How do you find super eyeclean SI2s?

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 11:05:01 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
I have an SI2 and the inclusions are only visible when the stone is dirty. So I make it a mission to keep it clean at all times!

Good point; this is an issue for some people. So make sure you view the stone from all angles, clean, smudged, etc. SI2s may or may not work for you depending on your vision and comfort level with inclusions.

Here is a stone from the High Performance Diamonds (HPD) website. Again, all Crafted by Infinity stones, available from Wink at HPD or any of the other Infinity vendors.


1.82 J S1 inclusions off to the side; look prongable.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 11:11:32 AM
Author: dreamer_d
I would cyber stalk GOG, WF and BGD for SI2s in the size you want, and then call immediately when they show up to get an assessment of eye cleanliness.


Brian mentioned to me in a phone call the other day that the 2ct F SI2 they had was one of those rare 1000% eye clean SI2s. Not surprisingly, when I just went to look for it to show you, it is now sold only 2 days later!

Ditto. If you are looking for something specific like this, don''t hesitate to call the vendors and let them know your budget, your carat range, color and clarity preferences, so they can call you back when they become aware of a stone that meets your specs. "People in the know," i.e., savvy PS''ers know that eyeclean SI1''s and SI2''s are incredible values, so they don''t stay in stock long.

 

[coati]

Date: 3/19/2010 4:56:20 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 1:22:36 AM

Author: Firestone

I agree with Kenney...feathers are a no go.



I agree with Dreamer...most SIs are not really eye clean.

Actually that isn't the case, expert opinions also differ on that one, while some feathers can indeed be problematic, there are plenty of diamonds even in SI clarities out there that never have any problems.


I did a thread on this matter a while back that you might find enlightening https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-the-experts-when-is-a-feather-an-issue.126601/

Lorelei is correct about feathers. Feather inclusions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, a tiny included feather that does not break the surface will generally not pose a durability risk. More info on this topic coming soon.

If you want an eye-clean SI2 stone, do what other posters have suggested and start with a great vendor you trust, communicate your parameters, and wait patiently.

eta: Do try to go a local retail store that has well-cut stones, and ask to see SI clarity diamonds. Looking at magnified/static pictures on the internet will not give you a true sense of what inclusions you will see in person.

 

[slycatty]

Thanks for the tips everyone. So far I''ve been in contact with Whiteflash and James Allen. I''ll just tell them keep an eye out for me. BGD seems to be bit busy at the moment, haven''t heard back from them. I''ll definitely check out Wink. I think a 1.9 I SI2 is the lowest combination I''m comfortable with. I did check out J stones in the store and was able to see some color. They are such a great value though.... tempting

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 4:56:20 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 1:22:36 AM

Author: Firestone

I agree with Kenney...feathers are a no go.



I agree with Dreamer...most SIs are not really eye clean.

Actually that isn''t the case, expert opinions also differ on that one, while some feathers can indeed be problematic, there are plenty of diamonds even in SI clarities out there that never have any problems.


I did a thread on this matter a while back that you might find enlightening https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-the-experts-when-is-a-feather-an-issue.126601/

That isn''t the case???? Lorelei you can''t tell me or Kenney what is acceptable to us. Feathers are not acceptable to me or Kenney. We have the right to make that judgment. If feathers don''t bother you or others, then buy stones with feathers. But just because you aren''t bothered about feathers doesn''t mean that Kenney and I shouldn''t be bothered by feathers. Kenney and I won''t purchase a stone with feathers and you can not tell us that we are not right for not doing so.

I don''t need to be enlightened about feathers. I understand feathers. I just don''t want them.

"Inclusions that are better than others?

Since you asked... I''d prefer a diamond that does not have feathers since feather is a nice word for fracture, and fracture is a nice word for crack.

Other people take a "Oh a feather is not an issue if person X says so, so just put your mind at ease", but to me a crack does not make a diamond any stronger and I''m going to look for crack-free ones.
It may take more time, but they''re out there.

If you are informed about feathers and okay with them in your diamond (especially SI diamond and lower clarity), then so be it."

This is what Kenney said and this is what I said I agreed with.

With so many available stones out there without feathers, I would encourage a person to seek out a stone without feathers first instead of blindly just accepting feathers.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/19/2010 1:28:00 PM
Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 4:56:20 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 1:22:36 AM

Author: Firestone

I agree with Kenney...feathers are a no go.



I agree with Dreamer...most SIs are not really eye clean.

Actually that isn't the case, expert opinions also differ on that one, while some feathers can indeed be problematic, there are plenty of diamonds even in SI clarities out there that never have any problems.


I did a thread on this matter a while back that you might find enlightening https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-the-experts-when-is-a-feather-an-issue.126601/

That isn't the case???? Lorelei you can't tell me or Kenney what is acceptable to us. Feathers are not acceptable to me or Kenney. We have the right to make that judgment. If feathers don't bother you or others, then buy stones with feathers. But just because you aren't bothered about feathers doesn't mean that Kenney and I shouldn't be bothered by feathers. Kenney and I won't purchase a stone with feathers and you can not tell us that we are not right for not doing so.

What you choose to buy is completely up to you and I absolutely respect your right to do so. However when you make blanket statements such as ' feathers are a no go' without making it clear this is your opinion and preference, then you can be sure I am going to pass comment when this can cause fear, concern and doubt to consumers that are seeking advice. I have seen time and time again how remarks like that can cause worry to owners of diamonds with feathers or those contemplating stones with feathers, when the majority of the time this concern is unfounded. Kenny's comments made it perfectly clear that this is his preference and opinion only.

I don't need to be enlightened about feathers. I understand feathers. I just don't want them. If you don't want to read the thread I linked which specifically addresses this issue to learn and read some other viewpoints, again that is fine, although if you are going to continue to try to advise here, it would behove you to learn and read as much as possible and be open to different opinions, particularly from experts that know what they are talking about. If you prefer your diamond not to have feathers then thats entirely up to you.

'Inclusions that are better than others?

Since you asked... I'd prefer a diamond that does not have feathers since feather is a nice word for fracture, and fracture is a nice word for crack.

Other people take a 'Oh a feather is not an issue if person X says so, so just put your mind at ease', but to me a crack does not make a diamond any stronger and I'm going to look for crack-free ones.
It may take more time, but they're out there.

If you are informed about feathers and okay with them in your diamond (especially SI diamond and lower clarity), then so be it.'

This is what Kenney said and this is what I said I agreed with.

With so many available stones out there without feathers, I would encourage a person to seek out a stone without feathers first instead of blindly just accepting feathers. Then you are doing others a disservice by deliberately trying to dissuade them from buying a diamond with a feather, particularly if the stone has been inspected, hand selected and recommended by one of the trusted vendors or experts here.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 1:43:45 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 1:28:00 PM

Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 4:56:20 AM

Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 1:22:36 AM


Author: Firestone


I agree with Kenney...feathers are a no go.





I agree with Dreamer...most SIs are not really eye clean.

Actually that isn''t the case, expert opinions also differ on that one, while some feathers can indeed be problematic, there are plenty of diamonds even in SI clarities out there that never have any problems.



I did a thread on this matter a while back that you might find enlightening https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-the-experts-when-is-a-feather-an-issue.126601/

That isn''t the case???? Lorelei you can''t tell me or Kenney what is acceptable to us. Feathers are not acceptable to me or Kenney. We have the right to make that judgment. If feathers don''t bother you or others, then buy stones with feathers. But just because you aren''t bothered about feathers doesn''t mean that Kenney and I shouldn''t be bothered by feathers. Kenney and I won''t purchase a stone with feathers and you can not tell us that we are not right for not doing so.


What you choose to buy is completely up to you and I absolutely respect your right to do so. However when you make blanket statements such as '' feathers are a no go'' without making it clear this is your opinion and preference, then you can be sure I am going to pass comment when this can cause fear, concern and doubt to consumers that are seeking advice. I have seen time and time again how remarks like that can cause worry to owners of diamonds with feathers or those contemplating stones with feathers, when the majority of the time this concern is unfounded. Kenny''s comments made it perfectly clear that this is his preference and opinion only.


I don''t need to be enlightened about feathers. I understand feathers. I just don''t want them. If you don''t want to read the thread I linked which specifically addresses this issue to learn and read some other viewpoints, again that is fine, although if you are going to continue to try to advise here, it would behove you to learn and read as much as possible - its a pity if you are not prepared to do this. If you prefer your diamond not to have feathers then thats entirely up to you.



''Inclusions that are better than others?


Since you asked... I''d prefer a diamond that does not have feathers since feather is a nice word for fracture, and fracture is a nice word for crack.


Other people take a ''Oh a feather is not an issue if person X says so, so just put your mind at ease'', but to me a crack does not make a diamond any stronger and I''m going to look for crack-free ones.

It may take more time, but they''re out there.


If you are informed about feathers and okay with them in your diamond (especially SI diamond and lower clarity), then so be it.''


This is what Kenney said and this is what I said I agreed with.


With so many available stones out there without feathers, I would encourage a person to seek out a stone without feathers first instead of blindly just accepting feathers. Then you are doing others a disservice by deliberately trying to dissuade them from buying a diamond with a feather, particularly if the stone has been inspected, hand selected and recommended by one of the trusted vendors or experts here.

It has become a pattern that you seek to take exception with my comments.

Feathers should be a concern and should not be blindly accepted. If a person is going to consider a stone with a feather, they should be strongly alerted to check out that feather very carefully. Stones with feathers should only be purchased with caution and only after careful evaluation of the feather.

Feathers are among the least desirable type of inclusions. The original question was what inclusions are better than others. Feathers are not preferable. Feathers can be potentially very serious. Note I did not say all feathers were potentially dangerous. I am saying that feathers are not among the better inclusions. And even if a particular feather was thought not to be potentially dangerous, it is not a preferred inclusion.

"Kenny''s comments made it perfectly clear that this is his preference and opinion only."

And since I said I agreed with Kenney, I was making it perfectly clear that was my preference and opinion. Feathers are a no go with me.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/19/2010 2:24:21 PM
Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 1:43:45 PM
Author: Lorelei

.

It has become a pattern that you seek to take exception with my comments. I do not seek to take exception to your comments, rather, making sure consumers that come here for advice get the best advice possible. Should advice be offered that can potentially cause unnecessary concern to those consumers, then I am going to address it.

Feathers should be a concern and should not be blindly accepted. If a person is going to consider a stone with a feather, they should be strongly alerted to check out that feather very carefully. Stones with feathers should only be purchased with caution and only after careful evaluation of the feather. Nowhere did I say that feathers should be blindly accepted and that you state that feathers should be carefully evaluated is absolutely right. Different to your earlier statement that ' feathers are a no go.'

Feathers are among the least desirable type of inclusions. The original question was what inclusions are better than others. Feathers are not preferable. Feathers can be potentially very serious. Note I did not say all feathers were potentially dangerous. I am saying that feathers are not among the better inclusions. And even if a particular feather was thought not to be potentially dangerous, it is not a preferred inclusion. Some of what you say has merit, however some is also is your opinion, other opinions may differ. Concerning undesirable inclusions, you may be interested to learn that grade making clouds in SI clarity grades can in some cases be very undesirable as these can negatively impact the performance and transparency of the stone.

'Kenny's comments made it perfectly clear that this is his preference and opinion only.'

And since I said I agreed with Kenney, I was making it perfectly clear that was my preference and opinion. Actually I disagree that you made it clear that this statement was your preference and opinion. You said although you agree with Kenny, feathers are a no go and unlike Kenny, you didn't specifically say that this was your preference and opinion. Stating that feathers are a no go is a blanket statement and the implications of this to a new consumer are that feathers are to be avoided at all costs. As I said previously, that you prefer to buy a diamond without feather/s is not an issue. Buy what you choose and are personally comfortable with.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 1:09:14 PM
Author: slycatty
Thanks for the tips everyone. So far I''ve been in contact with Whiteflash and James Allen. I''ll just tell them keep an eye out for me. BGD seems to be bit busy at the moment, haven''t heard back from them. I''ll definitely check out Wink. I think a 1.9 I SI2 is the lowest combination I''m comfortable with. I did check out J stones in the store and was able to see some color. They are such a great value though.... tempting

Hi, Slycatty, Yes, there is a definite price break at J color, so they are tempting. I''ve owned a J, and M, and an I Crafted by Infinity (all from Wink). My I has strong blue fluorescence, which bumps up the whiteness factor in some lights. If I were to go up in carat weight from my current 1 carat, I would be willing to look at J''s because each one is different, but I would also be aware that color does tend to show more in larger stones.

Wink will make videos for you, and that does help. But seeing the stone in person and in different lighting conditions is the way to go. So I definitely recommend giving Wink a call, and give him your preferences, and discuss your concerns with him. He may know of stones due to be shipped from the cuter (Paul) that will meet your requirements. It never hurts to ask.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 2:42:48 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 2:24:21 PM

Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 1:43:45 PM

Author: Lorelei

.

It has become a pattern that you seek to take exception with my comments. I do not seek to take exception to your comments, rather, making sure consumers that come here for advice get the best advice possible. Should advice be offered that can potentially cause unnecessary concern to those consumers, then I am going to address it.


Feathers should be a concern and should not be blindly accepted. If a person is going to consider a stone with a feather, they should be strongly alerted to check out that feather very carefully. Stones with feathers should only be purchased with caution and only after careful evaluation of the feather. Nowhere did I say that feathers should be blindly accepted and that you state that feathers should be carefully evaluated is absolutely right. Different to your earlier statement that '' feathers are a no go.''


Feathers are among the least desirable type of inclusions. The original question was what inclusions are better than others. Feathers are not preferable. Feathers can be potentially very serious. Note I did not say all feathers were potentially dangerous. I am saying that feathers are not among the better inclusions. And even if a particular feather was thought not to be potentially dangerous, it is not a preferred inclusion. Some of what you say has merit, however some is also is your opinion, other opinions may differ. Concerning undesirable inclusions, you may be interested to learn that grade making clouds in SI clarity grades can in some cases be very undesirable as these can negatively impact the performance and transparency of the stone.


''Kenny''s comments made it perfectly clear that this is his preference and opinion only.''


And since I said I agreed with Kenney, I was making it perfectly clear that was my preference and opinion. Actually I disagree that you made it clear that this statement was your preference and opinion. You said although you agree with Kenny, feathers are a no go. Stating that feathers are a no go is a blanket statement and the implications of this to a new consumer are that feathers are to be avoided at all costs. As I said previously, that you prefer to buy a diamond without feather/s is not an issue. Buy what you choose and are personally comfortable with.

Bravo, Lorelei

Firestone. You seem to know that it is a myth that diamonds can never be damaged. But it is not just diamonds with inclusions that can be damaged; even a flawless diamond could be damaged if struck at just the right angle. That''s why we recommend people buy insurance for their rings.

What I object to is your attitude that your views are somehow more correct than the views of consumers and experts on this site who have many decades of experience with diamonds, but yet we know nothing about you and/or your experience with diamonds.

I keep waiting for you to share your experience -- are you a jewelry retailer, a consumer who owns many gemstones, a first-time diamond buyer, an amateur gemologist? Please share the source of your opinions and you may receive a warmer welcome. But right now I have to agree with Lorelei, your posts are unnecessarily scaring members new to this forum who haven''t done the research necessary to know whose opinions have merit and whose opinions aren''t worth the cyber paper they''re printed on.

 

[Rockdiamond]

+++1 Lorelei and coatimundi- it''s important to remember that a polished diamond has gone through extraordinary stresses on the polishing wheel, before you ever saw it.
The percentages of times that a feather may cause a durability problem is very small.

This is yet another case of people taking personal preference and turning it into a "rule". The "rule" is then stated in such a manner to confuse casual readers.
Then they go into their local jewelry store armed with false knowledge- which leads to all sorts of assumptions being made.

There are plenty of eye clean SI2 diamonds- the ONLY way I have found to identify them is through physical examination.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Lorelei You are getting a run for your money these days.

I think that the expert opinions on feathers are very clear in the document that Lorelei linked, and from the comments that Coati, a GG, posted as well, and from Rockdiamond's posts too. Firestone I suspect that you prefer IF stones. That is fine. But it does not make feathers inherently dangerous.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 3:23:12 PM
Author: dreamer_d
Lorelei You are getting a run for your money these days.


I think that the expert opinions on feathers are very clear in the document that Lorelei linked, and from the comments that Coati, a GG, posted as well, and from Rockdiamond''s posts too. Firestone I suspect that you prefer IF stones. That is fine. But it does not make feathers inherently dangerous.

I don''t mind if you care to question what I have said but please read carefully what I did say and don''t spin my words.

I NEVER made the blanket statement that feathers are inherently dangerous. I never suggested it.

I said for me, feathers are a no go. I personally don''t care what so called experts who are looking to sell off their feathered stones say about feathers. Could their opinions be a little self serving? Feathers are not acceptable to me. Feathers may well be acceptable to lots of other people. That''s fine. They can spend their money anyway they want. I also said that feathers are not a preferred inclusion.

Expert opinions? I don''t see any expert saying that feathers are a plus to have. Feathers are not desirable. What expert is saying that feathers are desirable? I don''t see any expert making a blanket statement that feathers are of no concern. Feathers are of concern and that is why the so called experts advise to have the particular feather carefully checked out. Is some expert going to tell me I''m not entitled to reject stones with feathers? So what exactly are the experts contradicting me on?

Why do you think feathers are called feathers and not cracks?

Getting back to the original question -- feathers are not a preferable inclusion and require careful examination unlike other types of inclusions.

I don''t think it is helping a consumer to attempt to label a feather like a pinpoint or a cloud.

And yes I do prefer F, IF and VVSs. But that isn''t the point. Most consumers will never have a flawless stone. A consumer should be educated to know that certain inclusions are better than others and some are worse than others...which was exactly the original question. Consumers should be educated to know that not all stones have feathers and that there are plenty of stones out there they can purchase that don''t have feathers.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 3:19:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
+++1 Lorelei and coatimundi- it''s important to remember that a polished diamond has gone through extraordinary stresses on the polishing wheel, before you ever saw it.

The percentages of times that a feather may cause a durability problem is very small.


This is yet another case of people taking personal preference and turning it into a ''rule''. The ''rule'' is then stated in such a manner to confuse casual readers.

Then they go into their local jewelry store armed with false knowledge- which leads to all sorts of assumptions being made.


There are plenty of eye clean SI2 diamonds- the ONLY way I have found to identify them is through physical examination.

I like percentages. Do you advice owners of a diamond with a feather to use ultrasonic cleaners? Do you ever advice any of them not to use an ultrasonic cleaner?

When you sell a diamond with a feather and give your opinion that the feather is not potentially dangerous, do you provide the customer with a guarantee in writing? Will you stand behind your opinion that the feather is not potentially dangerous? When you give your opinion that the feather is not potentially dangerous, do you give that opinion in writing? If not, why not?

My belief, and correct me if I am wrong, is that there are many jewelers out there more than willing to give their honest opinion that a feather is not potentially dangerous but will not put that opinion in writing and will not back that opinion with a guarantee.

So as a consumer, why should a consumer feel assured by a jeweler''s oral opinion if the jeweler is unwilling to put that opinion in writing and give a guarantee?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/19/2010 4:05:46 PM
Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 3:23:12 PM
Author: dreamer_d
Lorelei You are getting a run for your money these days.


I think that the expert opinions on feathers are very clear in the document that Lorelei linked, and from the comments that Coati, a GG, posted as well, and from Rockdiamond's posts too. Firestone I suspect that you prefer IF stones. That is fine. But it does not make feathers inherently dangerous.

I don't mind if you care to question what I have said but please read carefully what I did say and don't spin my words.

I NEVER made the blanket statement that feathers are inherently dangerous. I never suggested it.

I said for me, feathers are a no go. Actually you didn't, you said " I agree with Kenny. Feathers are a no go." To a consumer just learning about diamonds it has happened that these statements are taken literally and that they become scared of feathers in diamonds for no real reason. If you had said I agree with Kenny, for me feathers are a no go" then that would have made it clear it was your opinion.


I personally don't care what so called experts who are looking to sell off their feathered stones say about feathers. Could their opinions be a little self serving? Feathers are not acceptable to me. Feathers may well be acceptable to lots of other people. That's fine. They can spend their money anyway they want. I also said that feathers are not a preferred inclusion.

The remarks below are from experts that post here on an impartial basis. As I said that is not an issue that feathers are unacceptable to you, buy what you please - in fact I urge you to do so. If a diamond will not be what we call ' mindclean' to you if it has a feather, then avoid such stones.

Expert opinions? I don't see any expert saying that feathers are a plus to have. Feathers are not desirable. What expert is saying that feathers are desirable? I don't see any expert making a blanket statement that feathers are of no concern. Feathers are of concern and that is why the so called experts advise to have the particular feather carefully checked out. Is some expert going to tell me I'm not entitled to reject stones with feathers? So what exactly are the experts contradicting me on?

No one is telling you that you are not entitled to reject a diamond with a feather nor would tell you that, this isn't the issue.

As it would appear you don't want to read the thread I linked earlier, I am going to quote some of the info from our experts - not so called but actual experts - concerning feathers. Feathers appear in many diamonds and are neither a plus or a minus in many of those instances. Better in my opinion a feather that has been inspected by an expert and is not deemed to be a problem than a stone which is dull and lacklustre because it has grade making clouds in SI grades that are spoiling the performance and beauty.

From David Atlas, renowned expert and gemological appraiser.

"A feather, especially any sort of inclusion which opens on the surface is a weaker area of the diamond. If it is going to break, chip or cleave, such a weakened area is a potentially higher risk zone. But in 40+ years, I have seen just a few diamonds which really seemed doomed to be readily broken in use and far fewer which actually broke. Many more diamond become chipped slightly around the girlde and/or abraded on the crown from years of harsh wear and improper storage rubbing other diamonds in moving jewelry cases. Few really suffer big, important damage in use.
Insurance covers such drastic loss anyway for nearly all such major losses. Such major losses are relatively rare.

If a consumer can avoid a diamond with inclusions which are open on the crown, especially those open on the table, they are doing the right thing. Many imperfect diamonds are inherently flawed with open blemishes. It is just part of the game at the low end.

A tiny feather, open or not, in a VS1 or VS2 is unlikely to evre be the reason for a future problem. I have seen no evidence of such a problem ever. Usually diamonds which fall apart had good reason to be weak due to thinness, shape, or obvious flaws which always were rather prominent. "

From Dan Gillen of ERD whom I believe is also a graduate gemologist.

"I have been reading the posts on feathers for the past couple of weeks. I am surprised, but I probably shouldn't be, that there is so much concern about this inclusion. I feel the name and the fact that I keep seeing the word crack associated with it, and although that may be correct, it is not exactly a term that does the inclusion any justice. At 100 power a crack will not be discernable in the majority of feathers.

Feathers rarely extend after a daimond is set. The great thing is they are usually around the outside and have a good chance of not reflecting. They are almost always white, and sometimes slightly transparent.

And they almost always touch the surface,99+% sure on this.

I feel from what I am reading consumers are getting the wrong impression with regard to feathers and passing up great diamonds."

From Garry Holloway, renowned expert and creator of Idealscope and the Holloway Cut Advisor.

"Like Dave (who I agree with) I have several more years experiance than young "30 years of diamond" (who I agree with), and I have re appraised many diamonds several times - when I see damage, and I do, it is almost always associated with girdle chips - and 90% of those chips are not seemingly related to inclusions. The most likley cause of chipping is thin girdles with low crown angles (generally they go together).

I even have a belief that many diamonds with inclusions are actually less likely to chip near the inclusions. Can't prove it though.

However I do avoid diamonds with crown opens - especially those that run across table crown facet junctions (even more so than table only opens Dave).

So it seems that feathers or cracks are not realy a big issue.
Dave you have seen many more very low clarity stones than most - does your opinion hold down around I2-I3?


Finally I know for a fact that Argyle champagne (and pink's) are more easily broken (the Company Sec of Ashton who found Argyle did an experiment to smash many small diamonds from several mines - with a hammer and anvil) and I have seen more bits drop out of these Aussie colored diamonds than all the colorless diamonds of which I have seen may more stable stones.
(I guess that means we Aussies can't take a lot of stress before we crumble)"


Why do you think feathers are called feathers and not cracks?

Getting back to the original question -- feathers are not a preferable inclusion and require careful examination unlike other types of inclusions.

I don't think it is helping a consumer to attempt to label a feather like a pinpoint or a cloud.

And yes I do prefer F, IF and VVSs. But that isn't the point. Most consumers will never have a flawless stone. A consumer should be educated to know that certain inclusions are better than others and some are worse than others...which was exactly the original question. Consumers should be educated to know that not all stones have feathers and that there are plenty of stones out there they can purchase that don't have feathers.

And lastly my point is that it is not best serving consumers coming here for advice to deliberately scare them off feathers in diamonds when there is no need, particularly if an expert has evaluated a particular stone and said there is not a problem.


Also buying very high clarity is absolutely no guarantee your diamond won't break - hit it or drop it and it is sadly possible your potential IF stone could break or chip.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 4:25:19 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/19/2010 4:05:46 PM

Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 3:23:12 PM

Author: dreamer_d

Lorelei You are getting a run for your money these days.



I think that the expert opinions on feathers are very clear in the document that Lorelei linked, and from the comments that Coati, a GG, posted as well, and from Rockdiamond''s posts too. Firestone I suspect that you prefer IF stones. That is fine. But it does not make feathers inherently dangerous.

I don''t mind if you care to question what I have said but please read carefully what I did say and don''t spin my words.


I NEVER made the blanket statement that feathers are inherently dangerous. I never suggested it.


I said for me, feathers are a no go. I personally don''t care what so called experts who are looking to sell off their feathered stones say about feathers. Could their opinions be a little self serving? Feathers are not acceptable to me. Feathers may well be acceptable to lots of other people. That''s fine. They can spend their money anyway they want. I also said that feathers are not a preferred inclusion.


The remarks below are from experts that post here on an impartial basis. As I said that is not an issue that feathers are unacceptable to you, buy what you please - in fact I urge you to do so. If a diamond will not be what we call '' mindclean'' to you if it has a feather, then avoid such stones.


Expert opinions? I don''t see any expert saying that feathers are a plus to have. Feathers are not desirable. What expert is saying that feathers are desirable? I don''t see any expert making a blanket statement that feathers are of no concern. Feathers are of concern and that is why the so called experts advise to have the particular feather carefully checked out. Is some expert going to tell me I''m not entitled to reject stones with feathers? So what exactly are the experts contradicting me on?


As it would appear you don''t wish to read the thread I linked earlier, I am going to quote some of the info from our experts - not so called but actual experts - concerning feathers. Feathers appear in many diamonds and are neither a plus or a minus in many of those instances. Better a feather that has been inspected by an expert and is not deemed to be a problem than a stone which is dull and lacklustre because it has grade making clouds that are spoiling the performance and beauty.


From David Atlas, renowed expert and gemological appraiser.


''A feather, especially any sort of inclusion which opens on the surface is a weaker area of the diamond. If it is going to break, chip or cleave, such a weakened area is a potentially higher risk zone. But in 40+ years, I have seen just a few diamonds which really seemed doomed to be readily broken in use and far fewer which actually broke. Many more diamond become chipped slightly around the girlde and/or abraded on the crown from years of harsh wear and improper storage rubbing other diamonds in moving jewelry cases. Few really suffer big, important damage in use.

Insurance covers such drastic loss anyway for nearly all such major losses. Such major losses are relatively rare.

If a consumer can avoid a diamond with inclusions which are open on the crown, especially those open on the table, they are doing the right thing. Many imperfect diamonds are inherently flawed with open blemishes. It is just part of the game at the low end.

A tiny feather, open or not, in a VS1 or VS2 is unlikely to evre be the reason for a future problem. I have seen no evidence of such a problem ever. Usually diamonds which fall apart had good reason to be weak due to thinness, shape, or obvious flaws which always were rather prominent. ''


From Dan Gillen of ERD whom I believe is also a graduate gemologist.


''I have been reading the posts on feathers for the past couple of weeks. I am surprised, but I probably shouldn''t be, that there is so much concern about this inclusion. I feel the name and the fact that I keep seeing the word crack associated with it, and although that may be correct, it is not exactly a term that does the inclusion any justice. At 100 power a crack will not be discernable in the majority of feathers.

Feathers rarely extend after a daimond is set. The great thing is they are usually around the outside and have a good chance of not reflecting. They are almost always white, and sometimes slightly transparent.

And they almost always touch the surface,99+% sure on this.

I feel from what I am reading consumers are getting the wrong impression with regard to feathers and passing up great diamonds.''



From Garry Holloway, renowned expert and creator of Idealscope and the Holloway Cut Advisor.


''Like Dave (who I agree with) I have several more years experiance than young ''30 years of diamond'' (who I agree with), and I have re appraised many diamonds several times - when I see damage, and I do, it is almost always associated with girdle chips - and 90% of those chips are not seemingly related to inclusions. The most likley cause of chipping is thin girdles with low crown angles (generally they go together).

I even have a belief that many diamonds with inclusions are actually less likely to chip near the inclusions. Can''t prove it though.

However I do avoid diamonds with crown opens - especially those that run across table crown facet junctions (even more so than table only opens Dave).

So it seems that feathers or cracks are not realy a big issue.

Dave you have seen many more very low clarity stones than most - does your opinion hold down around I2-I3?


Finally I know for a fact that Argyle champagne (and pink''s) are more easily broken (the Company Sec of Ashton who found Argyle did an experiment to smash many small diamonds from several mines - with a hammer and anvil) and I have seen more bits drop out of these Aussie colored diamonds than all the colorless diamonds of which I have seen may more stable stones.

(I guess that means we Aussies can''t take a lot of stress before we crumble)''






Why do you think feathers are called feathers and not cracks?


Getting back to the original question -- feathers are not a preferable inclusion and require careful examination unlike other types of inclusions.


I don''t think it is helping a consumer to attempt to label a feather like a pinpoint or a cloud.


And yes I do prefer F, IF and VVSs. But that isn''t the point. Most consumers will never have a flawless stone. A consumer should be educated to know that certain inclusions are better than others and some are worse than others...which was exactly the original question. Consumers should be educated to know that not all stones have feathers and that there are plenty of stones out there they can purchase that don''t have feathers.


And lastly my point is that it is not best serving consumers coming here for advice to deliberately scare them off feathers in diamonds when there is no need, particularly if an expert has evaluated a particular stone and said there is not a problem.

Read carefully what they said and their choice of words. No where was it said definitively that a feather was absolutely not potentially dangerous. The opinions are cushioned with words like most likely and unlikely.... And they may well be correct that it may be unlikely but that is not an absolute guarantee.

My intent is not to scare off any consumer. My intent is for all consumers to be educated consumers so they can make the best possible purchasing decision. People should not be fearful of knowledge. I appreciate every new thing I learn. When a purchaser sees a feather noted, a red flag should go off. Not every seller is honest and forthright. Not every person here will purchase from a PS vendor.

I''m not quite sure what exactly I said that you are disputing. It appears the uproar is simply because I said feathers are a no go for me. I personally think it is a disservice to people here to make so light of feathers. I also think that buyers should be very cautious with expert opinions about feathers when the expert opinion is coming from the seller and/or the expert is not willing to backup their expert opinion with a guarantee. Why is it so troubling to you that I stated that there are plenty of stones out there without feathers?

That''s fine if people wish to purchase a stone with a feather. I just hope that they understand that a seller telling them that a feather is most likely not potentially dangerous is not an absolute. Its up to the purchaser to weigh that unlikely occurrence.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/19/2010 5:02:29 PM
Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 4:25:19 PM
Author: Lorelei

Read carefully what they said and their choice of words. No where was it said definitively that a feather was absolutely not potentially dangerous. The opinions are cushioned with words like most likely and unlikely.... And they may well be correct that it may be unlikely but that is not an absolute guarantee. Because NO ONE can make any guarantees. There are no guarantees that the sun will come up in the morning but it is unlikely as far as we know that it won't. The experts above or anywhere else cannot predict that ANY diamond with or without feathers won't break or chip from normal wear or bad luck. That to me is completely unreasonable to expect such a guarantee- thats what insurance is for, to cover the owner against loss or damage.

My intent is not to scare off any consumer. My intent is for all consumers to be educated consumers so they can make the best possible purchasing decision. People should not be fearful of knowledge. I appreciate every new thing I learn. When a purchaser sees a feather noted, a red flag should go off. Not every seller is honest and forthright. Not every person here will purchase from a PS vendor. I would not say a flag, it is up to the buyer to do their research and consider everything together when purchasing a diamond from the cut quality, budget and colour and clarity preferences to the inclusions of their stone and any possible consequences. However it is one thing to advise a buyer to get feathers checked and quite another to simply state feathers are ' a no go.'

I'm not quite sure what exactly I said that you are disputing. It appears the uproar is simply because I said feathers are a no go for me. The issue I have is that you did not make it clear that your stance on feathers is your preference and opinion. If you had said it was your preference and opinion then there wouldn't be an issue.

I personally think it is a disservice to people here to make so light of feathers. No one is making light of feathers - hehe! I also think that buyers should be very cautious with expert opinions about feathers when the expert opinion is coming from the seller and/or the expert is not willing to backup their expert opinion with a guarantee. See above for my thoughts on feather guarantees. Why is it so troubling to you that I stated that there are plenty of stones out there without feathers? Because in doing this you can scare buyers off diamonds for no good reason and cause them to miss out on a stone they might be very happy with.

That's fine if people wish to purchase a stone with a feather. I just hope that they understand that a seller telling them that a feather is most likely not potentially dangerous is not an absolute. Its up to the purchaser to weigh that unlikely occurrence. Bingo.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Somewhere above it was written that feather almost always touch the surface- that is not true.

It would be wise for any professional giving an opinion to phrase it in more general terms, unless a specific diamond is being discussed. Therefore no responsible expert is going to say that no feather poses a problem.

Here's a positive point about feathers:
If we compare a feather to a carbon spot of the same importance, in many cases the carbon spot is easier to see- or removes the diamond from being eye clean.
The original question was about how to find eye clean SI2's- feathers are a very good way to do that.
In these cases feathers are preferable.

There ARE cases of feathers that touch the surface ( much more of a potential problem)
There ARE feathers that are more visible than similar sized carbon spots.
There are cases of feathers in bad positions that can be viewed as a durability risk- in VERY limited circumstances. These are cases of non desirable feathers.

Firestone- no dealer can guarantee that ANY diamond they sell will never break.
Personally, if I had durability concerns about a stone, I would not buy or sell it.

Finally- you brought up a point about opinions being self serving.

Jeez- didja have to start this right when we were about to run our annual "Feathered Goods Sale"

 

[yssie]

Date: 3/19/2010 5:38:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Somewhere above it was written that feather almost always touch the surface- that is not true.

It would be wise for any professional giving an opinion to phrase it in more general terms, unless a specific diamond is being discussed. Therefore no responsible expert is going to say that no feather poses a problem.

Here's a positive point about feathers:
If we compare a feather to a carbon spot of the same importance, in many cases the carbon spot is easier to see- or removes the diamond from being eye clean.
The original question was about how to find eye clean SI2's- feathers are a very good way to do that.
In these cases feathers are preferable.

There ARE cases of feathers that touch the surface ( much more of a potnetial problem)
There ARE feathers that are more visible than similar sized carbon spots.
There are cases of feathers in bad positions that can be viewed as a durability risk- in VERY limited circumstances. These are cases of non desirable feathers.

Firestone- no dealer can guarantee that ANY diamond they sell will never break.
Personally, if I had durability concerns about a stone, I would not buy or sell it.

Finally- you brought up a point about opinions being self serving.

Jeez- didja have to start this right when we were about to run our annual 'Feathered Goods Sale'

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 3/19/2010 5:38:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Somewhere above it was written that feather almost always touch the surface- that is not true.


It would be wise for any professional giving an opinion to phrase it in more general terms, unless a specific diamond is being discussed. Therefore no responsible expert is going to say that no feather poses a problem.


Here''s a positive point about feathers:

If we compare a feather to a carbon spot of the same importance, in many cases the carbon spot is easier to see- or removes the diamond from being eye clean.

The original question was about how to find eye clean SI2''s- feathers are a very good way to do that.

In these cases feathers are preferable.


There ARE cases of feathers that touch the surface ( much more of a potential problem)

There ARE feathers that are more visible than similar sized carbon spots.

There are cases of feathers in bad positions that can be viewed as a durability risk- in VERY limited circumstances. These are cases of non desirable feathers.


Firestone- no dealer can guarantee that ANY diamond they sell will never break.

Personally, if I had durability concerns about a stone, I would not buy or sell it.


Finally- you brought up a point about opinions being self serving.


Jeez- didja have to start this right when we were about to run our annual ''Feathered Goods Sale''

ditto
Well said.

I kinda chuckle at Kenny because my sister had a diamond, i1 huge feather that was likely open.
It shattered very badly.. the part that was intact was the part with feather.
The other side was basically gone into diamond dust.
That said anyone has the right to not like feathers but a realistic view of them must be presented so if you say they are all bad expect someone to say something.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 5:38:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Somewhere above it was written that feather almost always touch the surface- that is not true.


It would be wise for any professional giving an opinion to phrase it in more general terms, unless a specific diamond is being discussed. Therefore no responsible expert is going to say that no feather poses a problem.


Here''s a positive point about feathers:

If we compare a feather to a carbon spot of the same importance, in many cases the carbon spot is easier to see- or removes the diamond from being eye clean.

The original question was about how to find eye clean SI2''s- feathers are a very good way to do that.

In these cases feathers are preferable.


There ARE cases of feathers that touch the surface ( much more of a potential problem)

There ARE feathers that are more visible than similar sized carbon spots.

There are cases of feathers in bad positions that can be viewed as a durability risk- in VERY limited circumstances. These are cases of non desirable feathers.


Firestone- no dealer can guarantee that ANY diamond they sell will never break.

Personally, if I had durability concerns about a stone, I would not buy or sell it.


Finally- you brought up a point about opinions being self serving.


Jeez- didja have to start this right when we were about to run our annual ''Feathered Goods Sale''

I didn''t say that a feather almost always touches the surface.

I know that no jeweler will guarantee that a stone will not break or that a feather may not increase in size. But there is a perception that when a seller gives their opinion that a particular feather is not potentially dangerous that that is an absolute that it will never happen. I''m sure jewelers are smart enough to say unlikely and other similar buzz words. But the average consumer doesn''t pick up on those words. And people here, lay people, respond by saying then you have nothing to worry about like it is an absolute. I just think that when a jeweler gives an opinion that a feather is unlikely to be potentially dangerous that they should emphasis that there is some inherent risk even if it is thought to be a very small risk. Then the consumer can make an informed decision. But a consumer can not make an informed decision if the consumer is of the belief that the jeweler is saying that the feather is 100% safe from being potentially dangerous. I just think that full disclosure is best in order to make an informed decision.

And perhaps all the PS vendors are experts in determining feathers that are potentially dangerous. But there are people who read this forum and end up purchasing elsewhere perhaps at a local jewelry store. And the so called jeweler they are dealing with might have been selling used cars a month ago and isn''t a diamond expert. And there is a real possibility that that sales person may erroneously reassure that customer when that sales person is not qualified to render any opinion. If feathers are treated so lightly here, that person will not be alerted that further expert inquiry is needed.

Your examples are not really examples of anything positive about feathers. You are just citing worse things.

You didn''t answer my question about stones with feathers and ultrasonic cleaners. I would appreciate it if you would.

LOL! Sometimes it does feel like an SI and ''Feathered Goods Sale''.

 

[Firestone]

I kinda chuckle at Kenny because my sister had a diamond, i1 huge feather that was likely open.

It shattered very badly.. the part that was intact was the part with feather.

The other side was basically gone into diamond dust.

That said anyone has the right to not like feathers but a realistic view of them must be presented so if you say they are all bad expect someone to say something.

You are in the business and you let your sister get a i1? Nice brother!

What caused your sister''s ring to shatter?

 

[yssie]

Date: 3/19/2010 7:02:15 PM
Author: Firestone

I kinda chuckle at Kenny because my sister had a diamond, i1 huge feather that was likely open.

It shattered very badly.. the part that was intact was the part with feather.

The other side was basically gone into diamond dust.

That said anyone has the right to not like feathers but a realistic view of them must be presented so if you say they are all bad expect someone to say something.

You are in the business and you let your sister get a i1? Nice brother!

What caused your sister's ring to shatter?

crossing the line

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 7:02:15 PM
Author: Firestone

I kinda chuckle at Kenny because my sister had a diamond, i1 huge feather that was likely open.


It shattered very badly.. the part that was intact was the part with feather.


The other side was basically gone into diamond dust.


That said anyone has the right to not like feathers but a realistic view of them must be presented so if you say they are all bad expect someone to say something.

You are in the business and you let your sister get a i1? Nice brother!


What caused your sister's ring to shatter?

I wear an I1. With a feather. The cutter put it in his brand -- okay, you say, the cutter is "self-serving"; the vendor looked at it and assured me it was not visible and not a durability issue -- okay, you say, the vendor is "self-serving." Perhaps, but between the two of them, they have over 50 years of experience in the diamond business. What is your experience in the business? I believe this is the third time I've asked you that question.

In addition, I was in a retail jewelry store just yesterday with a sales person. I asked her about the clarity of my stone. She looked at the plot of my diamond, looked at it under the scope, and said, "It's a beautiful stone. I don't see a problem with the clarity. There is nothing eye visible to me." This store sells diamonds; she could have told me it was crap and tried to sell me one of hers. She didn't.

Frankly, I'm tired of your not-so-covert insults toward me and others on this forum who own stones lower than H in color, and lower than VVS2 in clarity. If you want to pay more for your high color, high clarity stones, please feel free to do so. I'm sure jewelry stores love to see you coming, because they make a lot more money from customers like you than they do from customers like many of us on PS who are educated and smart shoppers who do not fall for the myths about fluorescence, feathers, etc., that you insist on clinging to.

I'm also sure that once jewelry stores know that you are a high-color, high-clarity fan, they are more than happy to fuel that fire and feed you misinformation about how clarity and color are responsible for a stone's fire and sparkle. It cuts both ways.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 3/19/2010 6:58:40 PM
Author: Firestone

Date: 3/19/2010 5:38:34 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Somewhere above it was written that feather almost always touch the surface- that is not true.



It would be wise for any professional giving an opinion to phrase it in more general terms, unless a specific diamond is being discussed. Therefore no responsible expert is going to say that no feather poses a problem.



Here''s a positive point about feathers:


If we compare a feather to a carbon spot of the same importance, in many cases the carbon spot is easier to see- or removes the diamond from being eye clean.


The original question was about how to find eye clean SI2''s- feathers are a very good way to do that.


In these cases feathers are preferable.



There ARE cases of feathers that touch the surface ( much more of a potential problem)


There ARE feathers that are more visible than similar sized carbon spots.


There are cases of feathers in bad positions that can be viewed as a durability risk- in VERY limited circumstances. These are cases of non desirable feathers.



Firestone- no dealer can guarantee that ANY diamond they sell will never break.


Personally, if I had durability concerns about a stone, I would not buy or sell it.



Finally- you brought up a point about opinions being self serving.



Jeez- didja have to start this right when we were about to run our annual ''Feathered Goods Sale''

I didn''t say that a feather almost always touches the surface.


I know that no jeweler will guarantee that a stone will not break or that a feather may not increase in size. But there is a perception that when a seller gives their opinion that a particular feather is not potentially dangerous that that is an absolute that it will never happen. I''m sure jewelers are smart enough to say unlikely and other similar buzz words. But the average consumer doesn''t pick up on those words. And people here, lay people, respond by saying then you have nothing to worry about like it is an absolute. I just think that when a jeweler gives an opinion that a feather is unlikely to be potentially dangerous that they should emphasis that there is some inherent risk even if it is thought to be a very small risk. Then the consumer can make an informed decision. But a consumer can not make an informed decision if the consumer is of the belief that the jeweler is saying that the feather is 100% safe from being potentially dangerous. I just think that full disclosure is best in order to make an informed decision.


And perhaps all the PS vendors are experts in determining feathers that are potentially dangerous. But there are people who read this forum and end up purchasing elsewhere perhaps at a local jewelry store. And the so called jeweler they are dealing with might have been selling used cars a month ago and isn''t a diamond expert. And there is a real possibility that that sales person may erroneously reassure that customer when that sales person is not qualified to render any opinion. If feathers are treated so lightly here, that person will not be alerted that further expert inquiry is needed.


Your examples are not really examples of anything positive about feathers. You are just citing worse things.


You didn''t answer my question about stones with feathers and ultrasonic cleaners. I would appreciate it if you would.


LOL! Sometimes it does feel like an SI and ''Feathered Goods Sale''.

What you''re suggesting is like asking a car dealer to guarantee you''ll never have an accident.
As Sarap333, and others pointed out, strike a flawless diamond in exactly he right spot, with exactly the right force, and boom- a shattered diamond.
And if there was an internal feather, and you struck the diamond just right, it might not even shatter where the feather is located.
Such occurrences are so rare. I''t hard to make any sort of accurate generalization of why.
We do know that diamonds have grain- which is generally not visible in well cut gem quality stones. A grain line is where you''d find a fracture.
Feathers are not necessarily associated with grain lines.
Karl is a good brother.

I agree that many people standing behind jewelry counters give inaccurate answers.
All the more reason it''s important to allow the balanced, accurate information to flow here.

Part of my job involves buying imperfect stones. We have a long track record with this, and would know if stones had shattered.
If you get buyers to eliminate feathers from potential SI2 purchases you hurt the buyers.
Personally,I LOVE finding eye clean SI2 diamonds- they certainly exist. I''ve seen SI2''s that had to be carefully scrutinized before you find a feather on the bottom of the stone, oriented in such a manner that renders it practically invisible from the top.
Such stones are desirable to buyers who want a great cut, and want to stay in a higher color or size range.


We all know that a lot of sales pitches involve some questionable info-
But if you get people to believe that anyone selling stones with feathers is selling inherently dangerous goods, you impugn a lot of honest sellers.

 

[Firestone]

You are in the business and you let your sister get a i1? Nice brother!



What caused your sister''s ring to shatter?

I wear an I1. With a feather. The cutter put it in his brand -- okay, you say, the cutter is ''self-serving''; the vendor looked at it and assured me it was not visible and not a durability issue -- okay, you say, the vendor is ''self-serving.'' Perhaps, but between the two of them, they have over 50 years of experience in the diamond business. What is your experience in the business? I believe this is the third time I''ve asked you that question.


In addition, I was in a retail jewelry store just yesterday with a sales person. I asked her about the clarity of my stone. She looked at the plot of my diamond, looked at it under the scope, and said, ''It''s a beautiful stone. I don''t see a problem with the clarity. There is nothing eye visible to me.'' This store sells diamonds; she could have told me it was crap and tried to sell me one of hers. She didn''t.


Frankly, I''m tired of your not-so-covert insults toward me and others on this forum who own stones lower than H in color, and lower than VVS2 in clarity. If you want to pay more for your high color, high clarity stones, please feel free to do so. I''m sure jewelry stores love to see you coming, because they make a lot more money from customers like you than they do from customers like many of us on PS who are educated and smart shoppers who do not fall for the myths about fluorescence, feathers, etc., that you insist on clinging to.


I''m also sure that once jewelry stores know that you are a high-color, high-clarity fan, they are more than happy to fuel that fire and feed you misinformation about how clarity and color are responsible for a stone''s fire and sparkle. It cuts both ways. [/quote]

Sara you sound like you have a chip on your shoulders. I have no idea what grades your diamond is or anyone else''s. It is unreasonable for you or anyone else to think that I am insulting your diamond because I said that feathers are a no go for me. Just because you and others may have feathers in your diamond doesn''t mean that we can''t have an honest discussion about feathers. There may well be people here who are interested in learning about feathers and that should outweigh your personal sensitivity.

What myth about fluorescence? So only educated and smart shoppers desire a diamond that turns blue-purple in sunlight and people who don''t desire that aren''t educated and smart shoppers??? LMAO!!!

You may view that purchasing an I1 with strong fluorescence is a smart purchasing decision. That is fine for you to spend your money anyway you want. But it is ridiculous for you to suggest that people who are willing to spend for higher color and clarity are uneducated and not a smart shopper. Just because you claim that you were told that your I1 is eye clean doesn''t mean that I or anyone would tell others that an I1 is eye clean. And if I or anyone says that an I1 is not eye clean you should not take it personally as an insult directed at you.

 

[yssie]

edit.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/19/2010 8:09:36 PM
Author: Firestone

You are in the business and you let your sister get a i1? Nice brother!




What caused your sister's ring to shatter?

I wear an I1. With a feather. The cutter put it in his brand -- okay, you say, the cutter is 'self-serving'; the vendor looked at it and assured me it was not visible and not a durability issue -- okay, you say, the vendor is 'self-serving.' Perhaps, but between the two of them, they have over 50 years of experience in the diamond business. What is your experience in the business? I believe this is the third time I've asked you that question.



In addition, I was in a retail jewelry store just yesterday with a sales person. I asked her about the clarity of my stone. She looked at the plot of my diamond, looked at it under the scope, and said, 'It's a beautiful stone. I don't see a problem with the clarity. There is nothing eye visible to me.' This store sells diamonds; she could have told me it was crap and tried to sell me one of hers. She didn't.



Frankly, I'm tired of your not-so-covert insults toward me and others on this forum who own stones lower than H in color, and lower than VVS2 in clarity. If you want to pay more for your high color, high clarity stones, please feel free to do so. I'm sure jewelry stores love to see you coming, because they make a lot more money from customers like you than they do from customers like many of us on PS who are educated and smart shoppers who do not fall for the myths about fluorescence, feathers, etc., that you insist on clinging to.



I'm also sure that once jewelry stores know that you are a high-color, high-clarity fan, they are more than happy to fuel that fire and feed you misinformation about how clarity and color are responsible for a stone's fire and sparkle. It cuts both ways.

Sara you sound like you have a chip on your shoulders. I have no idea what grades your diamond is or anyone else's. It is unreasonable for you or anyone else to think that I am insulting your diamond because I said that feathers are a no go for me. Just because you and others may have feathers in your diamond doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion about feathers. There may well be people here who are interested in learning about feathers and that should outweigh your personal sensitivity.


What myth about fluorescence? So only educated and smart shoppers desire a diamond that turns blue-purple in sunlight and people who don't desire that aren't educated and smart shoppers??? LMAO!!!


You may view that purchasing an I1 with strong fluorescence is a smart purchasing decision. That is fine for you to spend your money anyway you want. But it is ridiculous for you to suggest that people who are willing to spend for higher color and clarity are uneducated and not a smart shopper. Just because you claim that you were told that your I1 is eye clean doesn't mean that I or anyone would tell others that an I1 is eye clean. And if I or anyone says that an I1 is not eye clean you should not take it personally as an insult directed at you.

[/quote]

I do have a chip on my shoulder, because a year ago I was where you are now in your thinking.

When I first starting searching for a diamond, I thought anything less than a D VVS2 was not worth considering (sound familiar?) because that's what I was spoon fed by the jewelry retailers in my area. I spent a lot of time here learning from consumers and experts, and I spent even more time looking at diamonds. I realized that beautiful stones come in all colors and clarities, as long as they are well-cut. I found my comfort level, as you have found yours.

The difference between us is that you state your opinion as fact, not opinion. I am not the only person who has told you this. Another difference between us is that I respect the knowledge, experience, and credentials of people posting on this board. That does not mean that I accept everything they say without question; indeed, one of the most valuable aspects of this forum is that consumers with very little experience can question the various positions of the experts. The experts graciously explained their views and provided evidence for their positions.

Ah, that last part is what I see missing in your posts. I have asked you several times (this would be number 4) to tell us a little bit about your experience with diamonds. The response is silence. Yet the tone you take in your posts is not one of a consumer with personal opinions, rather, it is the tone of someone who wants to be thought of as an expert. We require our experts to show some evidence for their positions.

At first I thought it was your writing style that put people off. I was being charitable. By now I have read enough of your posts to suspect that you are not just socially inept in your wording, but that you are simply rude, and foolish, too, given who you've chosen to pick fights with on this forum.

I am sorry, but when you tell Karl K that he is a bad brother for letting his sister buy an I1, I do not see that as sharing your "preference" for high-color-high-clarity stones. I see that as a dig. There are many posters on this board who prefer high-color-high-clarity stones. I know who they are because I've been a member here for a while. I have never seen these posters make the type of comments you have made about color and clarity. Quite the contrary.

The diamond business is centuries old. It is an odd mix of science, myth, salesman's puffery, and our own emotional response to diamonds. There is a way for all of these things to exist on this board in a respectful manner.

 

[Firestone]

Date: 3/19/2010 8:30:28 PM
Author: yssie
Must keep mouth shut... must keep mouth shut... okay. no can do, darn it.




Firestone - Good grief. You have admitted to a frustrating experience finding your princess, and you''re clearly taking all that resentment and bitterness out on this forum, and you really need another outlet - in four days you''ve alienated at least what must be four times as many people who know much, much more than you.



Sara did not say or imply any of the things you''ve ascribed to her, she spoke of her own personal experiences - and, in her second paragraph, voiced what pretty much everyone must think of you at this point. I''m certainly frustrated. You''re welcome to not want feathers, fluor, visible inclusions, lower coloured diamonds, whatever else you fancy... and others are welcome to enjoy those things. What she said about smart shoppers is exactly correct - they look beyond the myths fed to them and make up their own minds on the various issues, and one view is not more correct than the other. Before you can share information, you must learn - this forum is an amazing resource, if you''d only take advantage of it!

Its very unfortunate if anyone feels insulted or alienated when various ratings and inclusions are discussed. It doesn''t foster promoting knowledge if an honest discussion can not be had because some people are thin skinned. And I honestly don''t see why feathers being a no go for me and discussing feathers would upset anyone. I never told anyone that they were wrong to purchase a stone with feathers. I simply said I wouldn''t. My view may be in the minority here but that doesn''t mean that I should be expected to adopt the majority viewpoint or that I should be concerned about stating my honest opinion out of fear that someone else''s feathers may get ruffled. Discussing diamonds isn''t personal and people are making it personal.

 

[Ella]

Stay on topic. Finding super eyeclean SI2''s.