Inclusions as birth-marks?

[justinislooking]

I''ve heard some talk from people about how they like for their stone to have some sort of inclusion. They claim that it is like having a birth mark and makes the diamond unique. I would assume that means they like eye-clean stones with inclusions visible up real close or under microscope to help identify the diamond as one-of-a-kind.

What does everybody think about this? I''m looking at a diamond with very visible flaws under microscope, but that is apparently eye clean. The inclusions aren''t black, but I believe are feathers and look white in the magnification. I''m trying to decide whether or not I like this. In many ways, I find myself attracted to the imperfection of this stone. From a symbolic standpoint, we are all imperfect - maybe I find some connection there. It seems to add a little something extra. The diamond is still a good performer, not ideal, but above average and should have great light return.

Anybody else who seems to be attracted to the uniqueness brought about with inclusions?

 

[Lorelei]

Yes, I am a birthmark fan! To me it acts as a way to identify my diamonds and makes them more mine. There is a story actually from one of the experts you might enjoy.

Apparently they knew of a diamond which had a visible inclusion which looked just like a little man in a sled. This inclusion was so unique that the diamond was sent to GIA and a note was made in the comments section that the inclusion did indeed resemble a man in a sled. It was also given an I1 or I2 clarity grade ( can't remember which).

Anyway the diamond was set in a pendant and sold with this unique feature being the main selling point, it was snapped up very quickly!

I have also seen some on PS with inclusions that looked like a rabbit, a pair of slippers or a pair of tiny clogs under magnification. I think some inclusions are way kewl!

 

[elle_chris]

Some people romanticize them (like you just did) while other prefer as clean as possible for cultural reasons or like you, can say the opposite and claim that the more perfect stones represent a more perfect relationship.
To each their own.

Personally, i don''t like ''em. While I have two stones that are SI1''s, they''re both smaller than a carat and neither is an e-ring so I can live with it. But, if I were presenting an engagement ring, I''d make sure the recipient is ok with the lower clarity and I''d have to be positive the inclusions are NOT eye visable from any angle.

How low a clarity are you talking about?

 

[Todd Gray]

There is perfection to be found in the imperfections within a diamond, no doubt. However it is important to consider the type and extent of the inclusions in terms of their potential affect upon the durability of the diamond, in addition to merely how visible the inclusions may or may not be. A feather is a fracture within the crystal structure of the diamond, most feathers are minimal and of little consequence. However feathers which are extensive or positioned in such a way that they overlap should be avoided. A lot of people here on the forum will tell you that feathers are nothing to be concerned about and that I''m a bit too cautious, but there is always a reason based upon experience for the nature of our selection process... A short time ago I received a phone call from a friend of mine in the trade who is a custom jeweler who told me that he used to think I was insane for rejecting some of the diamonds I did with feathers in them (again, extensive feathers or stacks of feathers like this ///// ) but that a friend of his just had a diamond with an extensive feather within it crack two weeks after setting the stone and then as I recall there was another post about a feather spreading a short time ago here on PS (can''t remember where?) which is why I urge you to consider not only the visibility of the inclusions, the perfection within the imperfection, but also the type, location and extent of those inclusions when selecting your diamond.

 

[DiamondFlame]

Date: 5/13/2009 10:16:41 AM
Author: elle_chris
Some people romanticize them (like you just did) while other prefer as clean as possible for cultural reasons or like you, can say the opposite and claim that the more perfect stones represent a more perfect relationship.
To each their own.

Personally, i don''t like ''em. While I have two stones that are SI1''s, they''re both smaller than a carat and neither is an e-ring so I can live with it. But, if I were presenting an engagement ring, I''d make sure the recipient is ok with the lower clarity and I''d have to be positive the inclusions are NOT eye visable from any angle.

How low a clarity are you talking about?

No relationship is perfect cuz we all aren''t perfect. The perfect diamond has yet to be found cuz if you were to study them under increasingly greater magnification, you will see the imperfections.

I''m with the ''birthmark'' camp. Not sure if ''romanticise'' is the correct word but the ''birthmark'' can serve a practical purpose as a unique identifier. Mind you, these are only visible under magnification. So they are still 100% eye clean & good to go!

 

[partgypsy]

When I first got my diamond (.47 VS2) I compared it to the plotting and was glad when I finally saw a difference where it looked like the inclusion was, almost like a needle like extra flash or sparkle. After it was set I also looked for and found that "birthmark" and so confirmed it was the same diamond. Of course I''m looking for it now and can''t find it so I guess my eyes are worse, but in general if it is a small inclusion and doesn''t bother you (especially one can see from side but not from top) I don''t see that as a bad thing.

 

[D&T]

if I can spot it right away, then I''m bothered by it, but if I can''t see it readily but knows it''s there, then I would be perfectly fine with it,

 

[Liane]

Yes! I''m firmly in the "love them" camp.

My e-ring diamond has a tiny crystal inclusion that resembles a bird in flight right in the center of the table. It''s the only flaw in the stone and is just visible at 10" in office lighting. Sometimes I loupe it at 30x just to see the amazing detail of its wings; under magnification the rainbow sides of the crystal are a remarkable sight to behold. It''s very special to me and I wouldn''t trade this diamond for anything.

I don''t think I would like a stone that had clouds or specks or random lines, but I love this one because it is such an unusual and striking mark.

FWIW, though, I tend to like diamonds with unique personality best -- warm/unusual colors, strong fluorescence, interesting inclusions, that sort of thing. If it''s just an ordinary diamond like any other, I''m not that interested. It''s funny to talk to dealers who try to minimize the weird quirks of their diamonds; I usually have to tell them that the quirk is the reason I was interested in that stone at all. (And yeah, this just happened again so it''s fresh in my mind.

)

 

[Erik Carlson GG]

Some inclusions can be beautiful! I wouldn''t try to find a diamond that had nice looking inclusions, but you should always know what your inclusions look like.

 

[Kelli]

I like my stones to be eye-clean, but if I can use a loupe and find the inclusion (or even see it from the side in something you don''t normally view from the side, like a pendant) then I like how it "identifies" it. I wouldn''t say I like it for it''s "uniqueness" because most diamonds do have inclusions. I would think an IF would be far more rare than any stone I had with inclusions. That said, I like diamonds for their beauty, not their rarity, so I''d never pay for more than a VS2. I''d also want to know, as Todd said, that any inclusion wouldn''t be a durabililty issue.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 5/13/2009 1:20:11 PM
Author: DiamondFlame

Date: 5/13/2009 10:16:41 AM
Author: elle_chris
Some people romanticize them (like you just did) while other prefer as clean as possible for cultural reasons or like you, can say the opposite and claim that the more perfect stones represent a more perfect relationship.
To each their own.

Personally, i don''t like ''em. While I have two stones that are SI1''s, they''re both smaller than a carat and neither is an e-ring so I can live with it. But, if I were presenting an engagement ring, I''d make sure the recipient is ok with the lower clarity and I''d have to be positive the inclusions are NOT eye visable from any angle.

How low a clarity are you talking about?

No relationship is perfect cuz we all aren''t perfect. The perfect diamond has yet to be found cuz if you were to study them under increasingly greater magnification, you will see the imperfections.

I''m with the ''birthmark'' camp. Not sure if ''romanticise'' is the correct word but the ''birthmark'' can serve a practical purpose as a unique identifier. Mind you, these are only visible under magnification. So they are still 100% eye clean & good to go!

DiamondFlame-
My point was that people like to put meaning into a particualr color and in this case clarity.

And to be honest, if my husband presented me with an IF, Colorless stone because he thought it represented our relationship, there''s no way I''d go "honey, we''re not perfect. Go get me an I1 with a lower color."

 

[DiamondFlame]

Yes, Elle. Clarity is often a matter of preference. When I think of ''birthmark'' I can''t help but think of it as a single rather minor inclusion visible only under magnification. Clarity is thus likely to be a VS at the minimum.

 

[sazza]

I have a half carat diamond that is I1. totally clean from the top but when you look under the stone its got this cloud. It looked just like one of those puffy happy clouds you see on pretty days outside. My engagement ring is VS2 and for the life of me I can''t find any inclusions but I do have a wonky facet so I''ll always know it''s mine. As long as it''s not some huge black booger that I can see from 1 or 2 ft away I like the little inclusions and uniqueness.

 

[Moh 10]

I think it is just a way of coming to terms with, and making lemonade out of, not getting a flawless stone.

Nothing wrong with that.
I don't have a flawless stone.
I accept the inclusions and could use them to identify the stone.
But personally I don't see the inclusions as anything positive beyond making the stone affordable to me.

 

[glitterata]

I like interesting inclusions. I would far rather have an I1 with an attractive inclusion than a flawless diamond.

 

[icekid]

Date: 5/13/2009 10:12:50 AM
Author: Lorelei
Yes, I am a birthmark fan! To me it acts as a way to identify my diamonds and makes them more mine. There is a story actually from one of the experts you might enjoy.

I am with you, Lorelei. Inclusions don''t bother me if I can''t see them without the aid of a loupe. Finding the inclusions is cool; they my stone MINE and mean I learned how to use my loupe well

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/13/2009 9:12:38 PM
Author: icekid

Date: 5/13/2009 10:12:50 AM
Author: Lorelei
Yes, I am a birthmark fan! To me it acts as a way to identify my diamonds and makes them more mine. There is a story actually from one of the experts you might enjoy.

I am with you, Lorelei. Inclusions don''t bother me if I can''t see them without the aid of a loupe. Finding the inclusions is cool; they my stone MINE and mean I learned how to use my loupe well

Absolutely right!!!!!!!!!

 

[lowphat]

Inclusions ARE like birthmarks in a sense you don''t go out of your way to find a diamond with one, but if your has some you make the most of it. In the RARE cases, sometimes it will make the diamond more appealing... like Cindy Crawford''s mole. But for the most part, inclusions shouldn''t be something you go out of your way to get.