do you/can you love inclusions?

[dianabarbara]

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.

marcy, ouch!! I am sorry for your friend. Falling out of love with a stone like that sounds painful.

 

[dianabarbara]

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

great stuff, kenny!! thank you I had no clue other gemstones could be included in a diamond. I want to see one IRL one day!!!

 

[dianabarbara]

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

I am getting there too with this many hours at the laptop. age makes us wiser, doesn't it

 

[LaraOnline]

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

Your quote made me laugh, DF!
Well I am quite a bit younger than you, and I am extremely comfortable with eyeclean SI2... ideal cut, high colour and eyeclean.

Eyeclean is not unusual in SI2, and what's not to love??

 

[beaujolais]

I so love inclusions - fascinating things, indeed. I would not want an IF - boring to me. If I wanted perfect, I'd buy some can't-name-it-here's.

 

[beaujolais]

Oh, and I love lowered color diamonds. The sweetie in my avitar is a "P". It's color varies between white, ivory and lt. yellow depending on the light; lots of fun. I've got a few really white diamonds but they don't do it for me that much.

 

[SB621]

I have an I1 diamond with a rather large inclusion that I had set by SK. Honestly it doesn't bother me at all. I had been looking for a lower colored OEC for a 3 stone ring and this one popped up. The inclusion is towards the girdle so you can't see it from the top down as it blends in with the O/P coloring. So obvisouly I don't mind inclusions as long as they aren't glarying/ screaming at you. I guess you can say different strokes for different folks as I know some would never buy an I1 dimond.

JbEG shows the inclusion really well:
http://jewelsbyericagrace.smugmug.com/SOLD-ITEMS-1/SOLD-Items/208ct-Old-European-Cut-Diamond/21026570_cJ5Vhd#!i=1671571851&k=pSmzkfT

 

[dianabarbara]

Sonoma, I agree with you on all the line. Many lower colors I have seen here and IRL look soft and fantastic. I felt quite unconfortable with very white stones, because I think that in the size I like, on me, and in my work environment they would look a bit out of place.

another question I wanted to ask is how concerned you would be with that the chip+inclusion in the bottom left could cause a fracture a) during re-cutting of the girdle, in case I purchase the stone and decide to have it re-cut, and b) if not touched, and the stone is set into a bezel mount.

 

[dianabarbara]

I have an I1 diamond with a rather large inclusion that I had set by SK. Honestly it doesn't bother me at all. I had been looking for a lower colored OEC for a 3 stone ring and this one popped up. The inclusion is towards the girdle so you can't see it from the top down as it blends in with the O/P coloring. So obvisouly I don't mind inclusions as long as they aren't glarying/ screaming at you. I guess you can say different strokes for different folks as I know some would never buy an I1 dimond.

JbEG shows the inclusion really well:
http://jewelsbyericagrace.smugmug.com/SOLD-ITEMS-1/SOLD-Items/208ct-Old-European-Cut-Diamond/21026570_cJ5Vhd#!i=1671571851&k=pSmzkfT

Sarah, thank you for your contribution: it helps a lot. Not only your ring is ultra-beautiful, but I do not find the inclusion distracting or disturbing at all. Is it more evident in direct stong sunlight, or do you feel it has some significant impact on performance?

Given your experience, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the diamond I posted and how you think it would compare to yours (much worse, quite similar etc.). I am planning to go see it myself in a few weeks, but I would still like expert feedback

 

[ariel144]

Very interesting discussion. Most people don't have any concept of how little clarity really affects the beauty of a WELL CUT stone. They also have no concept of the fact that in even many I1 stones no one who is looking at your ring will see the inclusion as they are admiring it from a distance of 1 1/2 - 2 feet.

If you want large then IMO sacrificing clarity in a well cut stone helps you get to the size you want on your budget.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed yet is that with inclusions it will be impossible for a non-reputable jeweler to switch your stone with a CZ. I wouldn't even discuss this here if it hadn't happened to someone I know who sold jewelry (costume and fine) to the public. Years ago she took her grandmother's ring in to be cleaned and setting repaired and years later when she took it to be appraised it was a CZ! Not to mention she was shocked.

She told me NEVER let your stone out of your sight at any jeweler. If it needs to be repaired, make an appointment and make it clear that you need to be there watching while he is working.

But if you stone has an inclusion you can KNOW when you get it back and when you loupe it you can see your inclusions then you know it has not been switched. With more stones being certified these days it would probably be rare that this would happen, also with laser inscription...not happening. Which also makes it harder to steal and not recover, although they can probably polish out the inscription. Just another aspect of the value of inclusions in a stone.

There was a 1c F I1 antique cushion cut on JA where I could not see any inclusions even with the magnification...it was gorgeous and cheap! Someone bought it as it doesn't come up when I searched, but nice I1's can be a bargain.

 

[dianabarbara]

Very interesting discussion. Most people don't have any concept of how little clarity really affects the beauty of a WELL CUT stone. They also have no concept of the fact that in even many I1 stones no one who is looking at your ring will see the inclusion as they are admiring it from a distance of 1 1/2 - 2 feet.

If you want large then IMO sacrificing clarity in a well cut stone helps you get to the size you want on your budget.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed yet is that with inclusions it will be impossible for a non-reputable jeweler to switch your stone with a CZ. I wouldn't even discuss this here if it hadn't happened to someone I know who sold jewelry (costume and fine) to the public. Years ago she took her grandmother's ring in to be cleaned and setting repaired and years later when she took it to be appraised it was a CZ! Not to mention she was shocked.

She told me NEVER let your stone out of your sight at any jeweler. If it needs to be repaired, make an appointment and make it clear that you need to be there watching while he is working.

But if you stone has an inclusion you can KNOW when you get it back and when you loupe it you can see your inclusions then you know it has not been switched. With more stones being certified these days it would probably be rare that this would happen, also with laser inscription...not happening. Which also makes it harder to steal and not recover, although they can probably polish out the inscription. Just another aspect of the value of inclusions in a stone.

There was a 1c F I1 antique cushion cut on JA where I could not see any inclusions even with the magnification...it was gorgeous and cheap! Someone bought it as it doesn't come up when I searched, but nice I1's can be a bargain.

ariel, oh my, what a story! I hope the person who stole the stone got some very bad karma in return.
I will keep in mind all of this. thanks so much for sharing your throughts with us.

I have to say that I do not think people - and especially friends, which are the only ones that might matter - really care too much about other people's jewelery. But even if, would not mind others seeing that I have an included stone. so what? I would not want to take charge of their psychological issues.

Also, I had no clue that occasionally JA carries antique cuts! That's good to know

 

[WinkHPD]

Very interesting discussion. Most people don't have any concept of how little clarity really affects the beauty of a WELL CUT stone. They also have no concept of the fact that in even many I1 stones no one who is looking at your ring will see the inclusion as they are admiring it from a distance of 1 1/2 - 2 feet.

If you want large then IMO sacrificing clarity in a well cut stone helps you get to the size you want on your budget.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed yet is that with inclusions it will be impossible for a non-reputable jeweler to switch your stone with a CZ. I wouldn't even discuss this here if it hadn't happened to someone I know who sold jewelry (costume and fine) to the public. Years ago she took her grandmother's ring in to be cleaned and setting repaired and years later when she took it to be appraised it was a CZ! Not to mention she was shocked.

She told me NEVER let your stone out of your sight at any jeweler. If it needs to be repaired, make an appointment and make it clear that you need to be there watching while he is working.

But if you stone has an inclusion you can KNOW when you get it back and when you loupe it you can see your inclusions then you know it has not been switched. With more stones being certified these days it would probably be rare that this would happen, also with laser inscription...not happening. Which also makes it harder to steal and not recover, although they can probably polish out the inscription. Just another aspect of the value of inclusions in a stone.

There was a 1c F I1 antique cushion cut on JA where I could not see any inclusions even with the magnification...it was gorgeous and cheap! Someone bought it as it doesn't come up when I searched, but nice I1's can be a bargain.

I can understand why she would say that, but most jewelers will not be able to let you do that. Notice I did not say would not, but could not be able to for insurance and liability reasons.

What I recommend to my clients when they leave a stone with me, or when they leave a stone with a jeweler in another town is that they sit down with the jeweler at a microscope and diagram the internal charectoristics of the diamond and make it clear to them that they will want to look at it again when they pick it up. That way the jeweler knows that he will be caught should he be the one in a thousand who would actually do that. (There are in fact many more stories of switching than actual switching as people bring in a dirty stone and leave with a clean one in a shiny mounting that suddenly looks "different". Still, there are more than enough actual switchings, so one should always be viligent.)

Just my thoughts on something practical, as our insurance would jump up and commit cancellation should I ever let someone into the bench area.

Wink

 

[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.

marcy, ouch!! I am sorry for your friend. Falling out of love with a stone like that sounds painful.

Agreed. I felt bad for her and sadly her marriage didn't last. She wanted a 3/4 ct PC. He wanted the cheapest one they had and wouldn't even look at anything else. Probably part of the reason the marriage didn't last.

 

[HopeDream]

Hi Biancofiore,

I think there's room in every collection for stones with different personalities and attributes.

Several traditions around the world hold that an engagement diamond/wedding jewellery should have as clean and as perfect diamonds as possible to reflect the perfection of the couple's love. And for an engagement stone, this reflects my preferences too - it's nice to have at least one really clean stone.

But for other projects stones with differnt personalities are great. I like things with personality - cookie cutter jewelley is boring. The present jewellery esthetic seems a bit sterile and manufactured, and a few well chosen inclusion can make a piece interesting. I feel that included stones have a bit more of a vintage or antique feel. Freckles and birthmarks make them intriguing and remind us that they are a natural and grown from the earth.

The Japanese have a specific asthetic style called "Wabi Sabi" - things that are beautiful in their uniqueness and imperfection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Can't wait to see your latest project.

 

[marcy]

I am enjoying this discussion and reading all the links. I think an inclusion makes a diamond or gem interesting. I had an EC that had a little needle in it that I could only see in sunlight. A friend of our used to study rocks and crystals under a microscope and had one that had a little inclusion that looked like a Christmas tree. I think seeing a piece of a garnet in diamond would be cool.

DH is actually very picky about inclusions. He thinks I would start obsessing and want to upgrade (I would do that without inclusions ) but I don't have very good vision so I doubt I would see most inclusions naked eye other than a black carbon spot. Now a poor cut; that is easy to see.

 

[John P]

This is a great question. The history, as it relates to gemology/consumer-protection, and the capitalistic practices that followed may be of interest:

Robert Shipley addressed the chaos present in the emerging USA diamond trade by establishing gemological standards in the 1930s, but it wasn't until the 1950s that they became a "universal standard" through GIA's efforts... Before the widespread acceptance of GIA's grading system (if not its strictness) you'd have Seller #1 calling a colorless diamond "River," while Seller #2 said "Jager." Seller #3 said he had "A" color and Seller #4 said "Oh yeah? Well I have AAA blue-white. Beat that!" Every seller claimed his term described whitest, and nobody had a way to meaningfully compare them. This is why Shipley started his color-grading scale with D at the top: So the jokers calling their white diamonds "A", "AA" or "AAA-no-whammys" would need to reset, like everyone else.

That brings me to clarity. Europe has a smaller diamond market than the USA but it's a far older market. Prior to the current clarity grading scale a "clean" diamond was unarguably more valuable than one with "pique," but having a bit of pique that was visible, especially like the images Kenny linked or the diamond Wink described, was no problem and marketed as a natural birthmark that made the diamond special. This was desirable to many people, useful for ID as Ariel mentioned and made it more practical to move the diamonds being sold prior to "A Diamond Is Forever" in the USA; which closely coincided with the GIA system becoming universal.

With the new GIA color grading system in-place (23 new color terms replace about 10 old) and especially clarity (9 new clarity terms replace a few/expanded to 11 in the 1970s) it was only logical that valuation underwent refinement. Upstream traders could now sell three stones as D VVS2, E VS1 and F VS2, instead of selling all three under a single label like "White-Clean." Logically jewelers adopted the practice, for the same reasons... Trade members had always charged more for "white" than "tinted/crystal/top-cape" and of course "clean" costed more than "pique." But the cost basis upstream and the selling strategy downstream both changed: It became practical for sellers to move a reluctant buyer into F (budget-friendly white) and VVS1-2 (budget-friendly clean) which let them "compromise" on price while still getting white-clean. And there is no doubt that going from I to J, or from SI1 to SI2 sounds more clinically attractive than some of the old world terms.

As it relates to this thread, most people now consider "eye-clean" as anything VS2, VS1, VVS2, VVS1, IF or Flawless. That is over half of our clarity-grading scale (!) Logically, the diamond world prefers to move the eye-clean categories because they are stronger sales than SI or I. As a result, the USA market since the 1950s has always pushed cleaner clarities, compared to old-world markets which had no oddities like an "eye-clean SI1"... A diamond was (simplified) either pure, clean or pique: And if you didn't mind a small part of mother earth's handiwork in your stone there was a small discount, based on how close to clean the pique was. This discount was also negotiated between you and the jeweler, based completely on how you liked the diamond and on his expertise. It was not a negotiation based on a commoditized independent system where a VS1 costs more than an SI1, even if they have precisely the same naked-eye appearance.

Looking at the markets of Japan/Singapore, which emerged after the USA, it makes sense that diamond clarity was pushed even farther towards "IF" with buyers. The preference for extremely high clarity there is arguably cultural, but it's a chicken-egg prospect as to whether it's consumer-centric or was instilled by the jewelers who introduced diamonds there.

Interestingly, the newest markets (China-India) are not nearly so driven to demand high clarity. As a general observation they do prefer eye-clean and there are buyers who go-for VVS+ because those diamonds are part of the "collection" category, but the general consumer is also aware that VS is perfectly "safe" and eye-clean SI may exist. I suspect this is because they are pretty closely following the USA in terms of selling and buying practices - with the exception that Chinese consumers are far more "cut-aware" than their American counterparts.

I've always found clarity to be a compelling subject. As a gemologist I should (guiltily) disclose that my wife and I both have eye-clean diamonds in our wedding rings. But I do own diamonds with pique that I love. I'm also fortunate to be doing several re-cuts every week, and I love 'scoping the incoming diamonds, especially antique stones, for the interesting and compelling clarity "story" each one has to offer.

Cheers,

 

[marcy]

Very interesting, John. There is a jewelry store in our mall here that still sells their diamonds by A, AA or AAA.

I had to dig out my loop and look at my diamond. It is VS2 and has 2 crystals, one pinpoint and a feather from the bottom. I quickly realized it needed a zap by my jewel jet and yes I clean it everyday. So most of my inclusions came off with steam. Ha ha. Off to check a few more of my diamonds. I think my jewel jet is going to get a workout today.

 

[rosetta]

I have an SI2 I've found the inclusions now (couldn't find them the first few days) so I use then as a way to quickly check it's my stone when it comes back from the jeweller after a tune up! There's one I can see if I hold my ring at just the right angle. Day to day, the inclusions can't be seen at all. I would buy si2 again, but not sight unseen as I don't want any glaring black inclusions.

 

[dianabarbara]

Hi Biancofiore,

I think there's room in every collection for stones with different personalities and attributes.

Several traditions around the world hold that an engagement diamond/wedding jewellery should have as clean and as perfect diamonds as possible to reflect the perfection of the couple's love. And for an engagement stone, this reflects my preferences too - it's nice to have at least one really clean stone.

But for other projects stones with differnt personalities are great. I like things with personality - cookie cutter jewelley is boring. The present jewellery esthetic seems a bit sterile and manufactured, and a few well chosen inclusion can make a piece interesting. I feel that included stones have a bit more of a vintage or antique feel. Freckles and birthmarks make them intriguing and remind us that they are a natural and grown from the earth.

The Japanese have a specific asthetic style called "Wabi Sabi" - things that are beautiful in their uniqueness and imperfection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Can't wait to see your latest project.

HopeDream, I really love your approached. It sounds very balanced to me

Having a clean engagement ring stone was also my choice and I would not go back. I think that one of the reasons why I wanted it to be clean is that I intend to wear it everyday and then pass it to my kids to remain somehow close to them. Not everybody likes an included stone, and maybe I would also be annoyed by it in 20 years, who knows?

Thank you not only for your sweet words, but also for the link!! I did not know about wabi-sabi

I agree that modern jewelry sometimes can feel very cold and lack personality. Some pieces are really awesome though. I find a great balance in James Meyer, and I intend to do something along these lines with this stone.

So, since we are talking about it.. I just booked my train tickets to go see it tomorrow!!!!!! I am very nervous and very excited

ps- attached a picture of my e-ring, which some of you might have seen already

 

[dianabarbara]

I am enjoying this discussion and reading all the links. I think an inclusion makes a diamond or gem interesting. I had an EC that had a little needle in it that I could only see in sunlight. A friend of our used to study rocks and crystals under a microscope and had one that had a little inclusion that looked like a Christmas tree. I think seeing a piece of a garnet in diamond would be cool.

DH is actually very picky about inclusions. He thinks I would start obsessing and want to upgrade (I would do that without inclusions ) but I don't have very good vision so I doubt I would see most inclusions naked eye other than a black carbon spot. Now a poor cut; that is easy to see.

marcy, wow, a Christmas tree!! how romantic!!

lol, upgrade comes along anyways, doesn't it?

what is a jewel jet? I suspect I need one of those.. mmh..

 

[pandabee]

I am enjoying this discussion and reading all the links. I think an inclusion makes a diamond or gem interesting. I had an EC that had a little needle in it that I could only see in sunlight. A friend of our used to study rocks and crystals under a microscope and had one that had a little inclusion that looked like a Christmas tree. I think seeing a piece of a garnet in diamond would be cool.

DH is actually very picky about inclusions. He thinks I would start obsessing and want to upgrade (I would do that without inclusions ) but I don't have very good vision so I doubt I would see most inclusions naked eye other than a black carbon spot. Now a poor cut; that is easy to see.

marcy, wow, a Christmas tree!! how romantic!!

lol, upgrade comes along anyways, doesn't it?

what is a jewel jet? I suspect I need one of those.. mmh..

jewel jet is a steam cleaner...very popular around here and supposedly a go-to for home cleaning! they pop up on ebay pretty frequently!

 

[dianabarbara]

John, thank you for taking the time to share this piece of history with us. Very interesting info.

Now I recall we had a conversation on Antwerp a while ago. If you are based there or in proximity, I think we might need to meet

 

[Smith1942]

I'm a total heathen when it comes to clarity. As long as it's eyeclean with no huge black globs, I'm good. Most of my diamonds are Si eyeclean; it's a great way of saving money which can go into size or colour. I'm a schizo though, because I'm very lenient on clarity but I'm colour-intolerant. My absolutely fave colour is D. You can't beat its iciness. Therefore, my best combo is D/eyeclean Si2.

I haven't dabbled in I1s. I've never seen one. If I got one that was eyeclean, then mayyyyyybe....but I don't know. Blue Nile now has a range of jewellery that is I1 but I have to say, I don't feel the same about those items and don't have a desire to buy one. I think eyeclean SI2 is my lowest comfort level at this point.

Even if money were no object, I don't think I'd pay the premium for cleaner VS stones. It makes a huge difference to the price, and if an Si is eyeclean then I can't see a difference. With colour though, I can see a difference between say D and F. The F just isn't as ice-white, and the difference in colour grades really shows up in lower lighting, like a restaurant.

So for me, there is a visible difference when I pay extra to get an E or a D, but there isn't a visible difference if I pay for higher clarity. I agree with the experts that clarity is the least important C, barring glaring flaws.

Edit: The stone biancofiore posted is too included for me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks as if those inclusions would affect the light performance.

 

[kenny]

I love my AGS-graded E VVS1 ACA.

It has one single pinpoint near the girdle so I can identify it, but otherwise it's spotless.
This is the perfect clarity for me ... mind clean.
I don't mind that I could have bought a much larger stone for the same budget.
It wouldn't be mind clean to me.

That said I have some colored diamonds with low clarity.
I don't mind it in FCDs since the color takes priority and certain colors are very rare.
In rare colors I'm lucky to have found any specimen I could afford.

 

[dianabarbara]

rosetta, so fascinating that inclusions can be seen and then can't just like that! I am getting more and more interested in diamonds, by learning these things!

pandabee, thanks for the heads-up! My mum has one of these ultrasonic jewelry cleaners that seems to work really well, but steam cleaners sound even more effective!

smith, thank you for posting! I have some sort of admiration for people who can tell a difference between D and F. From the little I have seen, I am really not sure I'd be able to tell, unless sitting next to each other

I am really really curious to see today if performance is good enough. The inclusion that worries me most in this sense is the one right in the middle of the stone. I might be wrong, but I am thinking it could interfere with the light bouncing from one facet to the other.

 

[dianabarbara]

I love my AGS-graded E VVS1 ACA.

It has one single pinpoint near the girdle so I can identify it, but otherwise it's spotless.
This is the perfect clarity for me ... mind clean.
I don't mind that I could have bought a much larger stone for the same budget.
It wouldn't be mind clean to me.

That said I have some colored diamonds with low clarity.
I don't mind it in FCDs since the color takes priority and certain colors are very rare.
In rare colors I'm lucky to have found any specimen I could afford.

kenny, I have a question for you
Since FCD have body color because of vapors of other elements (as far as I understood, and please correct me if I am wrong), are they also often more included than clear stones? I am thinking about vapor + proximity of other elements might encourage the formation of other crystals and minerals

 

[WinkHPD]

John, thank you for taking the time to share this piece of history with us. Very interesting info.

Now I recall we had a conversation on Antwerp a while ago. If you are based there or in proximity, I think we might need to meet

John is based here in the States, but if you are in Europe you should contact Paul Slegers of Infinity Diamonds in Antwerp. He does not treat in the older cut stones that you are looking at now, but I am sure that he can introduce you to those who do.

More than that he is just a nice man and fun to know!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

<Snip>

Edit: The stone biancofiore posted is too included for me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks as if those inclusions would affect the light performance.

I am just guessing with no way to be sure, but those "inclusions" look to be in the plastic covering of the diamond, not in the actual diamond itself.

Wink

 

[dianabarbara]

Wink, thanks for your advice should I get this stone, I will get in touch with Paul!

Smith, I agree with Wink and think too that the white lines are likely just scratches in the box. The concern that I still have is with respect to the black inclusions in the bottom left. Most of the black inclusions I have seen in person were more or less roundish. These have a stripey shape that makes me wonder whether one bad day I could have the stone falling into pieces.

 

[dianabarbara]

I don't know whether this could be reliable/useful info, but the (local) lab paperwork states it is a 2+ carats, N color, and I1. I would conservatively assume that the color could be lower in terms of GIA standards. From some comparisons I have made the stone sounds more like a trannie than a classic OEC. Spread is great (average 8.75 mm per 5 mm depth).