Effect of a "natural" on a clarity grade.

[diagem]

I have noticed that GIA will not grade a Diamond higher than a VS1 if the Diamond possesses a ''natural'' while the rest is clean...
Does anybody have any experience with these type of clarity issues at the GIA?
Is it possible to get a SI grade on a clean Diamond with a "natural"?

Any comments will help,

Thanks,

 

[JohnQuixote]

What’s the position and size DG? A natural is considered a blemish rather than an inclusion and GIA says a clean diamond can even be graded FL if the natural is entirely confined to the width of the girdle; “so long as it doesn’t thicken the girdle or distort its outline.”Of course theory and reality don't always shake hands... Bob Hoskins will be in later and I’ll ask but it’s been a long time since he worked at the lab.Someone else may have a better answer.

 

[oldminer]

A natural totally enclosed by the girdle can grade as high as IF. A natural which breaks the girdle outline does have more effect on clarity. I have not seen a natural set the clarity grade on a diamond as long back as I can remember. VS1 for "any" natural seems over the top, but it wouldn't be the first thing I was incorrect about.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 9:21:31 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

What’s the position and size DG? A natural is considered a blemish rather than an inclusion and GIA says a clean diamond can even be graded FL if the natural is entirely confined to the width of the girdle; “so long as it doesn’t thicken the girdle or distort its outline.”Of course theory and reality don''t always shake hands... Bob Hoskins will be in later and I’ll ask but it’s been a long time since he worked at the lab.Someone else may have a better answer.

A natural on the lower-girdle (pavilion) side of a (rather) large Diamond.
I am trying to up-load an image,

Thanks for helping,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/23/2007 9:37:34 AM
Author: oldminer
A natural totally enclosed by the girdle can grade as high as IF. A natural which breaks the girdle outline does have more effect on clarity. I have not seen a natural set the clarity grade on a diamond as long back as I can remember. VS1 for ''any'' natural seems over the top, but it wouldn''t be the first thing I was incorrect about.

I''ve never seen a live example but GIA says it can even get FL Dave (as can extra facets on the pavilion which are invisible face up). I raised my hand in the lab class to verify that because it was unexpected.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/23/2007 9:42:14 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/23/2007 9:21:31 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

What’s the position and size DG? A natural is considered a blemish rather than an inclusion and GIA says a clean diamond can even be graded FL if the natural is entirely confined to the width of the girdle; “so long as it doesn’t thicken the girdle or distort its outline.”Of course theory and reality don''t always shake hands... Bob Hoskins will be in later and I’ll ask but it’s been a long time since he worked at the lab.Someone else may have a better answer.

A natural on the lower-girdle (pavilion) side of a (rather) large Diamond.
I am trying to up-load an image,

Thanks for helping,

No problem DG. In your case it sounds like size/visibility face-up will influence the call. I can show it to Bob and get input based on his experience. It won''t be decisive of course but a photo will help.

 

[diagem]

This is an image of a (large) Diamond...
It has no GIA report (yet...)

The Diamond is VVS plus in my opinion without taking the "natural" into account...
Any ideas welcome..

Thanks,

BTW..., cant be seen from face-up view!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Ah.I see it’s an indented natural.That would be considered an inclusion since it dips below the polished diamond’s surface (non-indented naturals are blemishes).

I had Bob look at the photo without telling him anything about it first.He said to the left of the natural there seem to be drag lines and centered above the natural looks to be a feather, which would set the grade.I told him to assume the diamond was clean except for the natural.He said it’s not confined to the girdle and does appear to affect the shape of the stone.Depending on size relative to the stone under 10X he thinks the highest it could get is VS1.If it cannot be seen face-up he doubts it would be SI but the only way to know is to actually send it (as we know).

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 10:16:44 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Ah.I see it’s an indented natural.That would be considered an inclusion since it dips below the polished diamond’s surface (non-indented naturals are blemishes).

John, Its not an indented natural..., it doesnt ''dip'' below the surface...

I had Bob look at the photo without telling him anything about it first.He said to the left of the natural there seem to be drag lines and centered above the natural looks to be a feather, which would set the grade.I told him to assume the diamond was clean except for the natural.He said it’s not confined to the girdle and does appear to affect the shape of the stone.Depending on size relative to the stone under 10X he thinks the highest it could get is VS1.If it cannot be seen face-up he doubts it would be SI but the only way to know is to actually send it (as we know).

Looking at the stone face-up..., it does not break the outline of the shape what-so-ever...
Its an old cut..., and there is no inclusions hiding underneath the natural skin...

If Bob thinks the highest grade it could get is a VS1 (what is his down-side opinion of the grade?)

Many thanks,

 

[strmrdr]

Thats one huge natural Id be ticked if I were too buy it and GIA graded it even vs much less anything higher.

 

[oldminer]

That sort of natural, on its own, might well set a clarity grade.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/23/2007 10:24:12 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/23/2007 10:16:44 AM
Author: JohnQuixote



Ah.I see it’s an indented natural.That would be considered an inclusion since it dips below the polished diamond’s surface (non-indented naturals are blemishes).

John, Its not an indented natural..., it doesnt 'dip' below the surface...

I had Bob look at the photo without telling him anything about it first.He said to the left of the natural there seem to be drag lines and centered above the natural looks to be a feather, which would set the grade.I told him to assume the diamond was clean except for the natural.He said it’s not confined to the girdle and does appear to affect the shape of the stone.Depending on size relative to the stone under 10X he thinks the highest it could get is VS1.If it cannot be seen face-up he doubts it would be SI but the only way to know is to actually send it (as we know).

Looking at the stone face-up..., it does not break the outline of the shape what-so-ever...
Its an old cut..., and there is no inclusions hiding underneath the natural skin...

If Bob thinks the highest grade it could get is a VS1 (what is his down-side opinion of the grade?)

Many thanks,

Playing to both sides here...

DG, Bob predicts it would be a VS grade using their historical approach. If it doesn't break the outline of the stone and there are no other characteristics it won't be SI. He said if you can make a better photo (zoomed out, then another zoomed in this much) and a face-up photo you could send them to GIA for an estimate. I can email you contact info if you like.

Strm, to my knowledge DG does not sell sight-unseen, so the document will be secondary to his clientele who can see it in-person and decide for themselves. Also, not to fuel your fire, but you know we've harrumph'd about pavilion-side naturals and extra facets that go unaccounted-for for some time now.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 12:22:05 PM
Author: oldminer
That sort of natural, on its own, might well set a clarity grade.

You are probably right on the setting a clarity grade...
BUT..., which grader will have the ''guts'' to call a ''clean'' Diamond of significant weight with only a (not indented) natural hidding well inderneath the girdle, impossible to view from the face-up position an SI or lower?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/23/2007 12:36:52 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Strm, to my knowledge DG does not sell sight-unseen, so the document will be secondary to his clientele who can see it in-person and decide for themselves. Also, not to fuel your fire, but you know we''ve harrumph''d about pavilion-side naturals and extra facets that go unaccounted-for for some time now.

Taking into account it is DG saying its rather large im thinking 10ct+ that makes the natural the size of a bus.
Now if you said rather large id be thinking 3ct and a porsche.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 12:36:52 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Playing to both sides here...

DG, Bob predicts it would be a VS grade using their historical approach. If it doesn''t break the outline of the stone and there are no other characteristics it won''t be SI. He said if you can make a better photo (zoomed out, then another zoomed in this much) and a face-up photo you could send them to GIA for an estimate. I can email you contact info if you like.

Strm, to my knowledge DG does not sell sight-unseen, so the document will be secondary to his clientele who can see it in-person and decide for themselves. Also, not to fuel your fire, but you know we''ve harrumph''d about pavilion-side naturals and extra facets that go unaccounted-for for some time now.

Thank you JohnQ...
My thoughts are exactly Bob''s...
I would prefer not to involve The GIA with an image prior to grading, but thank you for your offer.
Its an Antique Fancy Cut in which I allways have the option to re-cut for the purpose of eliminating the natural...
But on the other hand..., I am generally against re-cutting Antique cuts..., it takes away from their charm... (my opinion!)

If I decide to submit the Diamond for grading..., I will inform you all on the "verdict"....

If any other experts out there have some educated guesses in this mater..., please let me know.
I am happy to hear.




Thanks again,

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 7/23/2007 12:54:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
Taking into account it is DG saying its rather large im thinking 10ct+ that makes the natural the size of a bus.

Now if you said rather large id be thinking 3ct and a porsche.

I've seen bigger ones, proportionally speaking.

I once saw a diamond with four naturals like that one. The stone was polished from a small octahedron, and the cutter had done everything he could to keep it above 0.25 ct. Amazingly, the naturals were not visible face-up without magnification and not obvious even then.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/23/2007 1:47:35 PM
Author: DiaGem

Thank you JohnQ...
My thoughts are exactly Bob's...
I would prefer not to involve The GIA with an image prior to grading, but thank you for your offer.
Its an Antique Fancy Cut in which I allways have the option to re-cut for the purpose of eliminating the natural...
But on the other hand..., I am generally against re-cutting Antique cuts..., it takes away from their charm... (my opinion!)

If I decide to submit the Diamond for grading..., I will inform you all on the 'verdict'....

If any other experts out there have some educated guesses in this mater..., please let me know.
I am happy to hear.

Thanks again,

You're welcome DG. I'm interested in how it turns out. And in the interest of avoiding scandalous rumors, the contact is a coursework instructor - not anyone involved in grading.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 2:02:15 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/23/2007 1:47:35 PM
Author: DiaGem

Thank you JohnQ...
My thoughts are exactly Bob''s...
I would prefer not to involve The GIA with an image prior to grading, but thank you for your offer.
Its an Antique Fancy Cut in which I allways have the option to re-cut for the purpose of eliminating the natural...
But on the other hand..., I am generally against re-cutting Antique cuts..., it takes away from their charm... (my opinion!)

If I decide to submit the Diamond for grading..., I will inform you all on the ''verdict''....

If any other experts out there have some educated guesses in this mater..., please let me know.
I am happy to hear.

Thanks again,

You''re welcome DG. I''m interested in how it turns out. And in the interest of avoiding scandalous rumors, the contact is a coursework instructor - not anyone involved in grading.

Good point JohnQ..., we dont want to be called to any investigation now..., do we!!! hehehe@?!

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 2:01:25 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 7/23/2007 12:54:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
Taking into account it is DG saying its rather large im thinking 10ct+ that makes the natural the size of a bus.

Now if you said rather large id be thinking 3ct and a porsche.

I''ve seen bigger ones, proportionally speaking.

I once saw a diamond with four naturals like that one. The stone was polished from a small octahedron, and the cutter had done everything he could to keep it above 0.25 ct. Amazingly, the naturals were not visible face-up without magnification and not obvious even then.

What would you have graded it CaptA??? If the Diamond you saw was free of inclusions?

Thanks,

 

[elmo]

That girdle is faceted isn''t it? Is it old? I somehow thought old stones more typically had bruted girdles.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/23/2007 2:01:25 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 7/23/2007 12:54:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
Taking into account it is DG saying its rather large im thinking 10ct+ that makes the natural the size of a bus.

Now if you said rather large id be thinking 3ct and a porsche.

I''ve seen bigger ones, proportionally speaking.

I once saw a diamond with four naturals like that one. The stone was polished from a small octahedron, and the cutter had done everything he could to keep it above 0.25 ct. Amazingly, the naturals were not visible face-up without magnification and not obvious even then.

ewww yuck

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 2:48:51 PM
Author: elmo
That girdle is faceted isn''t it? Is it old? I somehow thought old stones more typically had bruted girdles.

Good catch elmo...
That is the dilema i have...
The girdle of this stone has been ''cleaned'' allready by someone..., and that someone has done a terrible job...
That is one of the few reasons i am trying not to recut anything on it anymore...

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 7/23/2007 2:12:02 PM
Author: DiaGem
What would you have graded it CaptA??? If the Diamond you saw was free of inclusions?

Well, this was years ago, when I was still in my gemological infancy, so take this with a grain of salt. But this diamond still bugs me, which is why I remember it.

As I recall, there was a dispute similar to this thread, i.e., whether it deserved to be VS or SI. I felt a VS grade was warranted because I did not think the naturals were indented, and there were no other inclusions of note (the naturals were going to set the grade). My more experienced colleague insisted that the naturals were indented and that it was an SI stone. But he did concede that, were they not indented, it would have been VS.

strm, there's no question the diamond evoked an "eww" from the side or bottom, but face up, it was actually attractive. In fact, I recall being shocked upon turning it over with the tweezers and realizing what the pavilion was like. There's no question the cutter had done his job in producing a profitable stone while still retaining a maximum of weight.

A stone like this is as much an accomplishment as the superest of super ideals. It was likely put in a bezel setting, and the ultimate owner probably never had any idea what s/he had. If it's a pretty stone face-up and the "flaws" aren't visible, does it really matter?

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/23/2007 3:41:29 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 7/23/2007 2:12:02 PM
Author: DiaGem
What would you have graded it CaptA??? If the Diamond you saw was free of inclusions?

Well, this was years ago, when I was still in my gemological infancy, so take this with a grain of salt. But this diamond still bugs me, which is why I remember it.

As I recall, there was a dispute similar to this thread, i.e., whether it deserved to be VS or SI. I felt a VS grade was warranted because I did not think the naturals were indented, and there were no other inclusions of note (the naturals were going to set the grade). My more experienced colleague insisted that the naturals were indented and that it was an SI stone. But he did concede that, were they not indented, it would have been VS.

strm, there's no question the diamond evoked an 'eww' from the side or bottom, but face up, it was actually attractive. In fact, I recall being shocked upon turning it over with the tweezers and realizing what the pavilion was like. There's no question the cutter had done his job in producing a profitable stone while still retaining a maximum of weight.

A stone like this is as much an accomplishment as the superest of super ideals. It was likely put in a bezel setting, and the ultimate owner probably never had any idea what s/he had. If it's a pretty stone face-up and the 'flaws' aren't visible, does it really matter?

Great story...

Can I just add my 2 cents...,

Sometimes more of an Art-sy accomplishment..., (edited: "but who is going to agree with us on that one....")

I notice a start of a consensus in regards to the indented natural vs. out-dented naturals that dont break-in the facet surface...

 

[diagem]

This is a part of the Diamond in subject...
It is the tip (of the Diamond) where the natural hides under...

No sign of the natural!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

My guess would be VS1 at best, VS2 at worst.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think we need an inventive story competition to find some way this feature ''got onto the diamond'' by striking Napoleon''s head etc

Interesting challenge DG

I would want it to be downgraded by symmetry also for the girdle variance, and it is kinda unfair to hit it all over the place?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/24/2007 12:36:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think we need an inventive story competition to find some way this feature ''got onto the diamond'' by striking Napoleon''s head etc

Interesting challenge DG

I would want it to be downgraded by symmetry also for the girdle variance, and it is kinda unfair to hit it all over the place?

naw its not unfair should take a kit in polish too.

You comment makes me wonder however combined with the likelihood that the girdle has been recut since it was originally cut that this isn''t a natural but the left overs of a break or large crack that someone tried to fix...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/24/2007 12:52:57 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/24/2007 12:36:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think we need an inventive story competition to find some way this feature ''got onto the diamond'' by striking Napoleon''s head etc

Interesting challenge DG

I would want it to be downgraded by symmetry also for the girdle variance, and it is kinda unfair to hit it all over the place?

naw its not unfair should take a kit in polish too.

You comment makes me wonder however combined with the likelihood that the girdle has been recut since it was originally cut that this isn''t a natural but the left overs of a break or large crack that someone tried to fix...

You can usually identify the step cleavages and they do not look like those in the photo - they look more like disolution features which require imense heat and pressure and appropriate hot gases or liquids to disolve the original crystal.

If there is no "inclusion" component then there should be no clarity downgrade.
A comment can state the nature of the ''feature'', and a downgrade for thin to thick symmetry depending on each labs rules. There is no polish feature to describe if a natural is noted (as would clearly be the case.)

But this is interesting because each lab could and probably would handle such a stone according to different rules.

Once all buyers are fiarly informed they should then decide for themselves the value of the stone.

In my case if we could proove that Marie A hit Bonnie on the temple and he was harder than a diamond, then it is worth millions

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/24/2007 1:24:00 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/24/2007 12:52:57 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/24/2007 12:36:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think we need an inventive story competition to find some way this feature ''got onto the diamond'' by striking Napoleon''s head etc

Interesting challenge DG

I would want it to be downgraded by symmetry also for the girdle variance, and it is kinda unfair to hit it all over the place?

naw its not unfair should take a kit in polish too.

You comment makes me wonder however combined with the likelihood that the girdle has been recut since it was originally cut that this isn''t a natural but the left overs of a break or large crack that someone tried to fix...

You can usually identify the step cleavages and they do not look like those in the photo - they look more like disolution features which require imense heat and pressure and appropriate hot gases or liquids to disolve the original crystal.

If there is no ''inclusion'' component then there should be no clarity downgrade.
A comment can state the nature of the ''feature'', and a downgrade for thin to thick symmetry depending on each labs rules. There is no polish feature to describe if a natural is noted (as would clearly be the case.)

I understand from you that (in your opinion) a natural of this sorth should not get a clarity downgrade..., why would you mention
"if there is no ''inclusion'' component"? Would it change your opinion if let say it had a "VS1" type of IN-clusion?

But this is interesting because each lab could and probably would handle such a stone according to different rules.

Once all buyers are fiarly informed they should then decide for themselves the value of the stone.

In my case if we could proove that Marie A hit Bonnie on the temple and he was harder than a diamond, then it is worth millions