Is this a natural/indented natural?

[Love Street]

I just got this diamond from a wonderful PS vendor. I've been examining it for the past few days, and it seems like every day I notice something new and different about it (I'm learning its character!) However, I noticed what looks like a chip under the girdle, but I'm really hoping it's a natural/indented natural/cavity as indicated on the plot - I've just never seen any of those IRL. I plan to have it appraised but since it's the weekend I'm freaking myself out here

I'd be very grateful for any opinions to the extent you can give them based on my amateur photos. Thank you!

 

[Love Street]

Also, here is the GIA plot for reference - it's an SI2 (though eye clean to me until about 3" from my face. I really love it so I hope this is just an inclusion.

 

[kenny]

Kudos on the nice pics.
Yes, that is a natural and appears to match the plot since it is only on the pavilion side.

It is smart cutting to leave a little of the surface of the rough.
If they wanted the same shape, but perfect with no naturals or extra facets the diamond would have been much lighter.
I don't mind naturals; I feel like I'm getting the largest diamond for my money.
If they had polished more rough away to completely eliminate the natural I'll bet it would have had to cost a similar amount but would have been considerably lighter.

Check out the major naturals on this VS2 green diamond I bought.



They are at 10:00 on the crown plot and at 2:00 on the pavilion plot.

 

[Love Street]

Thanks so much Kenny! Your comments and pictures are really enlightening. (Not to mention I can go on with my Saturday night now and put the loup down )

So in your opinino do you think the natural in my diamond is represented by the marks on the plot at 11:00 or the ones at 7:00? I do have another, much smaller, "natural-looking" inclusion (though perhaps more linear) mostly in the girdle in the corresponding position - I'm just not sure which is which. Based on your photo and your plot, my guess would be that the ones in my photo corresponds with the inclusion at 11:00 on my plot - would that be correct?

Thanks again for easing my mind.

 

[kenny]

I assume all four pics are of the same natural.

Even if so I don't know whether it is the 7:00 natural or the 11:00 natural.
Look at the stone, you should see a natural in both locations.

I believe the green and red lines drawn are intended to be super accurate representations of the inclusions, but those two natural drawings are quite different-looking.
For that reason I would think you should be able to connect each drawing with what you see in the stone.

 

[starryeyed]

Hi LoveStreet. Wow, great job on the photos!

I can't be as helpful as Kenny, but just wanted you to know that I understand completely how you feel. I bought an AGTA 4+ carat blue Ceylon sapphire and upon close inspection, found what looked like a small chip just under the girdle. I flipped!

It sent me down a long path trying to understand what this was, why it was there, and what it meant for the value of my stone. In the end, I got a discount and some peace-of-mind that it wasn't a chip.

I hope the appraiser you see can give you a lot of information about diamond formation and cutting so that you can feel good about the "personality" of your stone. In the meantime, don't stress.

 

[kenny]

I assume all four pics are of the same natural.

Even if so I don't know whether it is the 7:00 natural or the 11:00 natural.
Look at the stone, you should see a natural in both locations.

I believe the green and red lines drawn are intended to be super accurate representations of the inclusions, but those two natural drawings are quite different-looking.
For that reason I would think you should be able to connect each drawing with what you see in the stone.

I'm an idiot.
I meant to write "are NOT intended to".
Sorry.

 

[Love Street]

I'm an idiot.
I meant to write "are NOT intended to".
Sorry.

LOL!! Thanks for clarifying Kenny. I had gone back and found the other inclusion on the girdle (much smaller and I didn't want to struggle with photographs again) - when I looked at the relative positions of the inclusions compared to the relative positions on the plot, it seemed like the big one I photographed was in the 11:00 position. But then I was thinking "but, well, the outline of the big inclusion matches the plot outline of the 7:00 position better, and if this GIA grader made it a point to draw an accurate outline of the inclusion.... hmmm... maybe he was looking at the diamond backwards in a mirror..." . But I'm not worried about it anymore - hopefully the appraiser will give me a little tutorial.

Hi Starryeyed - thanks for the support! Even after reading threads on naturals here I had just never seen this type of inclusion IRL and kept thinking "omg - did I drop the diamond - chipping it - and not even realize it? Will insurance believe me? omg I've jinxed it!" The diamond was definitely priced as an SI2, and all its inclusions are on the cert, so I'm happy with it - now that I know I didn't break it myself! Now that of ogled it from its blingy top view, I'm just learning its little birthmarks so to speak.

On another note, it has a tiny dark crystal under the table (you can see its reflection multiplied in the girdle in the second pic). Does anyone have any idea what these are? Carbon? Olivine? I wonder how you'd determine this..

Anyway, thanks for weighing in and easing my mind - and Kenny, I had a MUCH better weekend thanks to your comments!