Eye Clean and Clarity Grading.

[FB.]

There is much talk of eye cleanliness and clarity grading, mainly centred around SI2 stones.
There's also the recent article of eye clean definitions kindly provided by some of the people associated with Pricescope - > link is here if you haven't read it <

Would anyone be so bold as to make an approximation of the percentage of round diamonds around the key 0.5ct, 1ct and 2ct levels, of various clarity grades, with GIA-equivalent certification, that are eye clean at about 10-12 inches with 20/20 vision, when viewed from normal viewing angles in normal lighting conditions.

Such information - even if only approximate, or from "gut feeling" - would benefit many of the "eye-clean/lower clarity" hunters when weighing-up how likely their chances of being eye clean.

While I'm not a diamond expert - merely an enthusiast - I'll stick my neck out and give my best estimation from what I've seen and been told. I would be delighted to be corrected by more experienced experts and look forward to some constructive criticism.

0.5ct
FL-VS1: 99-100% eye clean.
VS2: 99% eye clean.
SI1: 90% eye clean.
SI2: 60% eye clean.

1.0ct
FL-VS1: 99-100% eye clean.
VS2: 95% eye clean.
SI1: 80% eye clean.
SI2: 40% eye clean.

2.0ct:
FL-VVS2: 99-100% eye clean.
VS1: 95% eye clean.
VS2: 90% eye clean.
SI1: 60% eye clean.
SI2: 20% eye clean.

.

For the record, I'm mainly a VS-clarity hunter - playing it safe for eye clean, while having sufficiently large and/or numerous inclusions to use a loupe to verify that the diamond is genuine.

 

[Allison D.]

FB, Paul Slegers mentioned in an earlier thread that the percentages you quoted in that thread seemed low, and the ones you're listing in this thread now are lower still.

Where are you sourcing this data?

 

[FB.]

From a combination of what I have seen and what I have been told by those wiser than me.
What I have seen is slightly better than the above numbers. What I have been told is slightly worse, but very variable. I have taken an in-between amount. All very approximate from "gut feeling", of course.

But if you have some more accurate information, please share. I'd love to be wrong, so long as it's for the benefit of the majority - and that's why I put up some numbers as a start point for a debate.

It seems that the only way to get facts on here is to make a bold statement to elicit the offended replies that contain the true facts and well-reasoned viewpoints.

 

[Rockdiamond]

FB- I totally understand the motivation behind your what you''re asking but the question itself is misleading to people shopping for diamonds.

To use an analogy: If you step off the curb onto Fifth Avenue without looking, a bus will hit you 57.56% of the time.
There''s only ONE aspect of this info that is valuable.
LOOK BEOFRE YOU CROSS ( or before you decide if a diamond is eye clean)

Allison- in terms of Paul''s numbers, it is very important to put them in context.
Say we took a broad cross section of all SI2 diamonds graded by GIA.
It''s likely Paul''s number''s are in line.
Say we took a look at the inventory of a dealer who purchased SI2 diamonds by looking at them.
IN such a case, we could have 90% eye clean SI2''s- or even higher.

 

[FB.]

Rockdiamond.

Some people buy stones based on proportions and photo''s/IS/ASET etc. They rely upon the vendor to confirm eye clean, which is rather subjective and may be slightly biased, since it gets them a sale.

By appreciating and estimating the risks of not being eye clean, you are better prepared when that unseen stone arrives (bought on proportions/images/word of mouth).

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI fb,
Please call me David

If you are one who wishes to "step off the curb without looking" than it's safest to assume ALL SI2's are NOT eye clean.

The process of how dealers buy, or do not buy- diamonds means that the non eye clean I1's do not get purchased by those dealers who actually purchase diamonds for stock.
The db lists are chock full of diamonds passed over by those who buy using visual cues ( looking at the actual stones). This skews the percentages to be even riskier for the buyer who's not getting images, or a first hand evaluation.

Buying an SI2 blind is just a bad idea IMO.

There are many people who have relied upon a vendor to assess the diamond- and provide photos and videos helping the client decide.

SI2's represent great value, but there are quite a few that are undesirable.

 

[denverappraiser]

Having a vendor look at a stone before shipping and assess whether or not it’s ‘eye clean’ is a sound strategy, even with the understanding that they have a conflict of interest in the answer. Guessing your odds from statistics is not. If you find the advice from the vendor is lacking, it’s time to find another vendor, not just another stone.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great point Neil.
In fact, it does bring up another aspect:
My recommendation is that shoppers research sellers as opposed to trying to calculate percentages of how many diamonds are eye clean. FB- I am not referring to your question- as I do understand why you are asking. No offense intended.
By doing research on sellers you''ll learn facts that are useful.
For example, if a seller is regularly evaluating SI2''s as eye clean that are not, such info will become apparent.

 

[oldminer]

Between SI2 and I1 are three or four legitimate levels of clarity that the GIA just didn''t make grades for. Prices reflect the existence of these extra levels of clarity, but the trade prefers the status quo which equates to confusion and the old smoke and mirrors. Those outside the inner circle, as nearly everyone is, rarely get the benefit of the game insiders play.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Dave- as usual we have interesting differences in our similar points of view.

I agree that there is certainly room for an "SI3" grade.
But the bottom line is that there will never be a "perfect" clarity grading system.
It might be that's why GIA does not change it.
No matter how it's broken down, there will still be need for interpretation stone by stone.
I don't believe that it's some nefarious "smoke and mirrors" plot by insiders to keep others in the dark

 

[oldminer]

It isn''t nefarious. It is just "business".

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/29/2009 1:48:19 PM
Author: FB.

Some people buy stones based on proportions and photo''s/IS/ASET etc. They rely upon the vendor to confirm eye clean, which is rather subjective and may be slightly biased, since it gets them a sale.

FB, I completely appreciate where you''re coming from IF you were only to concentrate on that one aspect.

However, as an internet vendor who lives and dies by transparency, I can tell you that there''s much more to it then "oh, it''s get us a sale today" to saying it''s eyeclean.

It doesn''t make sense for us (or any vendor) to focus on the tree (making the individual sale) when we all need the forest. As a vendor, it''s actually more in our interest NOT to be lenient in our assertions of eyeclean. If we represent a stone as eyeclean and it''s not, we''ve spent money on shipping charges and put a client''s faith in us at risk for nothing since the stone will surely be returned. Not only do we possibly damage the relationship with that single customer (tree), but we also risk having others lose faith in us in hearing of the experience here (forest).

I''ll assure you it''s not remotely worth it to claim a stone is eyeclean if we don''t truly feel it is. If a vendor were to develop a pattern for doing that, they wouldn''t last here very long.

Because most of the vendors here do have solid return policies, relying on the vendor''s assurance of eyeclean isn''t risky. If it''s not eyeclean to YOU, you return it.

That knowledge should make customers who want the value that comes with an SI2 stone feel confident that they can shop for one with a trusted vendor.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 10/29/2009 3:35:07 PM
Author: oldminer
It isn''t nefarious. It is just ''business''.

To me "smoke and mirrors" implies less than honest. Maybe you did not intend it that way.
Business does not have to involve deception.

Great post Allison!!

 

[FB.]

Date: 10/29/2009 3:18:44 PM
Author: oldminer
Between SI2 and I1 are three or four legitimate levels of clarity that the GIA just didn''t make grades for. Prices reflect the existence of these extra levels of clarity, but the trade prefers the status quo which equates to confusion and the old smoke and mirrors. Those outside the inner circle, as nearly everyone is, rarely get the benefit of the game insiders play.

That''s an interesting comment, but it fits with what I''ve seen. The clarity grade SI2 seems to have a lot more variability between stones.

Would you be able to summarise your views on the grades that could have been created between SI2 and I1 - and the kinds of cutoff points that might have been logical to use?

Thanks,

 

[FB.]

Date: 10/29/2009 3:35:44 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 10/29/2009 1:48:19 PM
Author: FB.

Some people buy stones based on proportions and photo''s/IS/ASET etc. They rely upon the vendor to confirm eye clean, which is rather subjective and may be slightly biased, since it gets them a sale.

FB, I completely appreciate where you''re coming from IF you were only to concentrate on that one aspect.

However, as an internet vendor who lives and dies by transparency, I can tell you that there''s much more to it then ''oh, it''s get us a sale today'' to saying it''s eyeclean.

It doesn''t make sense for us (or any vendor) to focus on the tree (making the individual sale) when we all need the forest. As a vendor, it''s actually more in our interest NOT to be lenient in our assertions of eyeclean. If we represent a stone as eyeclean and it''s not, we''ve spent money on shipping charges and put a client''s faith in us at risk for nothing since the stone will surely be returned. Not only do we possibly damage the relationship with that single customer (tree), but we also risk having others lose faith in us in hearing of the experience here (forest).

I''ll assure you it''s not remotely worth it to claim a stone is eyeclean if we don''t truly feel it is. If a vendor were to develop a pattern for doing that, they wouldn''t last here very long.

Because most of the vendors here do have solid return policies, relying on the vendor''s assurance of eyeclean isn''t risky. If it''s not eyeclean to YOU, you return it.

That knowledge should make customers who want the value that comes with an SI2 stone feel confident that they can shop for one with a trusted vendor.

As David said; a good post and one that will be encouraging to prospective customers.

But I thought that returned stones still cost the customer the shipping in both directions.

While the Pricescope vendors seem to be a very good group, it seems quite common for people to come on here (having often bought a stone from somewhere that''s less honest and overpriced) and grumble that they aren''t entriely happy with the stone they received. I''ve seen a fair few grumbles about semi-eye-clean that allegedly wasn''t - and even the experts don''t 100% agree on it''s definition according to their article responses.

The real problem is that many people only ever buy one diamond - an engagement ring - and that then doesn''t cause the retailer much issue of losing repeat business, nor are they likely to lose many customers since the unhappy customers won''t easily be able to pass on their information and might even be embarassed to point out their disappointing diamond.

 

[FB.]

Date: 10/29/2009 2:29:51 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI fb,
Please call me David

If you are one who wishes to ''step off the curb without looking'' than it''s safest to assume ALL SI2''s are NOT eye clean.

The process of how dealers buy, or do not buy- diamonds means that the non eye clean I1''s do not get purchased by those dealers who actually purchase diamonds for stock.
The db lists are chock full of diamonds passed over by those who buy using visual cues ( looking at the actual stones). This skews the percentages to be even riskier for the buyer who''s not getting images, or a first hand evaluation.

Buying an SI2 blind is just a bad idea IMO.

There are many people who have relied upon a vendor to assess the diamond- and provide photos and videos helping the client decide.

SI2''s represent great value, but there are quite a few that are undesirable.

OK, David it is!

Good point about the less-than-eye-clean SI2''s being the one''s listed on virtual inventories and the better SI2''s being specailly selected and bought buy jewellers for their "in house" stock.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/29/2009 4:20:26 PM
Author: FB.

As David said; a good post and one that will be encouraging to prospective customers.

But I thought that returned stones still cost the customer the shipping in both directions.

While the Pricescope vendors seem to be a very good group, it seems quite common for people to come on here (having often bought a stone from somewhere that''s less honest and overpriced) and grumble that they aren''t entriely happy with the stone they received. I''ve seen a fair few grumbles about semi-eye-clean that allegedly wasn''t - and even the experts don''t 100% agree on it''s definition according to their article responses.

The real problem is that many people only ever buy one diamond - an engagement ring - and that then doesn''t cause the retailer much issue of losing repeat business, nor are they likely to lose many customers since the unhappy customers won''t easily be able to pass on their information and might even be embarassed to point out their disappointing diamond.

FB, I suspect what you''re referring to is shipping on virtual stones. If we bring in a stone that we recommend and you don''t purchase, shipping charges in both directions apply. That''s often not the case for inhouse stones that are turned because a buyer doesn''t agree with our assertion of eyeclean.

As far as lack of agreement among vendors on what constitutes eyeclean, that''s really a non-issue. The only definition that matters to a customer is his chosen vendor''s definition. That''s why we publish our definition of eyeclean on our website: No inclusions visible face-up at a distance of 8-10 inches in natural lighting to a person with 20/20 vision. In doing this, clients know exactly what we mean when we say it''s eyeclean, and they can then tell us from there if they have further requirements (i.e. can''t see any inclusions when viewed from the side, etc.). As with all good relationships, the best communication produces the best results.

Regarding your assertion that an unhappy customer doesn''t cost a vendor business, I have two things to point out. You''d be surprised at how many clients *are* repeat customers; increasing, diamonds aren''t just engagement-only propositions. We have tons of repeat customers, so we do care about the relationships.

However, even for those one-time-only clients, believe me when I tell you that they aren''t shy to share their experiences through word of mouth with their friends and relatives. If they feel they were treated well by a vendor, they certainly do spread the word. If we don''t treat them well, we lose that referral business even if they never disclose why they weren''t happy. However, believe me when I tell you that most people have no reservations about vocalizing their disappointment wiht a vendor, and that costs even more business. Positive word of mouth is the most valuable thing ANY company can have, and only a foolish vendor wouldn''t try to preserve a well-earned reputation.