flaws make the ring look dirty

[carina]

I feel that if a diamond is SI1 or worse you can see to many flaws
that interfere with its beauty. You would really have to search and search for a diamond which has flaws at the edges for a decent look.
People notice flaws right away and degrade the diamond, especially clouds and carbon. Most people like a white diamond, but I wanted a 2.3 ct so I searched for a K VVS2 that was deceivingly white looking and it looks so clear, no one would be able to see a flaw. I you get the right K with only a couple of zones of yellow hue and a very good cut it looks good.

 

[NY SPARKLE]

Many people here have SI1 and below clarity diamonds and they are beautiful.(beautiful cuts

) You are right though...the larger the diamond the more noticable the flaws AND color will be. The hunt is the challenge for many here...they enjoy it. But in my experiences noone looks at a diamond and says look at the flaw at 11:00, they comment on the whiteness and the size (especially on a 2.3---wooohooo

). Many people like the warmer diamonds...they are pretty. It sounds like you would not have been happy with anything less than a VS stone. Some people have better eye than others...lol. Please post some pics of your new stone. Don't forget to post specs as well.

 

[valeria101]

When you say "I feel..." do you mean "I say a dozen SI stones with great cut and found them awfully included" or "the SI word sounds bad".

K is not crisp white, SI can be eye clean probably 30% of times. If you don't really care what the diamond looks like face-down (menaing from the side of your finger when the ring is on !) - the chances are even better.

Not to say that K diamonds are ungly - but from the entire US-based crowd I know, I'd be the only nut to actually prefer them to the previous letters down to D.

I really, really believe that these color and clarity grades have to be seen to be appreciated. It is very easy to a certain combination of color&clarity (including these extreme ones) - just human nature. Look around PS a bit and you will find a bunch of D/F-I1. Anything goes, and a good cut would make the majority of your every-day D-K, IF-I1 greades look spectacular. The problem is - few get to see a serious range of stones. It would very much help to do so... Just ask for an "eye cean SI" and G or H color and see what those might look like.

Just a thought from th "color instead of clarity" camp of course

 

[moremoremore]

have you ever seen an si1 with some twining whisps (wisps?).....? I'm guessing no....and you probably couldn't find the "inclusions" anyway! There are so many si1s and si2s out there where the inclusions are not visible. In fact, I love a good si1 or si2...I can go whiter and brighter and BIGGER!

 

[moremoremore]

hi valeria!

I was directing that post at carina!

We posted at the same time!

 

[moremoremore]

I totally agree Val! I would SO go for a better color before I would worry about a teeny speck that you could only see when looking through the pavillion!

 

[Nicrez]

If you are talking round stones, a well cut stone in SI1 or even a clean SI2 in a colorless or near colorless grade would be MY ideal bargain. Why? Because when it's beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and personally, warmer diamonds are lovely, but I would rather slight inclusions that are rarely visible to the naked eye (VS1 and VS2 are totally impossible to find).

So stating that a VVS 1 or 2 is the only way to go is coming from someone who obvisouly hasn't seen a well cut SI1! I have and gladly would take one. However, I got a shaped stone, which demands a higher color and clarity, since they don't have the same sparkle. I have an E VVS2, and I love it. I could have dropped in clarity (NOT color!) and be totally happy to get a larger carat size for the $$$, but when you find the perfect radiant, you SNATCH it up, and that's what happened...

K's are great, but being very color sensitive, I would prefer the inclusions to the color. From further away you can't see the little wisps of white or pinpoints, but you DO see the yellow tinge...

 

[NY SPARKLE]

I would have gone for color over clarity...a nice 2.5 g si1 or si2...yummy

 

[moremoremore]

even in a fancy- a good si1 or even si2 is a bargain!

 

[valeria101]

I still think that GOG's pages and pics on inclusions (WWW) are very useful. darkfield illumination does not allow brilliance to interfere with the sighting of inclusions in the stones. The display does make a great example of how diverse the 'look' of SI stones can be.

What the pics do not show is how imporatant can be the placement of these inclusions. It does make a huge difference if you have one VS-type spec being reflected XX-fold throughout an EC, or a few SI-size blobs nicely hidden from view. It seems to be rather self-understood here that step cut stones are the worst at hiding inclusions... hence the example. Any other shape would probably be better at it.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 4/6/2004 10:41:05 AM NY SPARKLE wrote:


But in my experiences noone looks at a diamond and says look at the flaw at 11:00, they comment on the whiteness and the size DIV>----------------

Well, I would never SAY out loud "look at that flaw!" (that would be rude to the owner of the diamond) but I would certainly make a mental note of it!

I don't have any SI diamonds, and I haven't gone out looking for any so I don't really know how visible those flaws are. There certainly are a lot of SI fans around here though, so I think that really says something about that clarity grade.

 

[Daniela]

Sumi,

I think that there are almost too many SI fans around here. After having purchased an SI-1 stone myself (and I was assured by my trusted vendor that it was completely eye clean--and I mean I asked for a critical evaluation of what I explained I felt eye clean meant), it still bugs me to be able to see the inclusion when I look closely for it from the top or from the side of the stone. I think that there are some great SI-1's, but they are rarer than people here probably like to think. I also think that everyone has a different idea of what "eye clean" really is, and what would bug them. I have an eagle eye, and have decided to upgrade my stone as soon as something appropriate comes up on GOG's inventory.

This is why it sort of bugs me when people try to talk others down from VS, especially when I look at the clarity pics and know that the odds are pretty good that they'll be able to find the inclusions if they look for them. And then once they've located them, they can find them in a heartbeat.

That said, my personal preference is for a whiter SI-1 versus a lower colour VVS or VS any day of the week.

Daniela

 

[sumi]

Daniela: Sorry to hear that you're not completely happy with your stone! I think I tend to shy away from SI for exactly the reason that you're talking about. I really don't care if other people can't see a flaw in my stone, but it would really bother me if I could see it. Like I said, I haven't searched out SI diamonds and haven't had the chance to look at them up close. I know a lot of people here have SI stones and sound like they're really happy with them.

I think this just goes to the overall issue of balancing your personal preferences between the 4 C's. I will gladly give up size for clarity, but others are not willing to do that. It's all subjective, one isn't better than the other. My e-ring is a G/VS2 and I'm sure there are a lot of people who wouldn't be happy with that. It's just balancing your likes to find the best combination for you.


I did notice that there is a lot of talk around here about lowering clarity grades. I think that a lot of people that don't know anything about diamonds automatically think they must get a IF or VVS1/2. I think it's important for them to know that there are really great stones in the VS category and that SI is a good bargain area. In the end, the person buying the stone will see the stone and pick one that they are comfortable with. If someone really wants an IF/VVS stone they will get it no matter what is said here. And, I think that's great! People should get what they want, whether it's IF or SI. It's just important to be exposed to the different ways of approaching the clarity issue. I know that a lot of PS'ers will laugh at this, but I think it would be really cool to have a small D/IF stone (as a small pendant maybe?).

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/6/2004 10:23:35 AM carina wrote:





I feel that if a diamond is SI1 or worse you can see to many flaws
that interfere with its beauty. You would really have to search and search for a diamond which has flaws at the edges for a decent look.
People notice flaws right away and degrade the diamond, especially clouds and carbon. Most people like a white diamond, but I wanted a 2.3 ct so I searched for a K VVS2 that was deceivingly white looking and it looks so clear, no one would be able to see a flaw. I you get the right K with only a couple of zones of yellow hue and a very good cut it looks good.
----------------

K and VVS??!!

Hey, Carina, I hope you keep thinking this way ALWAYS.....it just means one less contender I'll have for a beautiful, WHITE, EYECLEAN SI1 stone!

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/6/2004 2:24:42 PM Daniela wrote:

I think that there are almost too many SI fans around here.

That's because SI represents a GREAT value for a significant majority of buyers.

After having purchased an SI-1 stone myself (and I was assured by my trusted vendor that it was completely eye clean--and I mean I asked for a critical evaluation of what I explained I felt eye clean meant), it still bugs me to be able to see the inclusion when I look closely for it from the top or from the side of the stone.

I don't understand.....if you can see the inclusions, if the stone didn't meet "your" interpretation of eye-clean, and if it bugs you......then why didn't you return it?

I think that there are some great SI-1's, but they are rarer than people here probably like to think.

Daniela, how many SI1 stones have you personally seen? How many SI1 stones that *you* see inclusions in are stones that others (with less sensitive vision) would see inclusions in? I think it's an overstatement to suggest that great SI1s are "rarer than people would like to think" simply because you spot inclusions more readily than most folks would. I can appreciate that you're clarity sensitive....the same as some folks are color sensitive....but that doesn't mean that a *majority* of other folks would be that sensitive.

I also think that everyone has a different idea of what 'eye clean' really is, and what would bug them. I have an eagle eye

Well, then knowing you have an eagle eye means that perhaps SI1 isn't the right choice for *you*.....but I tend to believe that the significant majority of people don't have such "eagle-eye" vision, and that's why it's so relevant to pass along relevant information about SI1.

It's also important to note that *no one* will scrutinize the details of a stone the way the wearer will. Taking it to the next level assuming they DO see them, there are plenty of folks who don't care about "knowing" there are inclusions as long as they aren't blatantly visible to others. Your standard is higher, and that's great......but I think it's a stretch to assume that others' standards for eye-clean are as stringent as yours, and it's important to note that such stringent standards come at a very real increased cost.

This is why it sort of bugs me when people try to talk others down from VS, especially when I look at the clarity pics and know that the odds are pretty good that they'll be able to find the inclusions if they look for them.

Again, I just disagree with this. Just because you might be able to see something does not mean "odds are pretty good" that a majority of others will find the inclusions.

Lastly, I don't think that people try to *talk others down* to anything......I think they strive to make sure that people accurately realize the range of acceptable "possibilities". Most of the suggestions to drop clarity come in scenarios like "I wish I could get a bigger stone, but I can only afford this carat weight on this VS stone". It's then that people say "you can go bigger by getting a better balance."

Everyone' s priorities are different, and that's great. I honestly don't care if someone buys a VS in the end.....but I'd hate to think they did so (or even worse, that they didn't get a bigger stone/better color stone/whatever) because no one took the time to tell them about the possibilities that SI stones offer.

----------------

 

[sumi]

hey Al, I think you make a lot of important points, but at the same time I do notice a lot of phrases thrown around here like "clarity overkill" and the like. I totally agree with you that people need to be exposed to the different ways of looking at clarity. But, in the end, if that person wants to get a higher clarity stone, then I don't see anything wrong with that. (I know you don't either, but I just wanted to float this thought out there.)

 

[moremoremore]

I think we might be getting a little carried away with this post...no?

Let's keep it nice nice!!!!

My only point is that an Si1 won't make a stone look "dirty"...and that there are tons of amazing si1s out there where the inclusions are not noticeable. I love them! However, there is nothing wrong with going to higher clarity if that's what you want. I don;t agree b.c I won't pay for what I can't see. I do admit that I find myself trying to talk posters in to lower clarity when I see someone going for a low color IF combo...b/c I'm a smart shopper like that....to each his own!

.... If I have a teensy speck in my ring...and I was able to get 2+ carats and a color above G b/c I lowered my quality...I think I'm smart!

p.s.- don't have that stone JUST yet...LOL....But I am aiming for a 2 - 2.5 princess, F or G, Si1!!! If I went with vvs or vs, I couldn;t go that big! I even joke that when I hit lotto, I'm going to ask for a 3 carat flanders...D....si1

 

[Nicrez]

Clarity overkill is a term that someone uses who has seen a perfectly good stone and doesn't price the rarity of clarity over the size or color. That's all.

My uncle has an IF princess stone. I don't care one rat's patoot, but HE does...Says he has the certificate to prove it. *waving index finger in the air* BUT, I personally will always ooh and ahh a D colored stone.

Priorities. I personally would never buy a D IF stone, but WOULD buy a D, SI1 stone...that's just me...

A K stone is warm, but she's a clarity snob. Congrats. Most women here are cut snobs or size snobs. We all have our thing. Al, great points, glad to know you are a champion of the SI1's...and glad to know Carina likes her high clarity, lower color stones. As I see it, there is a market for everything out there, even IFs and I3 of ANY color!

 

[Icicles]

would it make a difference if the stone is an Emerald cut? I've seen some pretty included VS2 & SI emerald cuts, and would have to buy VS1+ if I wanted eye-clean.

 

[Nicrez]

Shaped stones like Emeralds, especially should be OK in VS2 or so. I have seen some lovely eye clean SI1 emeralds, but would always suggest shaped stones at VS2 or better. Just me.

Any VVS is almost always so infantessimally small that even with a loupe you're still guessing.

Round stones are SO forgiving because of their facets and facet arrangement that almost COVER imperfections. Emeralds and Asscher are made the exact opposite way, to see INTO the stone.

Some jewelers would arge that inclusions are GOOD, as they prove a stone is real, as in emeralds (gemstones) which are highly included, and not man-made with the same inclusions.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 4/6/2004 4:14:31 PM moremoremore wrote:

I won't pay for what I can't see. I do admit that I find myself trying to talk posters in to lower clarity when I see someone going for a low color IF combo...b/c I'm a smart shopper like that....to each his own! ----------------

A smart shopper is someone who gets exactly what they want at a price they are comfortable with, whether it's a D/IF or a G/SI.

Hopefully, we're all smart shoppers and have all ended up with stones that we're totally happy with.

 

[Daniela]

Just had to check in because I knew that the clarity crusade would provoke fierce (and yeah, some of the responses on this post are unnecessarily fierce) responses.

To AL: I didn't return my stone right away because the hassle to mail it from Canada to the US and back again wasn't something that I was up for just then. It added a whole other level of complication that interfered with my desire to return it right away. Now after having been engaged and having worn my ring for a bit I feel ready to battle out this next step, and am going to take advantage of the upgrade policy.

Let me clarify once again what I'm talking about here. I'm all for educating people about what different clarity grades can mean. But I also think that there isn't a great SI-1 stone for absolutely everyone who comes through here. There are Pricescope people who had loved and kept their SI-1's, and there are others who have returned them. Just like there are people who have returned other clarities, colours, or sizes for whatever reason, and exchanged them up or down or whatever. I think my message is much like Sumi's in that I'm promoting considering higher or lower clarities depending on what a given buyer wants in a diamond. Believe it or not, I, too, am of the school of thought "Why pay for what you cannot see?" But guess what--sometimes you can see inclusions in so-called eye clean stones, depending on the lighting, depending on how closely you're looking, depending on a lot of things. I think that this is the message that I'm trying to get out--the fact that sometimes (note the use of a qualifier here) this can happen.

I'm going to defer to what one of the expert PS vendors once told me, which I now believe according to my first hand experience: "For those who are going to be anal about clarity [and the operative word here is *anal*], I always suggest VS, and probably VS-1." I was surprised at first to hear that from a vendor. Now I am starting to understand why.

The question for each buyer remains: How anal are you personlly about clarity? And what does eye clean mean to you?

And my personal experience with my diamond is very relevant here, just as everyone's personal experience is relevant. I have seen some stellar SI-1's pass through different vendor's inventories. I think that we would all agree that some are better than others. Every once in a while one passes through and I think to myself, "That's a heck of an SI." But it's not all that often.

I'm happy for people when they find the diamond of their dreams within the budget that they have decided on. However they manage to do that after having accumulated enough knowledge is fine by me. My only point is that that particular diamond isn't necessarily going to be an SI, just like it isn't necessarily going to be and IF, or whatever.

Edited to add: As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing is for the WEARER of the diamond to be happy with it. I don't personally care if no one but me has ever seen my inclusion, because it matters to me. Others would just say, "Oh, well. No one can see it but me." It really depends on personal preferences for your stone.

 

[Nicrez]

To the heart of the thread...

DIRT makes a ring look dirty. I have a VVS2 (and it's only a VVS2 for it's one extra facet, or it would have been a VVS1...) but my ring looked a bit less bright and dirty.

Got it steamed and BOY that baby shines. Maybe SI1 lovers should just get those capuccino steamers and keep them extra clean?

Daniela, I am a very anal person when it comes to my jewelery (I soak my rings every night in soapy water and wash them every time I wash my hands

) As such, I personally STILL wouldn't mind an SI1 if I SAW it, and IF it was a round stone.

Hey, it means it could be BIGGER and WHITER!

 

[Daniela]

Amen! Clean those diamonds, folks! What a waste to just let it accumulate dirt. I do like you, Nic--with a bowl of hot water, a tootbrush,and Mr. Clean every morning.

And Amen to seeing your stone and then deciding on if it's the SI-1 for you. Isn't that what it's all about?

Edited to add: But sometimes seeing before purchase isn't a luxury we all have. It's too bad, really.

 

[moremoremore]

you are right sumi!

didn't mean that the way it sounded!

 

[moremoremore]

I am ALL about bigger and whiter Nicrez!!!

I can certainly respect someone who goes for the vvs stone...but just not for me...!

LOL- dirt makes it dirty!!! You mean I actually have to CLEAN my ring? What are those inclusions?....is that kitty litter and meatloaf???? LOL

 

[Nicrez]

Alright More! You have just violated every rule in my book about how to properly keep a diamond!

You must relinquish your stone to me at once!

That said, I have been avoiding all cleaning and cooking since my ring has arrived on my finger, and I have contracted a mild case of OCD when it comes to clean hands and diamonds.

Hmmm...come to think of it, I never really cleaned and cooked, but I sure as heck won't start NOW!!!

 

[moremoremore]

LOL.... But you just got engaged!!! You're supposed to clean it every hour or so!!!!

An old married hag like me never cleans it!

BUT, that said, I am looking for my "upgrade" stone...so I'm sure I'll start cleaning it all the time again!

 

[fire&ice]

Even though an SI grade was my choice, I have seen the SI's pushed too hard on PS. They *indeed* offer the best value. The most bang for the buck so to speak; but, some people do have eagle eyes. And, more importantly, some flaws in an SI stone goes to issue of integrity.

To further complicate things & to issue of the orginal poster, I don't see the conventional wisdom in a K/VVS1 stone or a D/SI stone for that matter. By "conventional wisdom", I mean past buying guidelines. But, maybe cutters are cutting more stones like this. Don't know.

Funny, when I was buying the earrings for my niece. I initially had a feeling I should buy VS2. Because for a gift, the thought of flaws bothered me. But, my senses got the better of me & went bigger!

I guess it's all a matter of personal preference.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 4/6/2004 4:14:55 PM Nicrez wrote:

Clarity overkill is a term that someone uses who has seen a perfectly good stone and doesn't price the rarity of clarity over the size or color. That's all.

----------------

Okay, I think I'm just stupid right now but I'm still not clear on what 'clairty overkill' means. Can someone please explain?

I understood it to mean that someone is going overboard on clarity, or choosing clarity to the detriment of size. But, not everyone is in to size. (oh! I think I can hear the collective *gasp* of the PS community!

) Size is the first C I would compromise on. A lot of people here don't agree with that. That's what's so cool about selecting diamonds, you can juggle the 4 C's and modify them to what you personally like.

If clarity is really important to someone, then how could it be overkill? If the person doesn't like the clarity of the stone, then it's not a perfectly good stone to them.

I tend to think that clarity is one of the subjective C's like color, different people just prefer different grades. Also, different people are sensitive to clarity (or color).