Eye clean SI2?!

[gr8leo87]

About magnification: while that's true that 10x is standard to decide what's visible and what's not to decide clarity grade - I'm not sure if the same is true to decide the nature of inclusion?

You may require higher magnification to tell bruise apart from nick, slim line of cloud apart from what may appear as twinning wisp, etc.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[MollyMalone]

* * *
GIA doesn't recognize (inferred) 'internal' feathers. But I know what you [Molly] mean. And as experts had pointed out in the past those would be plotted as crystals.

That makes some sense if the feather is associated with a plotted crystal -- although I wish the GIA lab had not discontinued the particularized symbol once used for that situation (circle with squiggle line through it). And where feathers are found in a twinning wisp, I can see why those are subsumed into the "twinning wisp" descriptor. But an internal feather is not inevitably affiliated with a plotted crystal or twinning wisp.

* * * I can reach out to our contacts there tomorrow.

Looking forward to hearing what those at GIA say, thank you!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Complicated, and interesting answer.
One of our contacts at GIA confirmed that a feather must reach the surface.
The skeptic in me will be doing my own study of stones to see if I can find one that does not- my memory is that I've seen them, but now I have to confirm it.

We also discussed what the same type of imperfection would be called of it did not break the surface- his answer was crystal.
If a crystal does break the surface, and the break is 50% or less the size of the imperfection, he'd note it a Crystal, Feather.
If the break was greater than 50% he'd note it simply as a Crystal.

All very interesting stuff. The reason I don't generally pay much attention to the plot is that I view it as academic.
When you look at a diamond, and compare it to the GIA plot it's painfully obvious how useless the plot is if one is considering a diamond for purchase.
Stones with horrible looking plots can be amazing in real life. Conversely stones that have innocuous looking plots can be horrendous.

 

[gr8leo87]

Complicated, and interesting answer.
One of our contacts at GIA confirmed that a feather must reach the surface.
The skeptic in me will be doing my own study of stones to see if I can find one that does not- my memory is that I've seen them, but now I have to confirm it.

We also discussed what the same type of imperfection would be called of it did not break the surface- his answer was crystal.
If a crystal does break the surface, and the break is 50% or less the size of the imperfection, he'd note it a Crystal, Feather.
If the break was greater than 50% he'd note it simply as a Crystal.

All very interesting stuff. The reason I don't generally pay much attention to the plot is that I view it as academic.
When you look at a diamond, and compare it to the GIA plot it's painfully obvious how useless the plot is if one is considering a diamond for purchase.
Stones with horrible looking plots can be amazing in real life. Conversely stones that have innocuous looking plots can be horrendous.

Thanks for that david.

Now we can bury the practice of asking consumers to make sure their feather didn't reach surface.

I agree with you on the plot. I have seen innocent looking plots with actually very evil looking inclusions.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[gr8leo87]

Complicated, and interesting answer.
One of our contacts at GIA confirmed that a feather must reach the surface.
The skeptic in me will be doing my own study of stones to see if I can find one that does not- my memory is that I've seen them, but now I have to confirm it.

We also discussed what the same type of imperfection would be called of it did not break the surface- his answer was crystal.
If a crystal does break the surface, and the break is 50% or less the size of the imperfection, he'd note it a Crystal, Feather.
If the break was greater than 50% he'd note it simply as a Crystal.

All very interesting stuff. The reason I don't generally pay much attention to the plot is that I view it as academic.
When you look at a diamond, and compare it to the GIA plot it's painfully obvious how useless the plot is if one is considering a diamond for purchase.
Stones with horrible looking plots can be amazing in real life. Conversely stones that have innocuous looking plots can be horrendous.

And I think you mean if the break was greater than 50% it would be noted as just feather?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk