Is this stone eye-clean (+IMAGES)

[pr0lab]

Hello,

I have received these images from the seller, the stone is SI2 and has HCA of 1.3. All the ratios and proportions look good but I do not know what to make out of these images. You help and feedback be VERY appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

 

[pr0lab]

the actual image of the stone.

 

[marymm]

What does the vendor say about the diamond? Do you have the GIA report number? Off the cuff, based on the pics the inclusions look dark so I would say the stone is not eyeclean to my standards for a ring (I prefer eyeclean from 4-6" away), but maybe you are okay with eyeclean at 12" or maybe you want to use the stone for a pendant?

 

[pr0lab]

Thank you for the quick reply. The vendor is saying that the stone is 85-90 percent eye-clean. GIA report 1159959534.

Does that mean that the inclusion will reflect the light in an isometric way and will distort the brilliance?

Thanks

 

[yssie]

Thank you for the quick reply. The vendor is saying that the stone is 85-90 percent eye-clean. GIA report 1159959534.

Does that mean that the inclusion will reflect the light in an isometric way and will distort the brilliance?

Thanks

What does that mean? From what distance, in what types of lights? Directly face-up, or from slight tilt as well? Decide what the words "eye clean" means to you and ask them if it meets your requirements, and then you will have an easy yes/no way to decide whether to proceed.

If you decide to move forward with this one I *strongly* recommend having it shipped out to see in-person before having it set - yours are the only eyes that can definitively judge whether or not it's sufficiently clean.

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=1159959534&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547
Grade-making inclusion listed as twinning wisps. Some threads re. effects of wisps and other inclusions on light return:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-twinning-wisps.100943/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-twinning-wisps.100943/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/twinning-wisp.175814/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/twinning-wisp.175814/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/[/URL]

 

[pr0lab]

Thanks! I will follow up. Will I have the same luck with all SI2s or some are better and some are worse based on the where the imperfection is located - do I understand it correctly.

Thanks

 

[yssie]

Thanks! I will follow up. Will I have the same luck with all SI2s or some are better and some are worse based on the where the imperfection is located - do I understand it correctly.

Thanks

SI2s are a mixed bag. I have an SI2 that is not eyeclean loose but the grade-making (visible) inclusion can be pronged, albeit with some difficulty... so in practice it's "clean" enough for me.

More on clarity grading: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/[/URL]

 

[pr0lab]

Hello,
The seller has sent me a few more picture of another stone. He claims it to be eye-clean and the pattern and the cut look really good to me. What do you think of this stone?

 

[yssie]

Having established that we can't judge "eyeclean" to *your* eyes or whether the inclusions noticeably affect brilliance from pictures, yes, this stone also looks fine otherwise in the pics.
Those are obviously two big question marks.

Report? Number and exact carat weight.

 

[pr0lab]

more files attached about the stone.

 

[yssie]

I obviously posted too soon!

It's an SI2 and grade-making inclusions are wisps, have someone look at it and confirm it's clean to your requirements and the wisps don't impede brilliance IRL, then have it shipped out loose and see it in-person.
It's fine otherwise - a bit "unorthodox" on PS but nothing wrong with that, and nothing to flag.

 

[pr0lab]

Thank you!

What do you mean by "a bit "unorthodox" on PS"

 

[yssie]

I meant that the proportions are different from what many PSers look for in an RB. It doesn't mean they're bad - or "less good" - in any way, it just means that many PSers have different tastes.

It's one of the hazards of soliciting opinions on a forum. You get a group of people who like similar things (in this case high crowns and small tables). Other people learn about that group's preferences and adopt them, some perhaps without verifying that they definitively objectively feel the same way (it's hard not to be biased if you've already heard X is best from people you trust), and that bigger group further disseminates that opinion and before you know it it's the collective party line!

Here's my advice: when you get it, take it to a local jeweller who sells well-cut stones (GIA EXs, AGS0/1s) and compare it to as many other stones of similar size as you can (in a variety of lighting types). If you love how yours looks after those comparisons, great! And if you find you prefer other stones, copy down the numbers on those reports and come back here and we can help you sort through them and figure out what "flavour" your eyes like best.

 

[pr0lab]

thank you for that. based on your comments above, this is another stone that I have looked at but have not gotten pictures of. the proportions look good to me, based on what i read on the forum but do you think it will go into the common category of stone with "traditional" proportions?

thanks!

 

[yssie]

Moreso, yes.

 

[pr0lab]

and based on those specs, if you had to choose, will you recommend the 3rd? again, only based on specs, I realize that I will need to see them in person.
Thank you for all your help!

 

[yssie]

and based on those specs, if you had to choose, will you recommend the 3rd? again, only based on specs, I realize that I will need to see them in person.
Thank you for all your help!

Certainly worth having your rep check it out and take some photos!

 

[treasurehunter]

The second stones looks eye clean and an example of a good SI2 while the first stone was SI3 ( A low SI2 or top I1)

It just shows you how much SI2 can vary , this is why in the trade the term SI3 was invented now often diamond cutting factories will sell on a basis of grades such as
SI2+,SI2,SI2-
and there can be huge differences in price between an SI2+ and an SI2 - for example.

 

[Christina...]

The second stones looks eye clean and an example of a good SI2 while the first stone was SI3 ( A low SI2 or top I1)

It just shows you how much SI2 can vary , this is why in the trade the term SI3 was invented now often diamond cutting factories will sell on a basis of grades such as
SI2+,SI2,SI2-
and there can be huge differences in price between an SI2+ and an SI2 - for example.

I agree that SI2 stones can vary greatly but how did you make the determination that the first stone is an SI3? I've also not heard of labs grading stones as SI2+, SI2, or SI2-. Which lab is grading by these standards?
-

 

[glitzandglamour]

I would go with the second stone you posted. The first will be iffy with that feather/twinning wisp break. It looks slightly deep and will probably be seen weather it's white or dark. It may be able to be hidden behind a prong, but that depends on the durability of the inclusion.

 

[treasurehunter]

There is no grade SI3 or SI2+ etc they are just descriptive of where they lie in the SI2 used in the trade

 

[pr0lab]

What is your opinion on the proportions of the stones?

 

[spicyitalian]

If it passes the HCA, the proportions should more or less look OK at least on paper.

 

[pr0lab]

This is from another vendor thus the pictures are not as sharp as from the previous vendor. I hope you can comment on those. I am not sure what is this thing (circled in red) in the H&A picture - any idea?
Thanks!

 

[pr0lab]

Any Idea folks?
Thank you!

 

[Andelain]

Need bigger pics.