Help, how about this SI2 clarity?

[feidudu]

Hi guys ,I find this stone online 2.C f SI2 vsb AGS .with reasonable price ,with 0.9 HCA .but the actual pic is so .......specially Very strong black inclusion on the bottom left part of the table, and this inclusion is not shown on the AGS report ? How about the cavity in the report which I can not see any in pic ?
Is AGS' clarity grade is looser than GIA 's ?
I want to have ur opions ,thank u in advance.

 

[feidudu]

AGS report "additional twinning wisps are not show". and I have done some work that it seems twinning wisps are not always seen by eye ? from "http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/Clarity/InclusionGallery/"

 

[beezygal]

I think AGS and GIA have the same clarity grading. AGS might be more specific about cut than GIA though. SI2 is possible to have visible inclusion. I''ve seen a SI1 with a BIG black thing in the middle.

 

[Dreamer_D]

AGS is similar to GIA with clarity.

You cannot judge eye cleanliness based on pics and plots. You will need to call JA and ask them for their assessment of the diamond.

The general concensus among SI2 owners on PS< including myself, is that even if an SI2 is eye clean technically (usually means 8-10 inches face up in normal lighting and with 20/20 vision), you will be able to see inclusions at *some* distance or angles or lighting. If you are ok with that, then it can be a really good value!

 

[koaur]

I remember seeing this diamond when looking on James Allen, the cut was ideal and the price was too good to be true (<$10,000 for a F SI2). I think the thing you need to be worried about is the “very strong blue fluorescence” more than the clarity. You can see the blue in the picture above…

 

[feidudu]

fluorescence is not my consideration .I think I will be OK with it.

Date: 3/30/2010 12:45:40 AM
Author: koaur
I remember seeing this diamond when looking on James Allen, the cut was ideal and the price was too good to be true (<$10,000 for a F SI2). I think the thing you need to be worried about is the “very strong blue fluorescence” more than the clarity. You can see the blue in the picture above…

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/30/2010 12:54:26 AM
Author: feidudu
fluorescence is not my consideration .I think I will be OK with it.

Date: 3/30/2010 12:45:40 AM
Author: koaur
I remember seeing this diamond when looking on James Allen, the cut was ideal and the price was too good to be true (<$10,000 for a F SI2). I think the thing you need to be worried about is the &#8220;very strong blue fluorescence&#8221; more than the clarity. You can see the blue in the picture above&#8230;

Yes, flor gets a bad rap for little real reason. There have been many recent threads on the topic.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2010 12:35:36 AM
Author: dreamer_d
AGS is similar to GIA with clarity.

You cannot judge eye cleanliness based on pics and plots. You will need to call JA and ask them for their assessment of the diamond.

The general concensus among SI2 owners on PS< including myself, is that even if an SI2 is eye clean technically (usually means 8-10 inches face up in normal lighting and with 20/20 vision), you will be able to see inclusions at *some* distance or angles or lighting. If you are ok with that, then it can be a really good value!

Ditto, also check the cavity is not a potential durability issue and that the fluorescence isn''t making the stone look cloudy ( rare but best to check).

 

[Andelain]

My $.02 worth is that I would be surprised if that black streak at 4 oclock isn''t visible to the naked eye. I''d be very leery of that diamond, although the cut, color and price are good.

 

[yssie]

You really, really can't tell if an inclusion plotted on the report or seen through the loupe will be visible IRL or not - the ONLY way is to ask someone to actually look at the stone. You just never know what sparkle and contrast will and won't hide. I have seen (and subsequently owned) more than one truly bafflingly loupe-dirty, unphotogenic, eye-clean diamond.

 

[feidudu]

thanks for all .
I think I have to go to have an inspection .

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2010 9:05:35 AM
Author: yssie
You really, really can''t tell if an inclusion plotted on the report or seen through the loupe will be visible IRL or not - the ONLY way is to ask someone to actually look at the stone. You just never know what sparkle and contrast will and won''t hide. I have seen (and subsequently owned) more than one truly bafflingly loupe-dirty, unphotogenic, eye-clean diamond.

I am SO borrowing that saying, thanks Yissers!!!

 

[yssie]

Date: 3/30/2010 10:10:07 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/30/2010 9:05:35 AM
Author: yssie
You really, really can''t tell if an inclusion plotted on the report or seen through the loupe will be visible IRL or not - the ONLY way is to ask someone to actually look at the stone. You just never know what sparkle and contrast will and won''t hide. I have seen (and subsequently owned) more than one truly bafflingly loupe-dirty, unphotogenic, eye-clean diamond.

I am SO borrowing that saying, thanks Yissers!!!

whatever you like, m''lady

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2010 10:21:21 AM
Author: yssie

Date: 3/30/2010 10:10:07 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/30/2010 9:05:35 AM
Author: yssie
You really, really can''t tell if an inclusion plotted on the report or seen through the loupe will be visible IRL or not - the ONLY way is to ask someone to actually look at the stone. You just never know what sparkle and contrast will and won''t hide. I have seen (and subsequently owned) more than one truly bafflingly loupe-dirty, unphotogenic, eye-clean diamond.

I am SO borrowing that saying, thanks Yissers!!!

whatever you like, m''lady

Thankees M''aam!!

 

[Phoenix]

My 2 cents worth is this: The price is too good to be true. I looked at that stone recently and decided to pass on it. The inclusions I suspect will NOT be eye-clean and the very strong blue fluor is more likely than not to have a negative impact on the stone.

In any case, do ask Jim Schultz what he and his gemologist think abt the stone. My experience with JA is that they will tell you the truth.

 

[feidudu]

Date: 3/30/2010 11:00:29 AM
Author: Phoenix
My 2 cents worth is this: The price is too good to be true. I looked at that stone recently and decided to pass on it. The inclusions I suspect will NOT be eye-clean and the very strong blue fluor is more likely than not to have a negative impact on the stone.

In any case, do ask Jim Schultz what he and his gemologist think abt the stone. My experience with JA is that they will tell you the truth.

Guys ,Did any of you request for inspection by a gemologist? What did they say?

 

[feidudu]

I got the result that "that diamond is not worth to buy"

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 4/1/2010 10:55:31 AM
Author: feidudu
I got the result that ''that diamond is not worth to buy''

Better to know now than later. I am glad they were honest.

There are not real deals in diamonds unfortunately. When the price is too good to be true it usually means there is some flaw in the diamond that limits its marketability. Nice honest SI2s that are eye clean (enough) are out there, but you will still pay a penny for them.

 

[feidudu]

yes , u r right. there is no free cake .
I think JA is really honest and worth believing .

Date: 4/1/2010 10:58:50 AM
Author: dreamer_d

Date: 4/1/2010 10:55:31 AM

Author: feidudu

I got the result that 'that diamond is not worth to buy'

Better to know now than later. I am glad they were honest.


There are not real deals in diamonds unfortunately. When the price is too good to be true it usually means there is some flaw in the diamond that limits its marketability. Nice honest SI2s that are eye clean (enough) are out there, but you will still pay a penny for them.