flaws

[carina]

How can anybody not mind flaws in a stone? I would much rather have an excellent cut High J or K Color VVS than a D SI. Imagine a very clear stone with no black carbon at all and just a slight spec that has to been seen with 30x magnification. That makes me feel better than knowing there is an easily visible feather, cloud, pinpoint or piece of carbon. Just my personal preference I suppose.

 

[diamondlil]

I guess I''m on the opposite side, Carina. Although I would not buy a stone with an obviously visible black inclusion, an eye-clean (or even eye-clean-ish) SI1 or SI2 is perfectly fine with me. I''m the only one who will be louping my rock, and I think those small inclusions I see under magnification are what gives each diamond its individuality. I would NEVER pay the premium on a VVS stone. The "average" consumer cannot see the difference between a VVS and SI stone from a foot away.

I personally have more of an eye for color and would never go below an I. That''s when my eye perceives more warmth than I could be satisfied with. You may have a preference for a warmer, K color, but if money was no object, I''d pick the D every time.

Being the budget-consious person that I am, my preference is for a super-ideal-cut, eye-clean SI1/2 of G-H color.

In the end, it''s whatever floats *your* boat.

DiamondLil

 

[ame]

Id never buy a stone with black inclusions, and if its cut well, it wouldn't be a big deal to have a few slight inclusions. Id rather see flaws with my loupe than not see any. I would always worry that a jeweler switched my stone if I couldn't see at least SOMETHING when I examined. Flaws give the stone personality.

If no one can tell without a loupe, why overpay for flawless or near flawless? Only you and he know and who really gives a rip if there's a feather or something? No one is going to walk up, grab your hand, whip out their loupe and inspect it.

My stone has a feather on the girdle, and I chose to keep it partly uncovered by the prongs so I could always tell it was my own stone.

 

[reena]

Date: 12/8/2004 10

6:43 AM
Author: ame
If no one can tell without a loupe, why overpay for flawless or near flawless? Only you and he know and who really gives a rip if there''s a feather or something? No one is going to walk up, grab your hand, whip out their loupe and inspect it.

exactly. if nobody else can see it who cares? i''d much rather go up in color and size.

 

[abradabra]

I''m somewhere in the middle... It would be very unlikely for me to go higher than VS2 if I were spending my own money. I definitely would never advise someone to buy in that range. However, the fiance (rather, the fiance''s father) stumbled onto an IF stone that was gorgeous and they decided to jump on it.

Sure, it''s totally frivolous and since no one asks when they see the stone, no one but us knows that it''s inclusion-free (save for surface graining or whatever makes it IF)... That being said, it''s really nice knowing that no one will ever spot an inclusion. It''s like a little secret that unless you saw the cert, you''d have no idea how unusual the stone was... I can only imagine how I''d be feeling if it were a D instead of an H. I bet people with absolutely perfectly cut RB''s feel the same way (you can probably see that more than clarity, but it''s the same principle).

 

[glitterata]

Ha, I''m exactly the opposite of Carina. I actively LIKE flaws. I think it''s romantic to be able to see traces of the diamond''s geological nature. And my personal preference is for the more colorless diamonds--I like the way lower colors look, too, but I tend to wear more blue than yellow and more silver than gold.

My dream stone is a D-F with strong or very strong blue fluorescence, well cut with perfect arrows, and with an eye-visible crystal smack dab in the middle of the table. If the crystal is a dark garnet or a little octohedral diamond, so much the better. And I''d also like the diamond to have a natural with those little v-shaped growth marks (what are they called again?). That would be my idea of the perfect combination of nature and art.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 12/8/2004 12:16

6 PM
Author: glitterata
Ha, I''m exactly the opposite of Carina. I actively LIKE flaws. I think it''s romantic to be able to see traces of the diamond''s geological nature. And my personal preference is for the more colorless diamonds--I like the way lower colors look, too, but I tend to wear more blue than yellow and more silver than gold.

My dream stone is a D-F with strong or very strong blue fluorescence, well cut with perfect arrows, and with an eye-visible crystal smack dab in the middle of the table. If the crystal is a dark garnet or a little octohedral diamond, so much the better. And I''d also like the diamond to have a natural with those little v-shaped growth marks (what are they called again?). That would be my idea of the perfect combination of nature and art.

The "v-shaped" markings are called TRIGONS. They are really triangular in shape.

Rockdoc

 

[snlee]

I have a D SI1 and can''t see the inclusions even under a microscope. If it''s eye clean, I''d much rather go up in color, carats, or cut! You can''t really even tell the difference between a VS2 and SI1. Unless you have tons of money, I don''t understand why people buy above VS1''s. That''s just my 2 cents!

 

[chantal990]

I like flaws that you can see with a loupe. I wouldn''t buy a diemond with eye visable inclusions but the diamond in my e-ring also has a feather like inclusion near the girdle only visable when using a loupe. I use it to check the diamond whenever I have work done on it and it gives me peace of mind. I would be too sus on a IF stone.