Good inclusions?

[Sparkalicious]

Are there such things are "good" inclusions? Are some types of inclusions better or preferrable to others? I''m talking in around the VS2/Si1 range.

Why/why not?

 

[Skippy123]

I would stay away from the black dark inclusions.

 

[solange]

There various reasons for an SI rating and it is important to discuss with the vendor what you expect. As I understand it, the stone may be graded SI and have numerous spread out inclusions which would not be visible to the naked eye or affect the appearance of the stone except when seen through a loupe.

On the other hand, if it is graded on the basis of one or a few large inclusions, it is less likely to ge "eye clean." If an inclusion is visible it would be preferable to be white or clear rather than black. Also, some inclusions can be covered by a prong as long as it does not affect the durabilty of the stone.

I am certainly not an expert on the subject but I did look into what constitutes an SI rating and found a large, perfectly eye clean SI2 which the appraiser states that "the inclusions whilst numerous are spread out without any of significance."

 

[gontama]

I too prefer "whiter" inclusions. Sometimes I prefer SI1 over VS2. Location of the inclusion contributes to the clarity grading. A similar inclusion can make a different clarity grade (e.g., VS2/SI1) depending on where it is. I would take a SI1 diamond with a single (or two is ok sometimes) not-large white inclusion "under the table". Such a diamond looks pretty even when looked at through a loupe. I do not like some VS2 inclusions, even if eye clean, that are at the edge of the diamond, which would make a clarity grade SI1 if they were under the table. To me a diamnod needs to be eye clean. It does not have to be loupe clean, but it needs to be loupe pretty.

 

[Lynn B]

Good question.

Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some "experts") actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to "blend in" with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes "stand out" more.

My (humble) opinion is that as long as an inclusion is not a structural issue for the stone, and as long as it''s not visible to the naked eye -- it''s a GOOD inclusion!!!

 

[gontama]

Date: 11/24/2007 3:53:32 PM
Author: Lynn B
Good question.

Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more.

My (humble) opinion is that as long as an inclusion is not a structural issue for the stone, and as long as it''s not visible to the naked eye -- it''s a GOOD inclusion!!!

Interesting ... But I assume the theory only applies to eye-visible inclusiosn. If eye-clean, should not matter ... And under loupe, I prefer white ...

 

[DiamondExpert]

Interesting...

"Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more."

...and I don''t buy it for trade members. Over the years, I don''t believe I''ve ever heard a tradesperson call for a diamond asking for dark/black inclusions over a white/colorless. Invariably, and often they will request "no black". And I know I''ve never seen a request to exclude stones with white/colorless inclusions.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/24/2007 4:41:05 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Interesting...

'Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some 'experts') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to 'blend in' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes 'stand out' more.'

...and I don't buy it for trade members. Over the years, I don't believe I've ever heard a tradesperson call for a diamond asking for dark/black inclusions over a white/colorless. Invariably, and often they will request 'no black'. And I know I've never seen a request to exclude stones with white/colorless inclusions.

Interesting to know, thanks!

 

[Sparkalicious]

I agree that eye-clean is important, however, I did come across an F SI1 diamond that I liked quite a bit that would be considered "eye clean", however, since I had seen a minor black inclusion when looking at it via a loupe, I just couldn''t get it out of my head. It kind of bothered me that it was there ... I felt as though I would keep wanting to try to clean it. This meant to me I needed to either find another/better SI1 or move up to VS2.

With reference to my original question, I was more inquiring about the actual inclusions, i.e., feathers vs clouds vs needles, vs crystals etc. Are any of these inclusions better than any other with regards to preserving the integrity of the stone?

 

[Sparkalicious]

Date: 11/24/2007 3:53:32 PM
Author: Lynn B
Good question.

Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more.

My (humble) opinion is that as long as an inclusion is not a structural issue for the stone, and as long as it''s not visible to the naked eye -- it''s a GOOD inclusion!!!

Interesting Lynn ... Thanks for sharing!

Coincidentally, last night I was talking about this with a friend, not an expert by any means, and they suggested that they preferred a minor dark inclusion because nowadays with the quality of cz''s etc, it is sometimes difficult to tell if a diamond is real ... A minor inclusion helps to prove the legitimacy of a diamond, so to speak. I thought it was an interesting perspective. Not necessarily one that I would subscribe to, however, interesting all the same.

I''m a sucker for marketing and the pretty package. I have bought into the thought that if you can''t see the inclusions this equates to an increased "purity" of the diamond. Lame, I know but, hey ... we all have our faults.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 11/24/2007 4:41:05 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Interesting...

''Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more.''

...and I don''t buy it for trade members. Over the years, I don''t believe I''ve ever heard a tradesperson call for a diamond asking for dark/black inclusions over a white/colorless. Invariably, and often they will request ''no black''. And I know I''ve never seen a request to exclude stones with white/colorless inclusions.

Like I said, I only know that I heard that recently and a friend said she had heard that, too. And, as I also said, I was rather surprised myself. But *which or whatever*, it personally makes no difference to me as long as the diamond is well cut and eye-clean.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/24/2007 3:53:32 PM
Author: Lynn B
Good question.

Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more.

My (humble) opinion is that as long as an inclusion is not a structural issue for the stone, and as long as it''s not visible to the naked eye -- it''s a GOOD inclusion!!!

Amen.

As long as I can''t see it without a loupe, I couldn''t care less if it''s light or dark, under the table or not, etc. I can''t see it.....that''s the point. LOL

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/24/2007 3:53:32 PM
Author: Lynn B
Good question.

Actually, lately I have heard and read that many people (including some ''experts'') actually prefer dark inclusions, which did surprise me, too. Reason being that they tend to ''blend in'' with the scintillation of the stone, while white inclusions can sometimes ''stand out'' more.

Dark inclusions are more eye-visible in grading situations/diffused lighting. Generally, trade philosophy is that, all else being equal, ''dark pique'' is less desirable than ''light pique.'' I''ve not heard that blending comment before Lynn, but it''s true that lighting always influences what''s seen. If the inclusion is of a certain relief in the correct position and lighting, I can see what''s being said.

Trust me though, don''t go to Antwerp and try to offer less for diamonds with light pique as opposed to dark (all else being equal).

My (humble) opinion is that as long as an inclusion is not a structural issue for the stone, and as long as it''s not visible to the naked eye -- it''s a GOOD inclusion!!!

And there you have it.

Sparkalicious - Any break, cleavage or opening into the diamond should be examined in particular. Diamonds are like snowflakes, none are the same and inclusion X in one diamond may be no problem where the same inclusion in another could raise a caution flag. You can take comfort in the fact that diamonds given a good grade in clarity by a reputable lab have passed one strict standard. When other experts are involved in the loop its extra assurance.

 

[Lynn B]

Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification, always a pleasure when you chime in.

So now I am wondering if when I heard that comment, the jeweler was talking about ONE particular (dark) inclusion in ONE particular location of ONE particular stone -- and not *all* diamonds in general? That well could have been my misunderstanding. Hmmmmm!

Lynn

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/25/2007 1:20:02 PM
Author: Lynn B
Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification, always a pleasure when you chime in.

So now I am wondering if when I heard that comment, the jeweler was talking about ONE particular (dark) inclusion in ONE particular location of ONE particular stone -- and not *all* diamonds in general? That well could have been my misunderstanding. Hmmmmm!

Lynn

Lynn,

You know I like to follow you around just b/c you''re so nice. In the jeweler''s defense that may have been the case. Or he may have his lighting scheme tweaked in such a manner that eye-visible light inclusions do show up more in his shop, or he might be starting a new fad.

 

[Sparkalicious]

Does anyone know if any inclusions, feathers, clouds, needles, crystals, pinpoints etc .. better/worse than any other with regards to preserving the integrity of the stone?

 

[DiamondExpert]

I think needles, crystals, and small clouds and feathers are that are nicely self-contained and well within the crystal offer little threat to durability.

What I don''t like to see is a feather along a one of the 4 cleavage planes (these have characteristic knife-edge straightness and sharpness) which reaches the girdle surface, especially near a corner on a fancy shape.

Another is not a concern with durability, but more a general negative effect on the stone''s performance - where there is a note on the cert. of an SI1 or SI2 where the clarity grade was set by a cloud or clouds...this may be due to an all pervasive cloudy effect on the stone.

 

[Sparkalicious]

Very informative, thank you!