Is the feather a risk to this fancy green diamond?

[lunazhou]

Hi, May I have your advice towards this diamond (PHOTO ATTACHED)? fancy deep grayish yellowish green diamond, GIA SI2 clarity. Is the feather a risk to durability? Many thanks for your reply.

 

[bcavitt]

Long term this shouldn't be a problem as long as it doesn't extend to the surface.

 

[CareBear]

Yes this feather might be a durability risk. It's significant in size and the clarity plot shows that it extends to the girdle.

 

[Rockdiamond]

In my opinion, it's totally impossible to give a well advised opinion based on a photo.
As a general rule:
In my experience, such feathers generally do not pose a durability risk- even if there is an area where it breaks the surface.

But it's really a characteristic that must be seen through a loupe, and examined from all angles to really pin down

 

[gr8leo87]

Long term this shouldn't be a problem as long as it doesn't extend to the surface.

Every feather extends to surface. At least according to GIA.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[gr8leo87]

In my opinion, it's totally impossible to give a well advised opinion based on a photo.
As a general rule:
In my experience, such feathers generally do not pose a durability risk- even if there is an area where it breaks the surface.

But it's really a characteristic that must be seen through a loupe, and examined from all angles to really pin down

Agree with RockDiamond.

Also that feather has to have breaking surface somewhere to be plotted as a feather.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[pyramid]

I am not not an expert, but now that we on this forum have found out that GIA has all feathers plotted as being a leading edge on
the surface, and ones which are not are plotted as crystals they say, this makes a change to what has previously been written on
this forum. It was always written here to check if a feather breached the surface but they all do. I know worse or so it says here
if near an edge like the girdle.

For other new posters, I am really starting to believe that all of this is just common sense and that the jewellers here and
other experts are just basing their answers on their own thoughts and do not know anymore than the man in the street
when it comes to clarity characteristics. I mean it has been said here for years to look out for feathers (and crystals are not good too for strain).

I know we say in bricks and mortar stores to look out for people appraising diamonds who have an interest in selling to you, but I
now think all these things about feathers are coming from appraisers online who also have an interest in doing business with you. I mean if this is their job, then why has it taken so long to let us know GIA plot all fearhers as open to the surface. Oh and do you know this, some new graduate online from GIA here told us this and all experts here denied it, then I remembered I had seen something online from GIA about this and went looking, and it was only my little self, no expert, who posted the findings online here at pricescope, which made some experts online that night sit up and take notice of the fact that all feathers break the surface.

Before that there was another graduate who mentioned it one time and some experts shot it down and said it was not true. They said they had definitely seen feathers that were plotted by GIA and did not break the surface. However GIA said, that any feather which did not break the surface was plotted as a crystal and not a feather. That is when I looked online and found it originally from GIA but just thought I wasn't reading it correctly as those experts seemed sure about what they were on about and had afterall studied at GIA themselves.


So I really wonder if all this clarity stuff on here is just a marketing thing as GIA graduates and jewellers really don't have a one rule way of thinking.

It was also said on the forum that crystals had strain around them. So given that most diamond which have either a
feather or crystal it really means we will get one or the other, doesn't it?

As a green diamond is rare (none I have seen more beautiful than Kenny's one on Pricescope) then I believe the feather
should not affect the rarity of the stone. After all colored stones and colored diamonds are about color trumping all
other things. That is what is always said here and on sites about colored diamonds.

If I was the original poster I would go by my own gut and commonsense as there is no real answer here, I think now! Even
Garry Holloway also a graduate gemmologist has said he doesn't believe feathers are a risk to diamonds breaking.

I know it can happen but so can strain around crystals apparently cause breakage, and it has been said that perhaps cleavage breakage
can be easiest in a perfectly flawless diamond. So what choice to we all really have when buying.

I don't think in the past people were bothered they just bought a stone they thought was beautiful to them.
I do however think cut is something that can improve and that we can learn about though seeing it with the eye and
with education.

 

[MollyMalone]

Here's an article, reflecting the views of a number of people in the trade, that's in the Resources section here of PS:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/diamond_feather_inclusions_durability_risk

 

[pyramid]

Yes Molly. This article you linked was written 8 years after I joined here. We had 8 years before it telling
us to avoid feathers but it seems none of the experts saying this knew that feathers were all open to the surface.
Crystals were bad too.

So although this is what the trade believe they did not provide education on it for a lot of years. Does GIA really
teach anything about durability. I think to GIA clarity is just how clear a diamond looks, e.g. difference between dirty
glass window and clean washed window. I think saying things are durable or not is just a marketing tool.
It is never mentioned when discussing colored rare diamonds, yet they have cleavage directions too. They are a
lot more expensive so you would think a 600,000 dollar pink diamond with a feather would be an important matter
but it is not it is just all about the color other than the clarity affects the price obviously.

Starting to think SI1 diamonds won't break anymore than flawless, even though there are feathers
and it doesn't matter where they are. I think this now, because some GIA literature says that
they take into account durability and those diamonds who have a durability problem are always
graded I1 and lower.

Why do the experts here never mention that a feather is okay if it were a factor in durability it would be
I1 or lower, becaue that is what the GIA says. Instead we are told the opposite here.

 

[pyramid]

The article says that feathers which break the surface are called cavities and that feathers do not
break the surface. We now know, or have read this is not true that all feathers break the surface.
See there is no teaching from GIA with one rule or people just make up different rules that they
feel are right.

So my point is correct that feathers don't matter above what GIA says is not durable like I1 and lower.

I wish experts would get together at their JFK and either come out with a rule or not mention feathers being
dangerous unless in an I4 diamond say.

 

[tyty333]

On another note...how do you plan on setting this stone? Ring, pendant?

 

[lunazhou]

Actually, I may cancel the order How is the color? fancy deep grayish yellowish green is better than fancy grayish yellowish green?

 

[kenny]

Actually, I may cancel the order How is the color? fancy deep grayish yellowish green is better than fancy grayish yellowish green?

Agian there's no 'better', only preference.
A GIA color grade seems like one thing ... but it's actually three separate things that are intertwined in a complex way.
I've found that understanding exactly how GIA grades differ helps me decide.

GIA's Colored Diamond Scale graphically shows three things, hue, tone and saturation.



Here is a larger slice of the pie showing how hue varies as you go around the circle.



There are 3 separate things graded, hue, tone and saturation.
Hue = color
Saturation = amount of color
Tone = range from dark to light

FWIW, I find it helpful to think of tone as how light or dark a colored object would look in a black and white photograph.

When we see an FCD we do not intuitively see these 3 things separately.
It takes practice.
It's easy to mistake more tone for more saturation and vice versa.
Sometimes to my eyes stronger tone can even make the hue seem to shift, especially in Fancy Intense Yellow vs. Fancy Vivid Yellow stones.
I swear some of the Vivids lean towards orange or brown to my eye/brain system.

So back to your original question, "... fancy deep grayish yellowish green is better than fancy grayish yellowish green?"

Look again at GIA's scale above.
Fancy Deep has more tone and more saturation than Fancy ... IOW more black, or darkness if you prefer, and it has more/ stronger color.

Also keep in mind these grades are not a single point; they are ranges and some FCDs will be near the border with other grades.
If you are patient you may locate one Fancy Deep that has saturation that matches the saturation of the middle of the Fancy Vivid saturation range but with so little tone that it is right near the border of Fancy Intense and Fancy Vivid.
Look at the GIA scale again ... the FCD I'm describing would be in the Fancy deep area but at the top and the far right corner.
This one may be priced very nicely for a Fancy Deep.

Such is the fun of an FCD safari.

 

[denverappraiser]

Why do the experts here never mention that a feather is okay if it were a factor in durability it would be
I1 or lower, because that is what the GIA says. Instead we are told the opposite here.

Pyramid. I"m probably the most prolific appraiser here so I presume I fall into your category of 'experts', and I say that to people regularly. In practice, I usually don't participate in that sort of thread anyway because I also consistently take the position that you can't grade a stone from a photo. That article was written before I became a regular contributor and I"m not up on the zeitgeist before that, but I think you're assigning more malice to the appraisers than they deserve.

 

[gr8leo87]

Why do the experts here never mention that a feather is okay if it were a factor in durability it would be
I1 or lower, because that is what the GIA says. Instead we are told the opposite here.

Pyramid. I"m probably the most prolific appraiser here so I presume I fall into your category of 'experts', and I say that to people regularly. In practice, I usually don't participate in that sort of thread anyway because I also consistently take the position that you can't grade a stone from a photo. That article was written before I became a regular contributor and I"m not up on the zeitgeist before that, but I think you're assigning more malice to the appraisers than they deserve.

I think he's referring to experts given their experience in trade that market their products with feathers as being vetted for not breaking the surface. Which is rubbish. Every feather breaks the surface.

GIA defines inclusion in two categories one which are fully contained and others which extend from the surface. Feather is the latter.

Also feathers are plotted where they break the surface (even if visible through the crown) as opposed to other clarity characteristics which are all plotted on the crown unless they are only visible from the Pavilion.

Its so that you know exactly where the breach occurs.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Rockdiamond]

Regarding imperfections termed "feathers" by GIA:
1) I have personally inspected plenty of stones with a feather noted on the GIA report that did not break the surface.
2) to my knowledge there is conflicting info published by GIA - not that I have the publications at hand.
But it is possible GIA changed the standard.

 

[pyramid]

Why do the experts here never mention that a feather is okay if it were a factor in durability it would be
I1 or lower, because that is what the GIA says. Instead we are told the opposite here.

Pyramid. I"m probably the most prolific appraiser here so I presume I fall into your category of 'experts', and I say that to people regularly. In practice, I usually don't participate in that sort of thread anyway because I also consistently take the position that you can't grade a stone from a photo. That article was written before I became a regular contributor and I"m not up on the zeitgeist before that, but I think you're assigning more malice to the appraisers than they deserve.

Yes, I see you are right Denverappraiser there is more malice there than is supposed to be, I even thought as I was
writing it that some how it seemed more angry than I intended it to be, I just wanted to put points across about
how we were told they were not good or needed inspection and yet GIA say okay above I1. I also thought it was not
right that professionals seemed to all think differently about what grading was and yet were GIA graduates.

 

[pyramid]

Why do the experts here never mention that a feather is okay if it were a factor in durability it would be
I1 or lower, because that is what the GIA says. Instead we are told the opposite here.

Pyramid. I"m probably the most prolific appraiser here so I presume I fall into your category of 'experts', and I say that to people regularly. In practice, I usually don't participate in that sort of thread anyway because I also consistently take the position that you can't grade a stone from a photo. That article was written before I became a regular contributor and I"m not up on the zeitgeist before that, but I think you're assigning more malice to the appraisers than they deserve.

I think he's referring to experts given their experience in trade that market their products with feathers as being vetted for not breaking the surface. Which is rubbish. Every feather breaks the surface.

GIA defines inclusion in two categories one which are fully contained and others which extend from the surface. Feather is the latter.

Also feathers are plotted where they break the surface (even if visible through the crown) as opposed to other clarity characteristics which are all plotted on the crown unless they are only visible from the Pavilion.

Its so that you know exactly where the breach occurs.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Yes I was also meaning why do experts not agree about feathers all breaching the surface if that is was GIA teach and
have taught them.

Unless Rockdiamond is correct that GIA have changed their teaching.

Wonder also if the second type of inclusion GIA defines as you said 'extend from the surface' then why are they not plotted
as green like a blemish instead of an inclusion, or as they plot indented naturals in two colors of red with green?

 

[denverappraiser]

Yes I think Rock is right that GIA changed their teaching. It's also worth noting that what GIA teaches and what they do in the lab are not the same.

The argument they make is slightly tortured, but mineralogicaly correct. Any fissure is caused by something. The final straw was stress in the growth process, thermal expansion, trauma or what not, but why is it there and not, say, 1mm away? There's something in the stone, not matter how microscopic that's behind it. That 'something' is why they call it a crystal, which means no more or less than an impurity of some sort in the stone.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Denverappraiser

I didn't know that what GIA did in their lab would be different from their training so that explains things too.

So an inclusion that is a feather comes from within so cannot be colored green like a blemish as it did not start on the
outside? So are cavities only blemishes as they do not come from inside the diamond?

 

[kenny]

When possible I prefer diamonds without feathers since they may pose mechanical concerns.
That said, I have bought a few diamonds with feathers, but I'd much rather they had other inclusions.

I also prefer good cut/light performance, but again I have a few FCDs that don't have that either.
One of my FCDs windows horribly but its rare Orangey Pink hue is TDF and I have not seen another ... well, not one I could afford.

Color IS king, so in FCDs of rare hue (if the color is good enough) I'll tolerate some of the crap that I'd never consider accepting in those abundant white round diamonds.

 

[denverappraiser]

s things too.
So an inclusion that is a feather comes from within so cannot be colored green like a blemish as it did not start on the
outside? So are cavities only blemishes as they do not come from inside the diamond?

It sounds a bit like an Abbott and Costello routine, doesn't it?
Feathers are red and not green because that's how the system was set up in the first place. I agree, it's inconsistent.

 

[pyramid]

Kenny

I feel the same way about feathers but there are so many things that need to line up that something has to give.
All your colored diamonds are beautiful, doesn't matter as much about the sparkle, they look like they sparkle enough.

I looked online for that GIA article about all feathers breaking the surface but can't seem to find it now!!