For clarity, is this IS1 actually better than vs2?

[cc0623]

I was thinking about purchasing the vs2 diamond bcs I thought vs2 is 'eye clean'. If I can't see it I don't care how many flaws are in the diamond. However when I looked at the photo very carefully, I actually can see the dark spot (crystal?) in the middle very easily. I actually don't see many diamonds in reality so I am not sure if it will only bother me on photos, or same when it set on the ring.

I found the SI1 one with similar parameters only with 1 color grade down. The GIA report shows more flaws than the vs2 one, but on photos, I can see less flaws. But it is ISI1 and I am not sure if I will feel the same when I see the real diamond.

So which one you would prefer? They are both within my budget. HCA both 1-2.


SI1: https://www.bluenile.com/build-your...414538?track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

https://bnsec.bluenile.com/bnsecure/certs/2161022775.pdf?params=Y291bnRyeT1VU0EmcHJvZHVjdD1CTiZwaG9uZT0xLTg4OC01NjUtNzY0MSZsaW5rPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3LmJsdWVuaWxlLmNvbSUyRl9MRDA0NDE0NTM4JmN1cnJlbmN5PVVTRCZsYWI9Z2lhJnNrdT1MRDA0NDE0NTM4Jg==

Vs2: https://www.bluenile.com/build-your...676469?track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

https://bnsec.bluenile.com/bnsecure/certs/7251481061.pdf?params=Y291bnRyeT1VU0EmcHJvZHVjdD1CTiZwaG9uZT0xLTg4OC01NjUtNzY0MSZsaW5rPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3LmJsdWVuaWxlLmNvbSUyRl9MRDA4Njc2NDY5JmN1cnJlbmN5PVVTRCZsYWI9Z2lhJnNrdT1MRDA4Njc2NDY5Jg==

 

[Matthews1127]

I can see inclusions in both stones. SI1 stone has an inclusion away from the center, abd far below the table. VS2 stone has an inclusion on the table, off center, but close enough to pick it up on certain angles. Each has a rather distinct inclusion, but the SI1 stone hides its inclusions better.
You have to decide for yourself, based upon your preferences, which will bother you more. It's difficult when you can't see the stone in person. Don't purchase blindly. If you like, based upon these two examples, PSers can help you find others to compare, within the same price range....
Do you have a certain cut of Round Diamond you'd prefer over others, or is that not something you particularly thought much about? The CUT of your stone is key, and I noticed you were looking at XXX, which is a great start. Have you considered super ideal Cuts, too?
Just trying to get a feel...and hopefully get you some more options to choose from...

 

[Matthews1127]

I did a search for you on Whiteflash. There are some real beauties with ideal scope imaging & ASET reports, as well as videos. I believe you may be surprised at these...they are all within the parameters and are less expensive...

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/search.aspx

 

[Matthews1127]

This is a beautiful stone. The inclusions are well hidden, and the scintillation & fire off of this diamond are amaze-balls!!!

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3855517.htm

 

[Matthews1127]

@rockysalamander is also very resourceful.

 

[rockysalamander]

Since you are seeing the inclusions, I think you need to keep looking. The grading of a diamond's clarity will be done under a 10x loupe, while the images online are much more magnified. So, in fairness, you are seeing quite a bit more than IRL. But, I still tend to trade size for clarity. With your budget, I would go with a super-ideal. I didn't find any non-supers that are in your range (assuming $15500 for now) and all inclusions won't trigger your eye. For super-ideal, I will go down to J (setting depending) and for ideal I'll go down to H. Here are a few options that seem a good balance of the 4Cs with no clarity worries. WF has a great trade-up policy (100% cost of diamond toward new one); Brian Gavin will give you 100% (95% for blue) toward new stone, but you need to upgrade 2 of 3 color, clarity, size.

1.511, H, VS2, 7.39, http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...ls/1.511-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104059065009
1.510, H, VS1, 7.32 mm, http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...ags-bl-104091071001#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/0/ {medium florescence, will look blue in UV light, the blue can help make a stone look a bit whiter, this has no haziness that can occur with florescence}
1.461, G, VS1, 7.25mm, https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3855439.htm
1.451, G, VS1, 7.24 mm, https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3858592.htm

 

[ChristineRose]

Clarity grades are based on the size of the inclusions, not how visible they are. So it's completely possible for a SI1 to look cleaner than a VS1.

 

[rockysalamander]

Clarity grades are based on the size of the inclusions, not how visible they are. So it's completely possible for a SI1 to look cleaner than a VS1.

It is quite a balance between size and type of inclusion. Clarity is graded on visibility of the inclusion which is a function of size, type, location, and orientation -- larger and darker inclusions are more visible to the grader at 10x.

The GIA Clarity Scale contains 11 grades. The GIA system considers the size, nature, position, color or relief, and quantity of clarity characteristics visible under 10× magnification.

• Flawless (FL) - No inclusions or blemishes are visible to a skilled grader using 10× magnification
• Internally Flawless (IF) - No inclusions and only blemishes are visible to a skilled grader using 10× magnification
• Very, Very Slightly Included (VVS1 and VVS2) - Inclusions are difficult for a skilled grader to see under 10× magnification
• Very Slightly Included (VS1 and VS2) - Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification
• Slightly Included (SI1 and SI2) - Inclusions are noticeable to a skilled grader under 10x magnification
• Included (I1, I2, and I3) - Inclusions are obvious under 10× magnification and may affect transparency and brilliance

AGS is a similar approach to GIA, and also has 11 categories.

• AGS 0: Flawless or Internally Flawless- Flawless diamonds have no inclusions or blemishes visible under 10x. Internally Flawless diamonds have no inclusions visible under 10x, but can have very minor blemishes (marks and features confined to the surface only).
• AGS 1 or 2: VVS - A diamond with a clarity grade of 1 or 2 (VVS1 or VVS2) has minute inclusions that are difficult for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification.
• AGS 3 or 4: VS-Very Slightly Included diamonds with a clarity grade of 3 or 4 (VS1 or VS2) have minor inclusions.
• AGS 5, 6, or 7: SI-Slightly Included diamonds with a clarity grade of 5, 6, or 7 (SI1 or SI2) have noticeable inclusions that are fairly easy to see under 10x magnification. Sometimes, these inclusions can be visible to the unaided eye.
• AGS (7, 8, 9, or 10): I-Included diamonds with a clarity grade of 7, 8, 9, or 10 (I1, I2, or I3), have inclusions that are obvious at 10x magnification. Sometimes, they can be seen with the naked eye. At the lower clarities, may have an effect on the diamond’s durability.

 

[MissGotRocks]

This is a beautiful stone. The inclusions are well hidden, and the scintillation & fire off of this diamond are amaze-balls!!!

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3855517.htm

Yes, but the cut of this stone is not the best - crown too shallow and pavilion too high. I would stick with their ACA or Expert Selection stones even if it meant a smaller stone.

 

[cc0623]

I can see inclusions in both stones. SI1 stone has an inclusion away from the center, abd far below the table. VS2 stone has an inclusion on the table, off center, but close enough to pick it up on certain angles. Each has a rather distinct inclusion, but the SI1 stone hides its inclusions better.
You have to decide for yourself, based upon your preferences, which will bother you more. It's difficult when you can't see the stone in person. Don't purchase blindly. If you like, based upon these two examples, PSers can help you find others to compare, within the same price range....
Do you have a certain cut of Round Diamond you'd prefer over others, or is that not something you particularly thought much about? The CUT of your stone is key, and I noticed you were looking at XXX, which is a great start. Have you considered super ideal Cuts, too?
Just trying to get a feel...and hopefully get you some more options to choose from...

Thank you so much Matthews for your very helpful and detailed reply!
For the clarity, I care more about which diamond hide the inclusion better. As you said, i feel that the SI1 stone actually hide the inclusion better so it will actually look better than the VS2 stone (just thinking from clarity part). Based on my understanding so far, that the inclusion off center hides better than inclusion on the table (at center), even if they are one clarity scale difference. Am I correct?

Right! It is so hard if I cant see the actual stone in person. I have went to the shopping mall nearby, but the stones they carry are not in good quality (such as kay). We have Tiffany but you know they dont use GIA or AGS so it might be different. But I have see their 1-1.5 carat VS1-VS2 stone and I feel comfortable with all of them, so can I say I am actually not that picky for clarity? Based on your experience, do you think the inclusion on VS2 stone can be easily seen when put on to setting?

My highest priority is always the cutting. I noticed for diamond selection, the PSers talking about cutting all the time. But I have never heard the super ideal cut? What I always do is just to select the highest one for all three cutting parameters.

 

[cc0623]

Since you are seeing the inclusions, I think you need to keep looking. The grading of a diamond's clarity will be done under a 10x loupe, while the images online are much more magnified. So, in fairness, you are seeing quite a bit more than IRL. But, I still tend to trade size for clarity. With your budget, I would go with a super-ideal. I didn't find any non-supers that are in your range (assuming $15500 for now) and all inclusions won't trigger your eye. For super-ideal, I will go down to J (setting depending) and for ideal I'll go down to H. Here are a few options that seem a good balance of the 4Cs with no clarity worries. WF has a great trade-up policy (100% cost of diamond toward new one); Brian Gavin will give you 100% (95% for blue) toward new stone, but you need to upgrade 2 of 3 color, clarity, size.

1.511, H, VS2, 7.39, http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...ls/1.511-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104059065009
1.510, H, VS1, 7.32 mm, http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...ags-bl-104091071001#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/0/ {medium florescence, will look blue in UV light, the blue can help make a stone look a bit whiter, this has no haziness that can occur with florescence}
1.461, G, VS1, 7.25mm, https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3855439.htm
1.451, G, VS1, 7.24 mm, https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3858592.htm

Hi rockysalamander! Thank you so much for your advice! For those two WF stones you mentioned I can still see inclusions on the image ( especially for one that falls in the center). But you are correct, I am seeing more since they are magnified. I didn't see super ideal on WF, the highest for cutting is ideal. Do you mean ideal? If I select ideal, maybe I shouldn't worry about the inclusion if it falls above vs2 since "Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification"? If my understanding is correct, it will make my diamond selection much more easier.......

For your reply to ChristineRose, you mean the VS2 is always eye cleaner than SI1? Since it has already considered the location. Do I understand correctly?

 

[rockysalamander]

Diamonds are graded by a person and they are looking for "impact", so there are 'high' SI1s and 'low' VS2 in viewing. But, a VS1, when viewed with the eye should always look clearer (totally clean, in fact) than an SI1. But, don't get too hung up on the labels. PSers routinely look at everything from VVS to SI1 to see options within a particular budget. On another thread last night, the best diamond for the budget ended up being a VVS - even though the poster didn't mind a SI1. So, to look for you, I looked at VVS to SI1, E to H color. If you are patient, you can find incredible deals at SI1 where the inclusion have no impact or are easily hid by a prong. August generally has lower stocks as much of the diamond industry is on holiday.

Super-ideals: Whiteflash A Cut Above, HighPerformanceDiamonds (all are CraftedByInfinity), Brian Gavin Signature, Good Old Gold Ascendency, and a few others. All the stones I linked for you are super-ideal.

With my note about asking about the affect of florescence, all will be perfectly clean to you when viewing with your eyes -- they look good magnified at 15x. I'd consider myself picky when it comes to clarity.

What is a Super Ideal?

 

[cc0623]

Hi rockysalamander! Thank you so much for your advice! For those two WF stones you mentioned I can still see inclusions on the image ( especially for one that falls in the center). But you are correct, I am seeing more since they are magnified. I didn't see super ideal on WF, the highest for cutting is ideal. Do you mean ideal? If I select ideal, maybe I shouldn't worry about the inclusion if it falls above vs2 since "Inclusions are minor and range from difficult to somewhat easy for a skilled grader to see under 10x magnification"? If my understanding is correct, it will make my diamond selection much more easier.......

For your reply to ChristineRose, you mean the VS2 is always eye cleaner than SI1? Since it has already considered the location. Do I understand correctly?

Thanks for your reply!

Do you know if TrueHeart cut at Jamesallen and Signature ideal at Blue nile is equivalent to super ideal you mentioned?

There is really significant difference between ideal and super iedal! Thanks for let me know this!

 

[rockysalamander]

Thanks for your reply!

Do you know if TrueHeart cut at Jamesallen and Signature ideal at Blue nile is equivalent to super ideal you mentioned?

There is really significant difference between ideal and super iedal! Thanks for let me know this!

Great question. No. Both BN and JA. JA are really 'near' hearts and arrows.

So, they are aiming for a specific faceting pattern within specific angle to achieve the H&A pattern. BN has strict parameters for table and depth, but not for crown and pavilion angle (Depth % 60.1-61.9, Table % 55-57) -- they are aiming more for 60/60 diamonds (white light over fire).

So, why is this not super-ideal? Super-ideal refers to a high precision of cutting. They are not just aiming for specific parameters for performance, but they make sure the angles to achieve those angles meet at a point. If you look at the drawing below, this idealized diamond shows a place where 8 planes come together and need to meet. Can you see how the upper and lower Vs don't meet at a point? A super-ideal would have 8 planes coming together at a single point. If you recall from physics, light is deflected when it passes through a opaque object. The purpose of faceting is to get that light to deflect and reflect as you wish (sparkle, scintillation, fire). Any non-perfect This minor deviations in perfect cutting will make the light go the wrong way.

Thus, my car example. Ever driven a 1970s Corvette? When you shift the transmission, the gates for the gears are wide. There is some slop in the transmission (you can kinda' aim it into gear). Now, a 1970s Porsche transmission is tight. You have to get the gear into a very narrow slot for shifting. Both are fast. Both are fun...but a Porsche is much more precise and, as a result, you get much more performance for each ounce of energy.

Hope that helps, maybe @Wink or @Texas Leaguer can offer a better explanation.

All that said, even a carefully selected diamond that is not super-ideal will still be MUCH MUCH better than most people have.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Rocky’s analogy of a sports car is a good one to explain the concept of ‘super ideal’. It can be thought of as the difference between a two cars with powerful engines, only one of which is in tune.

Both GIA and AGS perform cut quality analysis on diamonds. Only AGS does a direct assessment of light performance based upon ray tracing and taking the contribution of all facets into account. The AGS system is by far the most stringent. Yet, even AGS does not directly grade the optical precision of the diamond. That is, the alignment of corresponding facets in 3 dimensions. ( this is sometimes referred to as ‘optical symmetry’, a term that can be confused with the 'meet point' symmetry graded on a lab report and illustrated by rockysalamaner above). Precise 3D alignment is necessary for optimal light handling properties of the system of tiny mirrors that comprise a faceted diamond.

Therefore, a super ideal is generally considered a diamond with ideal proportions and finish (the engine), along with a very high degree of optical precision (the tuning). That precision can be assessed through light performance images such as ASET, IdealScope, and by VPA analysis. In our opinion, to be a true super ideal a diamond must first have a light performance based Ideal certificate from AGS, and also have proven optical precision. We also impose additional requirements including clarity based issues that might impact light performance, and minor defects of craftsmanship such as extra facets, scratches and chips.

There is no definitive set of criteria for super ideal. Some merchants use the term with regard to GIA diamonds. It is more about understanding what the criteria is for the designation and how the claim is proven.

 

[Karl_K]

I am going to diverge from Bryan on the AGS report requirement for super-ideal and double down on the word proven.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I am going to diverge from Bryan on the AGS report requirement for super-ideal and double down on the word proven.

I fully accept that Karl. A GIA diamond can certainly be super ideal. The ray tracing AGSL report represents the highest degree of independent proof that there are no significant light performance deficits. And because GIA doesn't actually grade to Ideal, it makes sense to us as a company to require the AGS Triple Zero cert as a minimum requirement for our super ideal brand. Again, when a merchant is representing a diamond to be ideal or super ideal, it is more about what they mean by those designations, how stringent their criteria is, and what proof they offer to support their claim. We publish our entire checklist of qualifications and specifications in order to inform the market of exactly how our brand is vetted. In that way we endeavor to differentiate our representations as concrete rather than as simple marketing spin. For example, a virtual diamond listing represented as super ideal that the merchant does not own and has never even seen or evaluated, is not the same animal as one that is in-stock with proven bona fides.

 

[Karl_K]

I agree that the documentation/proof is a vital part of what makes a super-ideal a super ideal. I think we are on the same page there.
What does bother me is sometimes people say things like this stone is super-ideal because it is brand x.
That bugs me, if a vendor is claiming something their feet should be kept to the fire to continue to prove it.
Take computers for example, at one time a company with a name something like IBM before they sold out their laptop business produced a line of the best laptops produced anywhere. Everyone was saying hey buy one from them.
Well the next generation they cut corners and frankly they sucked and a lot of people got burned. Yet some people still defended them, mine is awesome.......
That is why people and particularly people who advise others need to keep a vendors feet on the fire and keep it real.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I agree. But the only way a consumer can hold a merchant's feet to the fire is if the merchant is transparent about the qualifications and specifications of their brand. The more comprehensive and detailed those published specs are, the less wiggle room a merchant has. Conversely, the more vague they are about their brand characteristics the more likely they are to pass through a wider variety of diamonds into the brand. The stricter the vetting criteria the more consistent and predictable the brand will be. And the only way a merchant can be really strict is if they actually stock the diamonds and thoroughly inspect them before branding them and offering them for sale.

 

[Yang Kin]

Great question. No. Both BN and JA. JA are really 'near' hearts and arrows.

So, they are aiming for a specific faceting pattern within specific angle to achieve the H&A pattern. BN has strict parameters for table and depth, but not for crown and pavilion angle (Depth % 60.1-61.9, Table % 55-57) -- they are aiming more for 60/60 diamonds (white light over fire).

So, why is this not super-ideal? Super-ideal refers to a high precision of cutting. They are not just aiming for specific parameters for performance, but they make sure the angles to achieve those angles meet at a point. If you look at the drawing below, this idealized diamond shows a place where 8 planes come together and need to meet. Can you see how the upper and lower Vs don't meet at a point? A super-ideal would have 8 planes coming together at a single point. If you recall from physics, light is deflected when it passes through a opaque object. The purpose of faceting is to get that light to deflect and reflect as you wish (sparkle, scintillation, fire). Any non-perfect This minor deviations in perfect cutting will make the light go the wrong way.

Thus, my car example. Ever driven a 1970s Corvette? When you shift the transmission, the gates for the gears are wide. There is some slop in the transmission (you can kinda' aim it into gear). Now, a 1970s Porsche transmission is tight. You have to get the gear into a very narrow slot for shifting. Both are fast. Both are fun...but a Porsche is much more precise and, as a result, you get much more performance for each ounce of energy.

Hope that helps, maybe @Wink or @Texas Leaguer can offer a better explanation.

All that said, even a carefully selected diamond that is not super-ideal will still be MUCH MUCH better than most people have.

Hi @rockysalamander,

You mentioned that JA's True Hearts are actually "aiming for a specific faceting pattern within specific angle to achieve the H&A pattern." Care to elaborate further on this? Curious to know more. Thanks!

 

[rockysalamander]

H&A is a 57 facet pattern of cutting (58 if you could the culet). The way the facets are cut, leads to the characteristic pattern of hearts on the bottom and arrows on the top...this pattern is about symmetry, not about the performance of the diamond or the light return. But, if you look at the IS for JA, you will see that they are "near" in that they have some flaws like tears in the hearts, arrows uneven arrow shafts. So, they are cut into this right pattern, but without sufficient optical symmetry to achieve perfect H&A. So, cuts like these that have otherwise complimentary angles and meet ideal standards, are referred to as "near".

So, in the IS below. The green box shows how the tips of these two are not even, and they are not even with all the other tips. Only the tip pairs at 12 & 6 would meet a full H&A symmetry expectation. The hearts have a tear (yellow circle). You can see those tears, although subtle, in all the hearts. If you looked at the arrows view, you'd see the same kinds of asymmetry.
(chosen to be TrueHearts with high clarity to avoid confusing the view....
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vvs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-2871987)


More about Hearts and Arrows. http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/brian-gavins-hearts-and-arrows/

But, they are close to that optical symmetry. It gets way way worse, yet many retailers will still call these H&A. But, just because they are cut into the general pattern, does not mean they are close to the optical precision....

Does that help?

So, I guess the great debate is what is the line between not H&A, Near H&A and true H&A. Lots of opinions about, but this is just one of many tools used to pick a good diamond with the pattern (since other patterns certainly exist).

 

[Yang Kin]

Thanks @rockysalamander!
IMO, that True Hearts from JA is actually pretty good already in terms of H&A. Personally, I will still consider that as a H&A diamond (but this is solely my own opinion) I have seen some that is even worse from them (and not only them).

Of course, if I really want the best Hearts and Arrows, for now I will certainly go with Brian Gavin.

Recently I am looking at the face-up of some diamonds, and I noticed that despite certain diamonds have great Hearts & Arrows, their face-up view may not be that great, e.g. uneven length of arrows, and the "backside" of the arrows are not that symmetrical. Do you know why this is happening?

Btw, saw you posted a video by Jann Paul, are you from Singapore?