surface?

The GIA report can be found here. The grade setting inclusions are crystals.

 

[treasurehunter]

That black nasty thing in the table is cause for concern.

 

[Laila619]

That black nasty thing in the table is cause for concern.

Why? From everything I've read, crystals are one of the safest inclusions to have. Twinning wisps, feathers, clouds, cavities, etc. are all worse.

 

[yssie]

It is a GIA image. So no Light return score. I am also considering the diamond below. It is a 1.6ct F color that is also SI2. But as you can see no inclusions. I like that the first one had a med fluoro. This one has no fluoro so I'm trying to decide if I would miss it.

It has allover haze. "Clarity grade based on clouds not shown" in on the GIA report and that's why it doesn't look as clear as the first diamond. (eta We're not seeing the crystal, but the stone is graded SI2, and the pic looks hazy, so I deduced from all of that: We're seeing the "clouds not shown," and those clouds are throughout the diamond or at least the table region.)

Ditto, clarity based on clouds not shown in an SI2 of any side is an automatic disqualifier for me.

That black nasty thing in the table is cause for concern.

I would actually agree with this - it's "cause for concern" as in, Daneish, you REALLY need to have this stone shipped out loose to inspect in-person with your own eyes and make sure you're satisfied with how clean it is IRL.

I would also agree with Laila - I would rather have honest crystals than insidious wisps or clouds! But those black crystals in the middle of the table, they blend in well in the photo, black crystals over black mains, because the mains are obstructing. Remove the head-shadow and it won't be black-on-black anymore, it'll be black-on-white/silvery/grey, and they may well become considerably more noticeable IRL. Get the stone a bit dirty as opposed to spotlessly clean, like it would be after a day of wear, and without as much razzle dazzle light return distracting you they may well become considerably more noticeable IRL.
It's not the sort of thing you can judge from this sort of photo though.

 

[treasurehunter]

That black nasty thing in the table is cause for concern.

Why? From everything I've read, crystals are one of the safest inclusions to have. Twinning wisps, feathers, clouds, cavities, etc. are all worse.

In terms of eye visibility a black crystal in the table is not desirable for most , it depends would you prefer one black inclusion which stands out in lower lighting conditions or wispy stuff that you can barely see but might have a very minor effect on brilliance
Worrying about feathers and twinning wisps affect on the durability of a stone in SI2 is a little paranoid.
Clouds are the worst though.

 

[Gypsy]

Worrying about feathers and twinning wisps affect on the durability of a stone in SI2 is a little paranoid.

This is not true at all. Any feather that breaks the surface, particularly along the girdle of a stone, poses a durability concern. And SI clarity can have these feathers.

And while it is true that many times twinning wisps do not affect brilliance, there are times-- at SI clarity, and particularly combined with fluorescence-- that they can.

That is why we always suggest buying from reputable vendors that have the stones in house, or who can get the stones in house, with training gemologists on staff to evaluate stones before you buy them. So that you can ask if any of the inclusions are cause for concern.

This is not paranoia. It's fact.

 

[treasurehunter]

no its not a fact.
If a diamond survives the brutting process its feathers are not going pose a risk unless it runs on the cleavage plane in which it could cleave
feathers have already survived mining, brutting ,faceting etc

After surviving the cutting process, it is unlikely that a feather will worsen after years of normal wear. Feathers caused by impact are generally different from typical feather inclusions.

For example, if a feather is located on a cleavage plane, then the feather can extend as a result of impact, but this is rarely seen in fully faceted diamonds. If the diamond is going to split as a result of cleavage, it will split during the cutting process. Considering the harsh nature of diamond cutting, is unlikely that a fully faceted diamond will have durability issues from cleavage during normal wear. Cleavage is an uncommon clarity characteristic.

Richard Sherwood

www.sarasotagemlab.com

I know there has been a lot of discussion among Pricescope consumers regarding feathers and their effect on durability. I've seen some posters say "Why take a chance, just eliminate any stone with feathers when considering possibilities.” As a gemologist, this makes me cringe, as I know a feather is a typical diamond inclusion, of no threat unless it approaches the I2 category, and maybe not even then. It is only the I2 category (determined by feathers) that I begin to think of the feather as being a threat to the durability of the diamond. And indeed, this is one of the characteristics of the I2 category (established by GIA), where they tell the grader to consider possible durability issues.

Conclusion

Generally, feathers do not pose a durability risk during normal wear, but each stone must be judged individually. Multiple or precariously placed feathers may cause a risk, as mentioned in the expert responses above, but if a diamond has survived mining and faceting, then it is unlikely that a feather will worsen with wear. Regardless of feathers, diamonds can chip and certain shapes and proportions can create durability issues, so it is wise to wear your jewelry with care, and insure valuable pieces.

 

[Gypsy]

Generally, feathers do not pose a durability risk during normal wear, but each stone must be judged individually. Multiple or precariously placed feathers may cause a risk, as mentioned in the expert responses above, but if a diamond has survived mining and faceting, then it is unlikely that a feather will worsen with wear. Regardless of feathers, diamonds can chip and certain shapes and proportions can create durability issues, so it is wise to wear your jewelry with care, and insure valuable pieces.

Um. Did you read what you posted?

It says that caution is advisable.

Also it says feathers in general. I said feathers that break the surface especially "particularly along the girdle of a stone" which is exactly what Richard means when he says "precariously placed feathers." Which is possible with SI. AND can pose a threat. So thanks for posting evidence that supports my post.

Which, again... is why:

That is why we always suggest buying from reputable vendors that have the stones in house, or who can get the stones in house, with training gemologists on staff to evaluate stones before you buy them. So that you can ask if any of the inclusions are cause for concern.

 

[treasurehunter]

Anything is possible but it is highly unlikely ,In I2 diamonds or below feathers are a concern and that is why the GIA grades diamonds with durability concern as an I2 or I3. Yet even VVS stones have been known to chip/break if hit at the right angle .
A feather that contains iridescence could be of concern and a feather that for example lays right on the corner of a princess cut and goes from corner to corner is obviously a concern, thats why it should be judged on a per stone basis but its very unlikely and ruling out SI2's with feathers is going to rule out most of them .

The only time I would be concerned about a feather would be when it is of considerable size and reaches the edge of the girdle

If the feather reaches the girdle, then:

I would be more worried about a straight feather than a curvy feather, because the straight feather is most likely following a cleavage plane. I would also be more concerned if the straight feather (sometimes plotted as a “needle”) showed iridescence, because that would show the parting is wide enough to let in a little air. Feathers reaching deeply into the stone are more of a concern than shallow feathers. If the feather reaches deeply and breaks two surfaces of the stone I’d prefer to see it in an earring or necklace rather than a ring. If there are TWO feathers breaking the girdle that meet in the interior of the stone, and especially if they both break the surface, I would be concerned. When there are TWO feathers breaking the girdle that meet in the interior of the stone, and if they both break the surface, a blow in the right place could potential cut out a wedge from the diamond like a piece out of a pie.

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/diamond_feather_inclusions_durability_risk

 

[Laila619]

Feathers are one of those things everyone has to judge for themselves if they're comfortable with them or not. For me, they are a big no. They are not mind clean for me.

 

[treasurehunter]

What would you prefer ?