do you/can you love inclusions?

[dianabarbara]

would you buy an included stone?

I'm just curious to hear why you would or why you wouldn't, or in which occasions you feel it is a good choice.

If you have a diamond showing inclusions, please share I'd be curious to hear how much it affects your appreciation of your jewelry.

 

[pandabee]

Depends what kind of inclusions, where they are, and what type of use you are intending for the diamond.

For example, pendants and earrings I would be much more lenient on inclusions (as long as they are not feathers or something that could affect the integrity of the stone). From far away, others will most likely not see many of the inclusions (and you wouldn't even be seeing them yourself unless you stand really close to the mirror). For diamonds on the hand (ring or bracelet) I would be more comfortable with something less included, but again that all depends. Is it an inclusion near the edge that can be hidden by a prong or bezel? Then it's possible an SI2 could give the same effect as a VVS1 stone, all other things being equal.

tl;dr I think inclusions are one area that if you know the right type to look for, are a great place to "give" on your 4C criteria.

 

[TC1987]

If it's going into earrings or a pendant, I see no reason it to be totally eyeclean, because it's almost never going to be viewed close-up.

If it's going into a cocktail or a special occasion ring that will mainly be worn in a dimly lit room at night, why bother? Cut is what people will see, and they probably won't be able to tell what color the the diamond is, either. Apparently many people felt that way about inclusions in cocktail rings, because I saw many vintage cocktail rings from '40s through '60s that had a big black blob in them. hehe!

If a diamond is a beautiful white color, and exquisitely cut, and of decent size, and one very discrete but sometimes visible inclusion cuts the price to half of what the same except VVS would be, then it's kind of hard to say no to "the look" for $7k or $8k when "perfect" would cost $16k or more.

 

[WinkHPD]

Once when showing a diamond to a local client we put it in the microscope and there was an inclusion that looked exactly like the space shuttle in Deep Space Nine, a popular science fiction show at that time.

I have to tell you that she loved it!

Wink

 

[GemFever]

I agree with the others about inclusions in pendants and earrings. I'm not terribly sensitive about inclusions in ring stones, either. Just as long as they are not ugly or structurally compromising. I let my eyes decide what I consider to be "ugly" vs. palatable on a case by case basis (not that I've seen so many diamonds in my life ).

 

[dianabarbara]

interesting answers! so for pendant and earrings not 'too terrible' inclusions are justified by the significant saving.

wink, I like your story: it shows inclusions can *add* rather than detract from a stone.

gemfever, not having seen a lot of included stones IRL is what created my doubts as well. especially, not having seen stones in magnified pictures and then in real life too makes it hard to translate the relevance and beauty/ugliness of inclusions from picture to daily experience.

There is a diamond I am considering. My first impact was: woo, that's a pretty OEC, it's affordable, and I find the imperfections interesting. then I thought - how weird! And I started second-guessing myself. Maybe I have some good reasons to do it (I can't tell if the inclusion are threatening the durability of the stone, if the scratches can be polished etc). But I feel most of this duality comes from the fact we are thought that VVS is better than VS, SI, and so on.

I realize many on this board are moving past very strict color preferences. And now I am thinking - why is it different for inclusions?

 

[GemFever]

I hope you don't mind if I post some pics. I love posting pics of my earrings left and right

One of the stones has two inclusions under the table. I don't mind them -- they aren't pretty or particularly cool, but they are neat, not too messy. And of course nobody ever sees them when I'm wearing them.





I wouldn't want inclusions that visible in a ring though. But my 1ct OEC had an inclusion under the table that was visible only at a very weird angle. I didn't mind that at all.

 

[Laila619]

I like inclusions, as long as they aren't feathers!

 

[dianabarbara]

gemfever, I love your earrings!! lots of old cuts goodness

laila, why is it different for feathers?

 

[pandabee]

gemfever, I love your earrings!! lots of old cuts goodness

laila, why is it different for feathers?

Kinda like I alluded to above, feathers can be bad for the stability of a stone. Feathers can lead to breaks or fractures.

Also, I like the new name change!

 

[dianabarbara]

For clarity, I am posting the stone I am thinking of.
It is HEAVILY included. the picture was taken with the stone inside the sealed lab blister.
Some inclusions touch the girdle in correspondence with the chips. And I don't know what the thin white lines around the table are (maybe they are in the plastic?).

I have never seen anyone on PS even discussing such a stone (probably, I have not read the board enough).

Would you even notice most of the time in real life? For me, I would bother a big inclusion in an engagement ring. On pretty much anything else, I don't think I'd be so sensitive. Most of the time I do not search for flaws, but for character, being that brilliance, fire, interesting pattern, or some special signs.

When does much become 'too much'? I would like to hear your general feelings towards this issue, and if you have time, also some feedback on the feasibility to use the stone above in a protective (bezel) setting.

 

[dianabarbara]

pandabee, this is an interesting point. For sure stability is something to consider.

I was wondering whether there is also something disturbing or un-appealing to some in terms of their looks. I would normally assume that, since they are a tad less obvious than black carbon spots, a diamond with feathers might be better suited for a protective setting?

Note the question mark: I am asking because I don't know

 

[dianabarbara]

and thank you for the sweet comment on the name I was afraid nobody would ever know me anymore

 

[dianabarbara]

this is a 'daily view' picture of the stone (my apologies for the bad quality, this is what I've got for the stone pictured above). of course in reality resolution is better and there is tridimensionality, so details are more obvious. But this does not look too bad to me. And still the stone is approx 10k less than a clean one would be.

What I am trying to do is see how much of what we consume our throughts, money, and efforts on has an impact in the love we will have for the stone. Just proposing a different perspective. To me, this seems like a bad idea for people who seek only the highest quality, rarest, most perfect stones. But for creative minds, with lots of projects, limited finances, and more interested in getting wild on the setting without breaking the bank maybe this could be the way to go?

 

[ame]

yes I do and yes I can. But I want them to only be loupe visible. I like them to be MINE. And not visible by others.

My old, now stolen, stone had an awesome plot, and on the girdle had an indented natural. What I loved about it all was first off, I knew it was MINE. I liked seeing it, despite that natural being prongable, I left it exposed. I liked the plot when I would loupe it too, the clear crystals looked like a constellation. Other than the natural, it was completely clean without a loupe, but that was my own little "night sky" inside of the stone.

My current stone is almost entirely loupe clean though. It took me MONTHS under a 30x to find these, and they're tiny, but I finally found them, so now I enjoy seeing them as well.

 

[dianabarbara]

ame, you are taking it to a different level!! that constellation of diamond crystals is making my heart melt

I can understand the appeal of a private micro-cosmos. if we live in a city and rarely see a decent sky, we are entitled to get the same satisfaction from a stone
I'm so sorry the previous stone was stolen from you. It sounds like the new one is great too, though

 

[ame]

I love the new one but still long for the old and hope Ill one day find it in a pawn shop...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The stone you posted above is likely going to have a very negative effect on light performance from being that heavily included. I would rather have one diamond of good quality than 100 of those, seriously. I may not have big diamonds and I may never have many, but I just prefer diamonds that have good specs across the board.

 

[WinkHPD]

interesting answers! so for pendant and earrings not 'too terrible' inclusions are justified by the significant saving.

wink, I like your story: it shows inclusions can *add* rather than detract from a stone.

gemfever, not having seen a lot of included stones IRL is what created my doubts as well. especially, not having seen stones in magnified pictures and then in real life too makes it hard to translate the relevance and beauty/ugliness of inclusions from picture to daily experience.

There is a diamond I am considering. My first impact was: woo, that's a pretty OEC, it's affordable, and I find the imperfections interesting. then I thought - how weird! And I started second-guessing myself. Maybe I have some good reasons to do it (I can't tell if the inclusion are threatening the durability of the stone, if the scratches can be polished etc). But I feel most of this duality comes from the fact we are thought that VVS is better than VS, SI, and so on.

I realize many on this board are moving past very strict color preferences. And now I am thinking - why is it different for inclusions?

I believe that I am within the guidelines here to share this video http://www.screencast.com/t/L8SZHSFNAZB as the stone is long since sold and it is not the shape that you are looking for. It does, however, address your question about can such a stone be beautiful. I would ask the moderator to remove it if I am wrong. This video starts out up close and personal and looking pretty bad, then backs off to a normal viewing distance for you to see how beautiful an I1 diamond can be. I think that many people are scared by "bad paper" that should be instead looking at a tremendous bargain because of barely visible inclusions.

My client bought this diamond in comparison, at her home with four other diamonds from different vendors when she had her children place all five diamonds on a slotted tray and both she and her husband chose this diamond without knowing which diamonds were which. Neither she or her husband could see the inclusions with their unaided eyes.

I am constantly telling both my clients and people who are not my clients that they should let their eyes do the choosing, not the paper. Paper can quantify many things about a diamond, and can be an indication of which diamonds will be beautiful, but paper will never be able to tell you what YOUR eyes will like.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

For clarity, I am posting the stone I am thinking of.
It is HEAVILY included. the picture was taken with the stone inside the sealed lab blister.
Some inclusions touch the girdle in correspondence with the chips. And I don't know what the thin white lines around the table are (maybe they are in the plastic?).

I have never seen anyone on PS even discussing such a stone (probably, I have not read the board enough).

Would you even notice most of the time in real life? For me, I would bother a big inclusion in an engagement ring. On pretty much anything else, I don't think I'd be so sensitive. Most of the time I do not search for flaws, but for character, being that brilliance, fire, interesting pattern, or some special signs.

When does much become 'too much'? I would like to hear your general feelings towards this issue, and if you have time, also some feedback on the feasibility to use the stone above in a protective (bezel) setting.

I seriously suspect the spider's web like "inclusions" that you are seeing in that picture are in fact in the plastic case that the stone is enveloped in. If it is at all possible you should ask to see the stone out of its "hide the beauty" case.

Wink

 

[GemFever]

and thank you for the sweet comment on the name I was afraid nobody would ever know me anymore

I noticed the name change too, but luckily your beautiful avatar is very recognizable!

The particular stone you posted a pic of, I would pass... unless it was cheap cheap cheeeap. Then I'd get it if it looked pretty in person But if it's any considerable amount of money, I try to at least think about the re-saleability factor. Yes, diamonds are not investments... but within the PS world, sometimes we want to upgrade, sometimes we get excited about a new project and want to sell off some old things to fund new things... a stone like that probably would not sell again. Though maybe you could think about that from a romantic point of view -- it's yours forever

 

[Treenbean]

I wonder if they are wisps? I know it will mess with light performance but I find it interesting. I like inclusions. They remind me of how imperfect life is. I once asked my SO to describe himself if he were a gemstone. He chose a highly included, think peppered with carbon spots, diamond ever since then I have loved them.

 

[marcy]

It depends on what they are and how obvious they are. I think they would bother me more in a ring than anything else. A friend of mine at work found a flaw in her PC diamond when the sun was shining on it and after that saw that flaw all the time. She wanted to trade in her diamond after that.

 

[dianabarbara]

The stone you posted above is likely going to have a very negative effect on light performance from being that heavily included. I would rather have one diamond of good quality than 100 of those, seriously. I may not have big diamonds and I may never have many, but I just prefer diamonds that have good specs across the board.

diamondseeker, I understand your position in only wanting perfect stones across the board. Do you pick colored stones when you just want a fun project without too much monetary investment?

I just got my antique e-ring that I love to pieces and I picked myself. As you probably know, I have searched very long for it because I wanted something that would make my heart sing. It is very clear (objective data) and I think the cut is beautiful and the setting just fantastic.

But I would still love to realize another project with less emotional involvement without a)jeopardizing the home fund, and b)waiting forever.
In this particular case, the clean, high color, perfectly cut diamond would need to be too small for my project and probably less fitting the rustic impression I want to create.

But I am mostly interested in hearing the general sentiments behind included stones, and I think your voice is echoes very well many of other PSers, as this is a community aiming to teach people to get the best for themselves

 

[kenny]

Here's a link to some diamonds with REALLY cool inclusions: http://www.allaboutgemstones.com/diamond_inclusions_included-crystals.html

This link has a list of various types of inclusions.
Each type has a link to very cool pics: http://www.allaboutgemstones.com/diamond_inclusion_library.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

when you get to my age every stone = flawless clarity..

 

[dianabarbara]

I believe that I am within the guidelines here to share this video http://www.screencast.com/t/L8SZHSFNAZB as the stone is long since sold and it is not the shape that you are looking for. It does, however, address your question about can such a stone be beautiful. I would ask the moderator to remove it if I am wrong. This video starts out up close and personal and looking pretty bad, then backs off to a normal viewing distance for you to see how beautiful an I1 diamond can be. I think that many people are scared by "bad paper" that should be instead looking at a tremendous bargain because of barely visible inclusions.

My client bought this diamond in comparison, at her home with four other diamonds from different vendors when she had her children place all five diamonds on a slotted tray and both she and her husband chose this diamond without knowing which diamonds were which. Neither she or her husband could see the inclusions with their unaided eyes.

I am constantly telling both my clients and people who are not my clients that they should let their eyes do the choosing, not the paper. Paper can quantify many things about a diamond, and can be an indication of which diamonds will be beautiful, but paper will never be able to tell you what YOUR eyes will like.

Wink

Wink, this is another good story. Thank you
I see the inclusion there must have been very well hidden or relatively tiny! I think that purchasing via internet, relying a bit on paper is necessary. There are so many stones that it would be impossible to see them all. But maybe a closer cooperation with the vendor would help identifying the best stone at the best price.

also, thanks for the feedback on the white lines. I am really hoping you're right

 

[dianabarbara]

and thank you for the sweet comment on the name I was afraid nobody would ever know me anymore

I noticed the name change too, but luckily your beautiful avatar is very recognizable!

The particular stone you posted a pic of, I would pass... unless it was cheap cheap cheeeap. Then I'd get it if it looked pretty in person But if it's any considerable amount of money, I try to at least think about the re-saleability factor. Yes, diamonds are not investments... but within the PS world, sometimes we want to upgrade, sometimes we get excited about a new project and want to sell off some old things to fund new things... a stone like that probably would not sell again. Though maybe you could think about that from a romantic point of view -- it's yours forever

Gemfever, ooh thank you

I was thinking the same. It would be hard to resell. But it does come cheap (approx 3k) and it is over 2 carats. I have a hard time imagining parting from a diamond but I did buy a ring on DB that I think I could sell if I needed. It's very beautiful, and I always get tons of compliments on it, but it came to me disguised as a travelling ring and I could easily see it moving to another loving house.

 

[dianabarbara]

I wonder if they are wisps? I know it will mess with light performance but I find it interesting. I like inclusions. They remind me of how imperfect life is. I once asked my SO to describe himself if he were a gemstone. He chose a highly included, think peppered with carbon spots, diamond ever since then I have loved them.

this really made me smile. thank you

 

[diamondloveaffair]

very great links, thanks kenny.