Effect of inclusions on brilliance and fire

[computertechgirl]

With the help of your archives I finally purchased a diamond (online) last week. The only reservation I have about this stone is the fact that there are a bunch of tiny inclusions dispersed over a large area (about half) of the stone. Even though it's a VS1 I wonder if all the little inclusions will add up to less brilliance and/or fire?

Here's the spec's on the stone:
Carat Weight: .688cts
Clarity: VS1
Color: G
Flourescence: Negligible
Cut Grade: Polish, Symmetry, and Proportions all "Ideal"
Measurements: 5.65 - 5.68 x 3.53
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 53%
Crown Angle: 34.6
Pavillion: 40.8
HCA: 1.5 (Light Return, Fire, and Scintillation all "Excellent", Spread "Very Good")

Below is a pic of the diamond at 50X so you can see the inclusions (they all seem to be on a plane so you can see all of them in the picture).

Here's what is looks like outside of the microscope (a little blurry, sorry):

Thanks for all your help!
-Erica

 

[chrono]

These dots sure look numerous but please realize that this is at 50x magification. You really will not be able to see them with the naked eye. Have you seen it in person? With these being so miniscule, I doubt that it will have any effect or very little effect on the diamond's light return and brilliance & fire. Relax.

The crown and pav angles are my personal favourites. This diamond should be a screamer; what a beautiful purchase.

 

[computertechgirl]

Yes, I have the diamond right now. I snapped it up because of the crown and pavillion angles and the smaller table. From what I''ve read that means more fire, and that''s what I prefer. It looked good, so I jumped on it. I''m just making sure this is "the one" before sending it off to be set (soon I hope).

Thanks for the reply!

 

[bling]

50x! you wont see that ever with your naked eye, unless your superman, and personally, and i am just a humble consumer, they dont look anywhere large or dense enough to interfere with light performance at all. looks really pretty from the pics..

 

[EZ-Monet]

Greetings computertechgirl,

First, great 50X pic!

Here’s a little nonsensical technical analysis.

Rule of thumb: If the sum of dispersed MINOR (in this case) inclusions is less than approximately 10% of the field of view, they essentially won’t matter.

Therefore, if we set the entire stone as the field of view, obviously the sum of all the inclusions do not total 10% or greater.

If we consider half of the stone as the field of view, the sum of the inclusions IN THAT FIELD OF VIEW are still nowhere near 10%.

Taking this argument to an unreasonable limit in THIS stone’s case, it appears that the only way to get equal to or greater than 10% blockage is to make the field of view EQUAL TO any particular inclusion.

Considering all that we know, you have chosen well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you read one of the last pages of the GIA Foundation review (get there thru the pinned topic at top of forum page) you will see GIA''s opinion.

You need never worry about VS1

 

[oldminer]

On this stone I see no need to have any concern about light being lost to inclusions that you would miss with your eyes, at least. Of course, some light is lost behind these tiny marks, but probably nowhere near enough to make a material difference.

I wonder how the people who intend to calculate light performance will handle the loss of brilliancy in more imperfect or somewhat cloudy diamonds. Is there a consistent, and accepted methodology for adjusting ray or beam tracing to fit these occurences. My gut tells me there isn''t any way to adjust automatically, but maybe somneone in-the-know will fill us in.

Thanks.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think the agreed philosophy Dave is that inclusions - particulary I1-I3 - are already marked down in price for this purpose.

Polish already takes a hit too.
The approach from OctoNus means Symmetry is already accounted for. In the case of very large stones we will see the evolution of a revolution. Maybe one day 8* will recut their 13ct diamond with what is considered today to be por symmetry.

 

[Lynn B]

Just a humble consumer here... but I think the stone is GORGEOUS! And I have really come to LOOOOVE

smaller tables, too. I think you "done real good"!

Lynn