"Eye-Clean" the problem descriptor

[oldminer]

Believe it or not, I had a yound woman in my office yesterday who could see two tiny black specs in the table of her Tiffany & Co round brilliant F VS2 diamond. On the Tiffany & Co report they have a phrase that says: Eye visble inclusions______ and in the blank they filled in "NONE". What a huge problem this can create.

I couldn''t see these tiny marks with the naked eye. Tiffany''s gemologist can''t see them, either. Of course, one can see them with 10x, but for nearly anyone, these are not eye-visible. However, this woman removed her rather thick glasses and clearly was able to find the black specks holding the diamond about 4 inches from one of her eyes. I have never seen anyone do such a thing in a lab, but she thought her examination was a fair and normal one. How are you going to tell a consumer that eye clean doesn''t mean "absolutely" eye clean? Its crazy.

What can I tell her? I believe she can see these marks. The manager at the local Tiffany''s has made her rather upset by implying she was faking it. It wasn''t "diplomatic" to make that sort of approach. I encouraged her to let them make an exchange for another diamond which she would find acceptable. I think this is what she will do. There is a language barrier as this girl is a new immigrant from China and her English is limited. I also think the store manager does not relate well to the cultural need for "quality" in the Asian mindset versus the American "large size" mindset we have here.

Anyway, its a good story of a problematic term and some other related stuff........

I think, "Mind clean" is a safer phrase.

 

[denverappraiser]

That’s the reason ‘eye clean’ isn’t included as part of the standard clarity grading scale. The same problem holds for ‘face up white’.

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

 

[Giangi]

Very interesting topic.
Moreover, I was under the impression that "no-black-inclusions-whatsoever" was part of Tiffany''s quality policy.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:16:16 PM
Author:oldminer
Believe it or not, I had a yound woman in my office yesterday who could see two tiny black specs in the table of her Tiffany & Co round brilliant F VS2 diamond. On the Tiffany & Co report they have a phrase that says: Eye visble inclusions______ and in the blank they filled in ''NONE''. What a huge problem this can create.

I couldn''t see these tiny marks with the naked eye. Tiffany''s gemologist can''t see them, either. Of course, one can see them with 10x, but for nearly anyone, these are not eye-visible. However, this woman removed her rather thick glasses and clearly was able to find the black specks holding the diamond about 4 inches from one of her eyes. I have never seen anyone do such a thing in a lab, but she thought her examination was a fair and normal one. How are you going to tell a consumer that eye clean doesn''t mean ''absolutely'' eye clean? Its crazy.

What can I tell her? I believe she can see these marks. The manager at the local Tiffany''s has made her rather upset by implying she was faking it. It wasn''t ''diplomatic'' to make that sort of approach. I encouraged her to let them make an exchange for another diamond which she would find acceptable. I think this is what she will do. There is a language barrier as this girl is a new immigrant from China and her English is limited. I also think the store manager does not relate well to the cultural need for ''quality'' in the Asian mindset versus the American ''large size'' mindset we have here.

Anyway, its a good story of a problematic term and some other related stuff........

I think, ''Mind clean'' is a safer phrase.

Wow, amazing story...

I hope someone from Tiffany is a PS''er.
And i would strongly suggest for Tiffany to get on it, and make sure that "manager" gets some PR training...

I am actually surprised that Tiffany took that risk and legitimate the term "eye clean"!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Dave, some people - often nearsighted - do have 'radar vision.' Doing practically all commerce via the internet we've found it absolutely necessary to establish a working baseline for what 'eye-clean' indicates. It's not an official definition, but it serves to put us in the same ballpark of understanding. Even this is not infallible, but it helps.

It may help to remind this lady that color, clarity and even performance perception vary among people, and are influenced by distance, lighting, even what you're wearing at the time... All this before even accounting for age or natural level of eyesight. However, the bottom line is that SHE is the customer. If she can see this and it bothers her - regardless of their in-store judgment - I'd hope they would respond appropriately.

> For the record, this is the working baseline we've established over years of communicating thousands of diamond descriptions over the phone and via email.


What is Eye-Clean?

With internet purchases, the most common clarity question: 'Is it eye clean?' There are no industry definitions, so each person or institution must set his/her own and communicate the definition accordingly. Our definition of eye-clean is:

'No inclusions visible face-up at a distance of 8-10 inches in natural lighting to a person with 20/20 vision.'

Why?

We believe lighting, vision and distance are critical elements when arriving at a working definition. AGS chose their close observation point or "distance of most distinct vision" at 25cm (9.8 inches). It is the near point of accommodation - the distance at which focus is attained without strain - for a majority of humans. In very young people and in those with nearsightedness this distance is less. This near point recedes with age, possibly causing farsighted condition. Therefore, 8-10 inches is a logical and reasonable distance of judgment for our purposes. However you define it though, a working understanding and communication between buyers, sellers and appraisers is critical.

Interpretations Vary by Distance, Study & Eyesight

There are dissembling interpretations of eye-clean. Scrutiny after studying an inclusions plot, or prolonged close study can be revealing (even with VS), but these are not normal viewing conditions. For that matter, someone who is nearsighted or has 'radar vision' may see more than others. That's okay.

Unless you carry a grading report with you or stand holding your diamond a few inches from peoples' eyes the normal viewing distance is a few feet, perhaps closer when you show it to someone on request. Diamonds other than earrings are rarely closer than 25cm from viewers' eyes, and for an earring to be that close it needs to be someone adjacent to the viewer (like the stranger next to you on the elevator).

Internet Shopping and Clarity

When Internet shopping, you will likely be looking at high quality magnified photos. Remember that no one ever sees a diamond at 40x magnification when they walk into a jewelry store, unless they are permitted to see that diamond under a microscope. A large computer monitor makes that 40x photo even more revealing. If you’re going photo-happy (have viewed so many you may be losing perspective) try this: Take a mm ruler and place it on your screen. Measure the picture on the monitor and then consider the actual size of your diamond, from the documentation. This will give an idea of the virtual compared to the reality.

The SI Decision

When searching for the 'eye-clean SI deal,' know that every SI diamond varies, as do 'eye-clean' definitions. Ultimately the shopper's interpretation is the one that matters. When purchasing without having seen the diamond, know both your interp and the seller's interp. It also helps to keep the grade in perspective. Bargains may be found, but remember that ultimately there's a reason it was graded SI and not VS. Someone who wants the diamond to pass every distance, eyesight and study test offered should probably focus on VS goods or better to be certain it meets his own 'eye-clean' interpretation. That grade is certainly more 'mind-clean.'

Taste

Just as taste runs differently with peoples' color perceptions (some like the crisp, cold look of a D, while others prefer more warmth) there is clarity perception defined by individual taste. While many people seek eye-clean, others will shoot above and below that line of judgment, and should not be criticized for having a different flavour in mind:

Some individuals place high personal value on a flawless diamond and will not consider anything else due to religious or personal beliefs. Others find that the security and pedigree of VVS/VS suits them, and are not comfortable considering SI goods. No one except the purchaser can determine what he or she needs. The clean SI 'deal' is attractive, price-wise, but if you find yourself obsessing on clarity pureness (or just nervous about SI in general) consider that VS could be a better fit for you, personally.

Alternately, there is a point that is rarely voiced: For some people an inclusion makes a diamond more distinctive. It can serve to identify or even 'romance the stone.' Just as taste runs differently with color, we field requests for diamonds with distinctive inclusions sometimes.

On the whole, clarity is a person-sensitive issue, much like color. Interpretation and taste come into play for each person. Individuals differ in their level of clarity comfort and needs. Our definition of Eye-Clean is not 'official,' it is a working baseline that allows us to meet the needs of individuals seeking a brilliant diamond buying experience.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:51:44 PM
Author: Giangi
Very interesting topic.
Moreover, I was under the impression that ''no-black-inclusions-whatsoever'' was part of Tiffany''s quality policy.

True!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:16:16 PM
Author:oldminer
Believe it or not, I had a yound woman in my office yesterday who could see two tiny black specs in the table of her Tiffany & Co round brilliant F VS2 diamond. On the Tiffany & Co report they have a phrase that says: Eye visble inclusions______ and in the blank they filled in ''NONE''. What a huge problem this can create.

I couldn''t see these tiny marks with the naked eye. Tiffany''s gemologist can''t see them, either. Of course, one can see them with 10x, but for nearly anyone, these are not eye-visible. However, this woman removed her rather thick glasses and clearly was able to find the black specks holding the diamond about 4 inches from one of her eyes. I have never seen anyone do such a thing in a lab, but she thought her examination was a fair and normal one. How are you going to tell a consumer that eye clean doesn''t mean ''absolutely'' eye clean? Its crazy.

What can I tell her? I believe she can see these marks. The manager at the local Tiffany''s has made her rather upset by implying she was faking it. It wasn''t ''diplomatic'' to make that sort of approach. I encouraged her to let them make an exchange for another diamond which she would find acceptable. I think this is what she will do. There is a language barrier as this girl is a new immigrant from China and her English is limited. I also think the store manager does not relate well to the cultural need for ''quality'' in the Asian mindset versus the American ''large size'' mindset we have here.

Anyway, its a good story of a problematic term and some other related stuff........

I think, ''Mind clean'' is a safer phrase.

I believe her because im the same way with my left eye no glasses at about 4 inches I can see a lot of vs2 inclusions and some vs1 inclusions.
I can find the inclusion in this stone that way easier than I can a 10x loupe.
It really had me confused for a while till I figured out what was going on.
The feather runs up and down the stone so at a angle its 10x and my left eye visible but way normal vision eyeclean even tilted.
Even at a tilt I can find it easier with my eye than a loupe.

That eye is -5.25 or about 20/600 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected.

 

[strmrdr]

here is the bottom view showing the bottom end of the inclusion

edit: its a vs1 gia graded

 

[Beacon]

I am curious how large a stone was the Tiffany VS that the customer could see the inclusions in?

I believe her too. Some VS2 are close to SI1. If the stone is of a decent size then it could be seen. I am nearsighted, but my close vision is really good. I can see very clearly 7" from my face. It is very easy for me to see some inclusions in just about *all* SI1 stones I have seen. But I don''t care about that as a customer. Heck, no one, (except that girl at Tiffs) can see it. And even for me, it is not like it is jumping out at me or anything - in a good SI1.

When I bought an SI stone I really spelled it out for the vendor - *gotta* be eye clean - they did a good job. But I told them that I was detail oriented and could see really well. I think the customer needs to be clear about that when talking to a vendor. Eye clean for one is not eye clean for all.

 

[oldminer]

John: Thank you for the great definitions as Whiteflash uses them. It is very well thought out. I suppose it comes with experience.

The diamond was 0.40ct. I meant to have put that in my original posting. At such a small size, the VS2 was a good call and the marks were very small. Very much along the line of the small blemish Strmrdr showed us in one of the photos. The lady had radar vision of the highest order.

Eye clean without a proper disclaimer and definition is a warning signal just like "trust me". With the terminology defined, then it is totally acceptable to use. Eye clean is a useful phrase and helps consumers understand that clarity and eye visibility do not always run in a consistent manner. The undefined use of the term is dangerous.

 

[diagem]

Is Tiffany''s "eye-clean" term defined?

I know that they issue their own Tiffany repors on diamonds, sometimes disputing GIA''s grades to both direction...

I guess that is a "trust me kind of term", after all they have 160+ years of good reputation backing the brand.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have experiance people who have this type of Vision Dave.

They wear thick glasses to see at distance - but can focus up very close without the specs. What is the name for thet? Short sighted?

They have unaided vision that is like 5x compared to normal 10 inch viewing.

They, not the grading system, are the anomoly. They should be told to not buy below VS1 or any stone that has an inclusion they can see.

 

[koko]

I can easily see a large feather under the table of my SI1 1.15c EC solitaire.....I mistakenly thought SI1 meant "eye clean", didn''t take shape into consideration. It didn''t stand out to me until I''d had the ring for several days but from the first time I saw it, I couldn''t "stop seeing it!!".....My sister has a 1.03 c I1 RB and I couldn''t see her (black) inclusions, but if I was to wear it every day I''m sure I would. I''m very near sighted in my right eye, and up close I can see almost anything!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:16:16 PM
Author:oldminer
Believe it or not, I had a yound woman in my office yesterday who could see two tiny black specs in the table of her Tiffany & Co round brilliant F VS2 diamond. On the Tiffany & Co report they have a phrase that says: Eye visble inclusions______ and in the blank they filled in ''NONE''. What a huge problem this can create.

I couldn''t see these tiny marks with the naked eye. Tiffany''s gemologist can''t see them, either. Of course, one can see them with 10x, but for nearly anyone, these are not eye-visible. However, this woman removed her rather thick glasses and clearly was able to find the black specks holding the diamond about 4 inches from one of her eyes. I have never seen anyone do such a thing in a lab, but she thought her examination was a fair and normal one. How are you going to tell a consumer that eye clean doesn''t mean ''absolutely'' eye clean? Its crazy.

What can I tell her? I believe she can see these marks. The manager at the local Tiffany''s has made her rather upset by implying she was faking it. It wasn''t ''diplomatic'' to make that sort of approach. I encouraged her to let them make an exchange for another diamond which she would find acceptable. I think this is what she will do. There is a language barrier as this girl is a new immigrant from China and her English is limited. I also think the store manager does not relate well to the cultural need for ''quality'' in the Asian mindset versus the American ''large size'' mindset we have here.

Anyway, its a good story of a problematic term and some other related stuff........

I think, ''Mind clean'' is a safer phrase.

I''ve seen the VS2 inclusion I have with my naked eye and had more than one jeweler who couldn''t find it with a loupe after I told them where it was. In fact the first time I found the inclusion I didn''t even realize it was there because it is soooo faint on the GIA cert but when I looked closely at the GIA cert I was right! It isn''t even a black inclusion. there are definitely no black inclusions because I can spot the tiniest of those a mile away LOL

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:56:02 PM
Author: DiaGem

Wow, amazing story...

I hope someone from Tiffany is a PS''er.
And i would strongly suggest for Tiffany to get on it, and make sure that ''manager'' gets some PR training...

I am actually surprised that Tiffany took that risk and legitimate the term ''eye clean''!!!

Yeah a much more acceptable response would be, "oh, it isn''t eye clean for you? well then let''s find something that is..."

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/7/2006 3:56:27 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

What is Eye-Clean?

With internet purchases, the most common clarity question: ''Is it eye clean?'' There are no industry definitions, so each person or institution must set his/her own and communicate the definition accordingly. Our definition of eye-clean is:

''No inclusions visible face-up at a distance of 8-10 inches in natural lighting to a person with 20/20 vision.''

hehe for me eye clean means I can''t see it from 2 inches even if I am looking from the side LOL!

 

[Beacon]

Date: 9/7/2006 6:03:49 PM
Author: oldminer
John: Thank you for the great definitions as Whiteflash uses them. It is very well thought out. I suppose it comes with experience.

The diamond was 0.40ct. I meant to have put that in my original posting. At such a small size, the VS2 was a good call and the marks were very small. Very much along the line of the small blemish Strmrdr showed us in one of the photos. The lady had radar vision of the highest order.

OMG - I don''t think I could see anything in a .40pt VS2. That is quite amazing. She is definitely a VVS girl or better!

 

[Lorelei]

Great advice and info Dave and Sir John

 

[ladykemma]

i have this nearsighted vision. and I''m a clarity nut.