Did we misunderstand eyeclean?

[:)]

Hi, could someone please answer a question - maybe we misunderstood the meaning of eye clean. When someone says a stone is eye clean, does that mean only in indoor lighting? Does that mean it is acceptable or expected for an ''eye clean'' stone to look like someone threw chunks of glass or sand across it when taken outdoors in sunlight? Thank you.

 

[belle]

when someone tells you a stone is ''eye clean'' you need to ask specifically what their definition is.
here is a thread about eye clean https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-eye-clean-definition-interpretation-and-taste.30483/

make sure your diamond is clean. diamonds are dirt magnets and a dirty stone can look like it is speckled with inclusions just from dirt and oils from the skin.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hi

There is no official definition, so it's important for buyer and seller to establish a working baseline. Lighting, distance, human vision and expectations are all variable. The link Belle posted elaborates on these things.

 

[FireGoddess]

I take eye clean to mean a viewing distance of 10 to 12 inches from my eye. It is a somewhat subjective term depending on who you''re talking to. Some people have eagle eyes and some are blind as a bat!! LOL. So when I ask whether a stone is eye clean, I also elaborate by saying ''2-3 inches from my eye'' etc. I don''t want to see anything without a loupe at any distance!!

Ditto Belle on the clean thing...you''d be amazed what a good cleaning will do!

 

[Mara]

lol FG...your new avatar looks so much like mine from peripheral vision and since we use the same font, for a FULL 30 seconds I was staring at your post going, i SO did not write that, what's going on!!!! haha. DUH. might be time for an avatar change for me as well!

re: the eye-clean thing...i don't know about chunks of glass and sand (that's so random!) but clean the diamond and also yes different vendors have different definitions. i have my own definition as well....i like white inclusions but i have never had them show up more indoors vs outdoors, imo it just depends on the nature and how they are viewed. but the diamond may just be dirty! a dirty pavilion and a macro camera are sworn enemies!!

 

[kenny]

Question for vendors:

I'm sure you dicuss eye-clean criteria with buyers of SI1 and SI2s.
Think of 100 sales of SI1 or SI2s which you considered to be eye-clean.
How often does a customer receive the stone but is not happy because (s)he thought it would be more eye-clean than it is to them?

1 in 100?
10 in 100?

I'm sure you go to great lengths to discuss this prior to the sale to avoid this.
But it must still happen.
How often?

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:11:09 PM
Author: Mara
lol FG...your new avatar looks so much like mine from peripheral vision and since we use the same font, for a FULL 30 seconds I was staring at your post going, i SO did not write that, what''s going on!!!! haha. DUH. might be time for an avatar change for me as well!

I have to say this has really been throwing me off as well.

"Eyeclean" is like meatloaf--everyone has there own definition.

 

[:)]

Thank you for the link, that was very kind of you - I did come across it when trying to find the answer, but what I am struggling with is the lighting component of this - does the natural lighting mentioned in the thread mean sunlight? That is what I assume - the reason I ask is b/c we purchased from an internet vendor what we were told was an ''eyeclean'' si2 stone which looks awful in sunlight - like someone threw broken glass and sand across it - it doesn''t matter if the stone is 4 inches or 3 feet away in sunlight... It ended up appraising by an independent master gemologist appraiser as an I2 stone worth not nearly what we paid for it (he actually could not believe it had ever been given an SI2 grade) - it is not so much what the grade is, as it is how it appears (and that we pay the proper price for what we get). Do you usually ask for them to specifically take it outside in the sunlight when they say it is eyeclean? Any other specific things we should ask about eyeclean when talking to the vendor? I am not sure if we should be hesitant working with this vendor again due to this, or if it is our fault for thinking that when he said ''eyeclean'' meant in sunlight in addition to all other lighting conditions (he did say 18-20 inches away is eyeclean when he told me originally it was eye clean, we did not talk about lighting conditions, as I did not know to ask).

They did not argue or give us a problem with returning it, they only asked what was wrong and wanted to make sure it was an independent appraiser. It just can get expensive and use up a lot of time wiring money and shipping registered mail back and forth.

Thank you again.

 

[:)]

Oh, and the diamond was very very well cleaned prior to viewing over a several day period in multiple different lighting conditions.

 

[FireGoddess]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:23:45 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 8/18/2006 1:11:09 PM
Author: Mara
lol FG...your new avatar looks so much like mine from peripheral vision and since we use the same font, for a FULL 30 seconds I was staring at your post going, i SO did not write that, what''s going on!!!! haha. DUH. might be time for an avatar change for me as well!

I have to say this has really been throwing me off as well.

''Eyeclean'' is like meatloaf--everyone has there own definition.

OMG I didn''t notice!!! SORRY!!! Irina made me a kickin version of an avatar and I loved it too much to not upload it.

 

[belle]

i was confused by the doppleganger as well!

the avatar is awesome fg! i l

ve it!


back on topic....it''s weird that the vendor would say a stone is eye clean when you can easily see the inclusions AND an appraiser said it should have been an i2!

what grading report did the stone come with?

 

[Mara]

that''s shore a purty diamond you''ve got there belle.

FG...haha no worries, it''s not like i have the license on pink rose diamond photos, i think diamond lil has one that looks kinda like mine too (or rather mine looks kinda like hers which came first!). i''m going to take some new photos this wkd so i hopefully will come up with some cool new picture for an avatar!!

... it''s odd that you could get a diamond that SI2 (graded by?) and an appraiser would list it as an I2, that''s a huge difference. and if the diamond surely does have thrown sand and glass in it then it doesn''t sound like a reputable SI2. interesting...and a drag, definitely...i would not let this turn you off of SI stones, sometimes it''s a needle in a haystack but a reputable lab AND vendor combo''d together can help you find a great SI stone!

 

[Beacon]

What lab gave the stone the SI2 rating?

I don''t mind SI1 at all, many are really eye clean. SI2 is much harder to find eye clean, especially when the stone is over 2ct. Did you say the carat weight of your SI2?

 

[:)]

I also think both avatars rock! (pun intended! Beautiful stones!)

Okay, sigh, I was afraid someone would ask.

It came with an EGL Israel report (I know that because after all this happened I found a thread on pricescope which tells you how to tell which EGL lab graded it). At the time I guess we were thinking that they did not actually do the cutting/creating of the stone, only grading, and that they could not be THAT far off, especially if we purchased it from a vendor that could tell us about the stone. For what it is worth, it was also graded as an H color, we were told to expect a good I, it appraised as a J (I looked at the master set with the appraiser myself and agreed). We had read the section on grading labs in pricescope, and failed to realize that the study done between GIA/AGS/EGL was specifically with EGL USA. We did not think there would be the difference between EGL USA and EGL elsewhere. Maybe off by a color grade, maybe off by a clarity grade (but who cares if it was eyeclean), never dreamed off by two colors and two clarities.

The stone also has a decent sized pit on the surface of the pavillion (note to consumers, the green mark on the report which means on the surface does not show up any differently on a scanned report than the red marks which mean internally!). I think that is part of why it is an I2 (I think the # and size of inclusions also contributed). The appraiser is fantastic -I highly recommend him - he used to grade for GIA before they moved to San Diego, and he shows and teaches you exactly what he is doing as he goes along - his name is Patrick Davis and he is in Southern California - he showed me photos of what an I2 looks like and it was just like that stone - we have learned a lot from him!). I would not have cared that much if we got what we thought we paid for. The eyeclean part is the part that concerns me the most. The funny thing is it was cut so well that I think it made the color stand up pretty white from the top - without the master set I never would have guessed it was a J! It had scored about a 1 on the cut adviser with an ex/ex/ex/ex, so we knew to expect a pretty good performer, and I think it was pretty good... as long as it wasn''t in sunlight (Patrick agreed it was well cut)

 

[:)]

3.01

 

[TravelingGal]

WF said my stone was eyeclean, and gave me their definition, which I thought was reasonable. However it is only eye clean where lighting provides a good amount of brilliance. In diffiused lighting, it is not eyeclean...I can see it even from a decent distance. But it honestly doesn''t bother me, and I do have to LOOK to find it. I still love my diamond!

 

[Mara]

so basically you got an EGL graded stone that said SI2 and turned out to be an I2. bought it as an H and turns out to be a J. typical EGL israel.

anyhow, if you said that you knew i was going to ask that, then you must know what we tell people on here about grading labs right?? i would not shun SIs but you have to stick with a reputable grading lab OR be willing to call in stones and return them if you are working with an iffy lab like EGL. but if you are looking for a REAL SI stone then stick with GIA or AGS and you will already be one up over EGL...then stick with a reputable vendor who you trust to eyeball the stone for you and you will have two legs up.

but really if you got an EGL stone after hanging out on here and then it turned out to be an EGL israel, i''m not shocked it was graded so low...and i''m not shocked it has sand and glass in it or whatever. next time maybe you''ll stick with GIA or AGS? i have had an SI2 that was eyeclean, my friend has an SI2 that''s eyeclean, i now have an SI1 that''s eye clean. all graded by GIA or AGS. it really does make a difference.

 

[solange]

My SI 2 is eye clean. I cannot see any defects from any angle. However, these are easily visible with a ten power loupe.
Not all SI''s are equal. You have to deal with a vendor who has the stone in tock or will call it in and examine it and discuss it with you. It is also difficult to find an eye clean SI2 in a large size. I waited a few months before Whiteflash found one they thought was suitable.
I agree that it is best to stick with a GIA or AGS graded stone. This way, you can be more certain that the stone is properly graded and you are not wasting time and money on shipping and appraisals. Good luck.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:20:45 PM
Author: kenny
Question for vendors:

I'm sure you dicuss eye-clean criteria with buyers of SI1 and SI2s.
Think of 100 sales of SI1 or SI2s which you considered to be eye-clean.
How often does a customer receive the stone but is not happy because (s)he thought it would be more eye-clean than it is to them?

1 in 100?
10 in 100?

I'm sure you go to great lengths to discuss this prior to the sale to avoid this.
But it must still happen.
How often?

Kenny, you have a gift for transcendent questions.

The simple answer: I have no hard statistics, but it’s closer to 1 in 100. Our ability to do this is fundamental to selling diamonds on the internet (which many people think is crazy in the first place),

so I don’t mind elaborating.

Thus, here is the longer answer for anyone interested...

It’s all relative to (1) inventory (2) judgments and (3) the individual buying the diamond over the time period considered. All can differ from month to month.

1. Inventory.

Having GIA or AGS exclusively grade the diamonds we bring in is beneficial for reasons others have stated. Nevertheless, rough varies. In any given period of time the characteristics of the original rough at the factory will influence potential for disagreement.

Scenario A. If Brian selects 1000 extremely clean SIs, all of which win our eye-clean judgment from both 25cm and 8cm (10 inches and 3 inches) no client may disagree, regardless of circumstance. Knowing people as I do however, I’ll call it 1 in 1000 disagreeing.

Scenario B. If Brian selects 500 extremely clean and 500 which are definitely not eye-clean (they fail our 10” judgment) the likelihood of someone disagreeing is still 1 in 1000, since all of the calls are very decisive: It IS or it ISN’T.

Scenario C. If Brian brings in 500 decisive calls and the other 500 are eye-clean from 10 inches, but not from 3 inches, they still meet our published definition of eye-clean in normal viewing conditions…after all, it’s rare someone will put their eye 3” from a diamond…but because those 500 are borderline the inventory has a greater potential for someone to disagree with the call, as compared to scenarios A and B.

We most often deal with scenario C, so we try to err on the strict side.


2. Judgments.

We make ours in diffused/office lighting conditions from 8-10 inches by someone with 20/20 vision. We also perform closer analysis. Nevertheless, the analysis is performed by humans. Anyone can have a bad day, so an error is a possibility. The goal is to make decisive calls correctly and be able to accurately describe diamonds on the borderline.


3. The individual buying the diamond

Even if lighting, distance and judgment are all equal, the eye-clean question will ultimately depend on the individual person and the individual diamond selected.

1 in 1000 people may not be satisfied by even the cleanest SI diamond. This is because there is the occasional person who will spot inclusions even in a VS diamond. That’s a variable beyond control. The fact is that one person will see more than the next, than the next and so on. For this reason, when our consultants work with someone expressing an intense desire for a totally clean diamond we may suggest VS as a more practical route than SI… Of course, that strays into the area of ‘mind clean,’ which is a whole separate subject.


* It is not good business to make soft judgments: A diamond that goes out only to be returned is off the market for several days. Furthermore, a seller’s reputability depends on a history of accurate judgments. It’s in the best interest of both the customer and the seller to strive for the most accurate representation possible.

That’s the story from our side. Other sellers and professionals may be able to provide additional perspective.

 

[Beacon]

Ok, I got the picture, big stone, I2 rating from good appraiser. The most amazing thing to me is that the internet vendor said it was eye clean. A 3 ct. I2 stone like that, I fully expect to be able to see the flaws in it. I realize your guy said 18-20 inches away, but maybe he only looked at it for like two seconds??

At least they took it back for you w/o problems, thank goodness. Can you say who was the vendor?

When I ordered 2 different SI1 stones on line, I was pretty up front to the vendor. I told them I have excellent close vision, I don''t want to see anything and they better take a very good look at it before putting it in the mail. Result was excellent - very eye clean stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is the opionion from our (my) Pricescope tutorial

SI2 is the borderline of ''eye visible''. My definition: if an inclusion is apparent to the naked eye, in normal light, from 14-16 inches, without knowing its position, the stone is ''I'' for Imperfect or the European term – ''P'' for Pique (PeeKay).

That is as simple as I can make it.

Of course it is not a simple issue
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/clarity.asp

 

[Regular Guy]

It''s just a set of overlay pictures...but I still found it kinda helpful on the tutorial for James Allen, where he shows the differences from one clarity level to another.

Speaking of James Allen, whether or not his signature series is vacated...Leonid may want to check whether all the diamonds from him called "in house" are really "in-house," lest the value of this db come into question, for those who have found it of value.

Not that anybody asked me.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/18/2006 7:17:49 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Speaking of James Allen, whether or not his signature series is vacated...Leonid may want to check whether all the diamonds from him called ''in house'' are really ''in-house,'' lest the value of this db come into question, for those who have found it of value.

Not that anybody asked me.

i find it very valuable and noticed their was a disproportionately high number of ja stones coming up in the search. i would appreciate the validity of this verified as well.

 

[:)]

Thank you all for your input, I would like to respond to a couple of things -

First, the question regarding the vendor - I know the query was from an interest standpoint, but I do not want to scare any other newbies who are out there looking away from this vendor, as I do not think this is a normal occurrence for this vendor - as someone mentioned earlier we can all have bad days. I don''t want to sully the reputation of any of the vendors when it may have been varying definitions of eyeclean. It is a reputable dealer - I found the vendor through this website, yes it had positive things listed about it when I went through the forum, yes it had a good better business bureau rating. No, it was not one of the vendors listed or recommended on any type of a ''regular'' basis on this website - I guess we wish we had used one of those whose eyes are trusted, but this particular stone had the report listed on that vendor''s website and we could directly plug those numbers into the cut advisor and get a great number back with an ex, ex, ex, ex, so we wanted to look at this one (and it was a great cut). I do think that part of the reason he was willing to so easily give us the return authorization number is because they are reputable. The main reason I started the string was to determine what we needed to do on our part to try to minimize the chance of this happening again.

I would also like to address the EGL issue, and maybe help some of those who have been here for a while to understand where those of us newbies are coming from... diamonds are new territory for most of us who come to this website. This site is extremely informative and helpful, but to those of us who are new it is difficult to concretely grasp exactly why EGL is held in such poor esteem on this site (at least in the beginning, prior to something like this happening.)

For newbies, reading the tutorials (and having nil personal experience with EGL itself), it does not sound like EGL is that far off - actually they come across on the tutorial as maybe being a little stricter in color, although more lax in clarity - sometimes right on, sometimes off by a grade. To me, eyeclean would have been ... eyeclean. I would not have cared if it was a ''worse'' eyeclean, as long as it was fairly clean to the naked eye. The I2 rating probably explains why it is so not eyeclean. Having never purchased a diamond before, we did not gather from the tutorials that they would be an entire two grades off in both color and clarity - we got more of an impression of one grade off in maybe one or the other (just my take away from the tutorial) - I assumed as I was told that I may be getting an I color, but I thought the term eyeclean again would be eyeclean in all lightings. This is probably why so many other newbies on this site are so befuddled at the reputation of EGL on the boards - the tutorial sort of sounds like they may be off a little (for instance the GIA/AGS/EGL study). I don''t know if maybe the tutorial could be adjusted to try to explain a little better without pricescope getting sued for slander.

I went to school and training after for many many years. In the beginning I thought that you had to go to the best schools and get a spot in the best training programs to be any good. As the years went on I came to realize that there are people who trained in some of the best programs in the nation who I would not allow to touch a family member of mine. There were other excellent people who had training that was not as highly esteemed, but are absolutely stellar at what they do, and I would be honored to have take care of my family.

That said, it is human nature to make a lot of our decisions and actions based on what we know from our past - what I learned is that I could not necessarily base an opinion on someone based on where they trained, so I (erroneously!) applied that to EGL. We thought having someone looking at the stone was a safeguard, just as word of mouth from colleagues can weed out the ones you don''t want to refer people to.

Mea Culpa. I have learned, and now I understand why EGL is not respected - I think things happen for a reason, and I sincerely hope that this can help other newbies trying to figure out why EGL has such a poor reputation on this board. Maybe it was good that this happened, to maybe keep others from the same mistake when they can read about ours.

We will stick with GIA/AGS and likely go the route of Solange and be patient with a company that has a reputation for very good eyes.

Thank you again for all of your knowledge. I have found diamonds (and especially the whole cut area) to be fascinating. I cannot tell you how many hours I have spent playing with the cut advisor to see how adjusting tables/crowns/pavillions, moves the little X around to FIC range, then TIC, then BIC! Incredible how such a tiny adjustment can change the entire performance of a stone!

 

[C Smith]

If I can see any inclusion with my naked eye in any normal light,I grade it as no better than I1 for purposes of buying and selling. As stated above, we all have slightly differing standards on what eye-clean really is maybe, but I was trained that any stone with a visible inclusion from any distance is simply an imperfect one. If I can see it with my naked eye without knowing exactly where to look, it isn't an SI-2. I believe that some labs use the 18" rule for grading, and based on some SI2's I've seen in mall stores, that must be how they're doing it. Ray Charles could see some of the inclusions in these diamonds from his grave!

 

[pricescope]

Date: 8/18/2006 1:31:32 PM
Author: FireGoddess

Date: 8/18/2006 1:23:45 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 8/18/2006 1:11:09 PM
Author: Mara
lol FG...your new avatar looks so much like mine from peripheral vision and since we use the same font, for a FULL 30 seconds I was staring at your post going, i SO did not write that, what''s going on!!!! haha. DUH. might be time for an avatar change for me as well!

I have to say this has really been throwing me off as well.

''Eyeclean'' is like meatloaf--everyone has there own definition.

OMG I didn''t notice!!! SORRY!!! Irina made me a kickin version of an avatar and I loved it too much to not upload it.

Sorry for OT, but i can''t skip the opportunity to proudly

announce that PS has created his own War of Roses! Badges of Plantagenets become Avatars of new History...

Hey Mara, remember your signature "You, get out of ...my Garden!"

 

[Lynn B]

I say, pink rose avatars for everyone!!!

Interesting thread. Just when you think you've read everything there is to read on the SI/eyeclean issue! My AGS-0 2.36 SI2 RB is eyeclean under all lighting conditions. Under a loupe, of course, I can see some little wispy goobers... but IMHO, eye-clean SI stones are an AWESOME find and well worth searching for.

And John, GREAT post and so interesting! Thank you for sharing!

Lynn

 

[Mara]

LOL PS... ala ''out damn pink rose!''

 

[pricescope]

Date: 8/18/2006 7:31:58 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/18/2006 7:17:49 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Speaking of James Allen, whether or not his signature series is vacated...Leonid may want to check whether all the diamonds from him called ''in house'' are really ''in-house,'' lest the value of this db come into question, for those who have found it of value.

Not that anybody asked me.

i find it very valuable and noticed their was a disproportionately high number of ja stones coming up in the search. i would appreciate the validity of this verified as well.

We discussed this issue with James A. Schultz. Jim explained that all these stones belong to his company and located in his company safe. The listings are updated daily (on both JA and Pricescope sites) and ready for shipping overnight. Each listing is accompanied with scanned original certificate and magnified photo of the real stone. There are also crown and pavilion angles available to calculate HCA.

I think this qualifies for "in-house" inventory. I asked Jim to add to this comment if I missed something.