Laser Drilled diamond, Before / After
- Thread starter Garry H (Cut Nut)
- Start date
- Status
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
Interesting. On this thread I asked Wink the same question, but his response was quite different. I still had my doubts and saw the Capt's comment so I asked again here. I guess nobody else is going to comment now.
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
DG - there's no confusion. I thought I described this pretty clearly - fracture reaches surface as well as something dark inside the stone. Then the stone is boiled after cutting, acid reaches the dark stuff inside the stone via the fracture on the surface. Dark stuff inside the stone is bleached, inadvertently even. Can I be more clear? GIA calls this enhancement or not?
Wink had written:
One thing I can conclude from this is how true the Capt's statement is:
Wink had written:
So my original question was whether the GIA would even call this bleaching via the surface-reaching inclusion clarity enhancement. The way I read your and the Capt's comments is that they would not.
One thing I can conclude from this is how true the Capt's statement is:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Elmo, you have to re-read Winks whole paragraph:
"There were actually three big black inclusions in this stone, although the third one was not actually distinguished from the first two until after the first two were removed and it "distinguished itself" by still being there.
The biggest actually did not require a drill hole since it reached the surface of the pavilion, but the lily pad inclusion and the remaining inclusion did require drilling. The clarity enhancing made the now vacant spaces in the diamond not visible to the eye, but they can still be seen in the microscope.
Wink ".
Maybe I am reading it wrong..., but two out of three black inclusions were cleaned via the deep boiling. After both were cleaned they noticed a third one which did not reach the surface or was conected to the ones who did reach the surface.
So for the purpose of reaching the third ''black'' inclusion a laser drilled hole was used... (Which is called clarity enhancement).
I hope I am reading this right!!!
But I will repeat: The GIA has no way of knowing if a Diamond was deep-boiled (which is pretty much a standard procedure after cutting process). and while it was deep-boiled it could have taken out some black inclusions that were open to the surface of the facets.
And frankly..., The GIA or any other Lab should not even care...
I hope I am being clearer!
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Au Contrairee, mon ami.
You asked about clarity enhancement, which is the addition of a substance to mask the inclusion and make it appear as if it were not there, as briefly touched on above.
Clarity enhancement always leaves tell tail signs that can be picked up in the microscope. The acid cleaning mentioned Capt Aubrey and to which DiaGem stated that GIA would not know it was done does not leave any tell tail signs. Obviously it was not done with this diamond when it was originally cut, or the large blackness would not have been there.
In any case, I do not believe that this would qualify as something that need be disclosed, as it would be considered a permanent part of the faceting process, and does not involve opening a hole in the diamond as does the laser drilling of the stone.
Your post has a sting to it, but perhaps I am not reading your intended tone of voice correctly. I thought I had fairly answered your question in the previous thread, I had to go look to remember what I might have said that would cause you to state so strongly that I had given you bad information. I must have not understood the question as I took it to be could the GIA detect, always, clarity enhancement, which they can. If your question was to be is the bleaching of an open inclusion considered clarity enhancement, then the answer is no.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
I think the confusion is coming from the term disclosed.
It would be noted as a feather or a pit depending on what it is but isn''t clarity enhancement.
A feather or a pit is disclosed no matter its color, the acid just made it white instead of black which can improve the clarity grade of the finished stone.
I think this is proper because they have no way of knowing what was in the pit or feather.
Its just there.
However extreme pits should be called CE in my opinion.
Laser drilling is a no brainer that it should and must be disclosed.
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
Exactly - I think strm understands exactly my point.
In my original question to Wink, I was referring only to the bleached inclusion that was surface-reaching.
However, as I see now, I'm confusing Wink and DG by calling that 'clarity enhancement'.
Wink and DG here and apparently the trade in general, however, are making a distinction between drilling and bleaching together (the only thing they're calling 'clarity enhancement') and bleaching a large black internal inclusion that by chance happens to be reachable via a surface reaching fracture.
Which in my mind is clearly 'clarity enhancement' but which the trade and the GIA seem to not consider as such.
I'm a stickler for enhancement disclosure, so this supposedly acceptable practice is highly questionable. In my mind at least. And with excellent photographic evidence in the original post I referred to.
If it's on the outside of the gem and you cut it or boil it away, fine with me. Improve the appearance on the inside with some aggressive chemical process and fail to disclose, shame.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Ah, this is the problem. By definition, clarity enhancement is the practice of putting a high refractive substance into the diamond to fill minor cleavages and inclusions, making them nearly impossible to detect. This can be detected under the microscope as the slight difference in the Refractive index of the substance and the refractive index of the diamond make some pretty incredible interferance figures, looking like purple, red, blue, green or yellow curtains or rainbows in the stone depending on the substance used.
I have enclosed a picture that I went looking for and "borrowed" from our friend Todd at Nice Ice. When looking I was absolutely amazed at the number of sites specializing in clarity enhanced diamonds, so obviously I am wrong in my statement that CE stones are "untouchable" on the net. They are obviously not so popular on Pricescope, but I always keep forgetting that we represent such a small segment of the actual jewelry market. If we were mainstream and the market adhering to our standards, Zales and Walmart and their ilk would long since been out of the jewelry business.
I have called Todd and left him a message to let him know I "borrowed" his picture. It may be the first time any one actually gave him credit for a "borrowed" picture. We both discussed picture theft the last time we had a meal together, it is an all too common practice. I even told him the thread to find it on, maybe he will come and post some more pictures from his library, he is a great guy and I hope he visits my area again soon.
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
See the response above, it would cause tremendous confusion to now start calling this process, which is considered a normal part of the cutting process, by a name given to another process that is NOT considered to be a normal part of the cutting process.
You could call it something else if you wished, but you could not ever enforce it, since there is no way to prove that it did or did not happen.
Wink
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
That is exactly what it is!!!
Elmo..., Imagine a rough Diamond that is planed do be cut into a polished Diamond of one carat size..., It starts from a three carat rough Diamond that has a (black) inclusion in which a cutter plans to cut and at the same time clean/eliminate the black inclusion (but does not want to go below the magic weight of one carat. Unfortunatly not everything goes according to plans and the cutter ends up with a one carat Diamond that still has a bit of the black inclusion left in the Diamond...
Now the cutting process is over..., the cutter deep-boils the Diamond (again, standard procedure) and this procedure takes out the "black" color out of the ''open to the surface inclusion'' turning the inclusion colorless...
Do you still think it should be categorized as "clarity enhancement"?
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
Wink, my apologies for sounding sharp. I'm distressed that this is acceptable practice but I understand your response now.
Edit: DG, like I said originally, I'm fine with this if the black inclusion is completely on the outside and removed via the process, but if the black inclusion extends significantly into the stone and is made less visible through the process, common sense says its an enhancement. Based on this discussion I now understand that we'd need to give it a different name.
Edit: DG, like I said originally, I'm fine with this if the black inclusion is completely on the outside and removed via the process, but if the black inclusion extends significantly into the stone and is made less visible through the process, common sense says its an enhancement. Based on this discussion I now understand that we'd need to give it a different name.
Hest88
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 4,357
It''s a fascinating nuance, isn''t it? I certainly think of it as "oops, the dirt happened to be ''washed'' out during the process" vs. "we have to go in there and drive the sucker out."
Still, I suspect some consumers would find it disconcerting to think their baby wasn''t born clean and pure.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
No problem, that is why I asked, I was hoping it was the practice and not me that you were cranky with.
Since there is no way to prove it to have been done or not done, the name given to it now is "common practice".
If that disturbs anyone, then they need to be asking if there are any large surface reaching cavities. If the answer is yes, then the stone is most likely already an I1 clarity, although it might be an eye clean I1, and those are mighty easy to sell since if they are well cut they are so beautiful for so little.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
I will use an extreme example of what Im talking about to make my point...
A cutter leaves a huge open black carbon spot on the diamond, its washed away in the acid bath, the stone now has a very large eye visible from the side pit that is very clear to someone skilled in diamonds that that is what happened.
It should be disclosed as a treatment.
Elmo would agree with me from what has been said.
A cutter leaves a huge open black carbon spot on the diamond, its washed away in the acid bath, the stone now has a very large eye visible from the side pit that is very clear to someone skilled in diamonds that that is what happened.
It should be disclosed as a treatment.
Elmo would agree with me from what has been said.
CaptAubrey
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 863
Good grief, what a can of worms we''ve opened up here. Since it''s Friday, let me muck things up even further.
The issue is complex because these kinds of pits and cavities can form through a variety of processes. Diamonds do not form with voids in their crystal structure when deep in the earth--the pressures they grow under preclude this. However, when brought to the surface through natural vulcanism, the hot magma and various other corrosive fluids can and do etch the diamond rough. Even pure diamond is not crystallographically homogenous--there are disclocations, misalignments, and various other "hiccups" in the array of carbon atoms. Where the structure is strained or otherwise not proper diamond form, the crystal is not as durable or stable. In these areas, the diamond can be preferentially dissolved, meaning that pits and channels can form as the "erroneous" structures are dissolved away from the "correct" structures. All of this happens before anyone touches it, and the cutting process may or may not remove these etch features.
Too, solid inclusions can simply "fall out" of the crystal during polishing. This will leave behind a pit that is indistinguishable from what would be created if the inclusion remained and then was dissolved during acid boiling.
So by the time the diamond gets to the poor jeweler, who may or may not really understand any of this, it can be next to impossible for him/her to tell what happened.
Another point of clarification: What those of us in the trade mean by "disclosure" is the act of explaining what treatments have been performed on a gemstone when it changes hands at the point of sale. This is the resposibility of the vendor. What the labs do is simply identify what may have been done should the gem be submitted for a report (and not all treatments are detectable). Disclosure is not the responsibility of the lab.
Strictly speaking, I can understand the argument that deliberately acid-boiling a diamond to bleach a surface-reaching inclusion constitutes a treatment. Treatments that substantially affect the value of a gem must be disclosed under FTC rules. But because of the difficulties in identification, disclosure in this case would mean all diamonds would be accompanied by a statement, "Your diamond was acid-boiled after faceting." Somehow, I doubt the clerks at Tiffany would enjoy doing this.
And, frankly, I have serious doubts about the ability of the general public to handle this information in a rational manner. Require disclosure for this routine process, and we''re going to be seeing regular "HELP!!! My diamond was acid-boiled!!!" threads on PS. That, I can do without.
The issue is complex because these kinds of pits and cavities can form through a variety of processes. Diamonds do not form with voids in their crystal structure when deep in the earth--the pressures they grow under preclude this. However, when brought to the surface through natural vulcanism, the hot magma and various other corrosive fluids can and do etch the diamond rough. Even pure diamond is not crystallographically homogenous--there are disclocations, misalignments, and various other "hiccups" in the array of carbon atoms. Where the structure is strained or otherwise not proper diamond form, the crystal is not as durable or stable. In these areas, the diamond can be preferentially dissolved, meaning that pits and channels can form as the "erroneous" structures are dissolved away from the "correct" structures. All of this happens before anyone touches it, and the cutting process may or may not remove these etch features.
Too, solid inclusions can simply "fall out" of the crystal during polishing. This will leave behind a pit that is indistinguishable from what would be created if the inclusion remained and then was dissolved during acid boiling.
So by the time the diamond gets to the poor jeweler, who may or may not really understand any of this, it can be next to impossible for him/her to tell what happened.
Another point of clarification: What those of us in the trade mean by "disclosure" is the act of explaining what treatments have been performed on a gemstone when it changes hands at the point of sale. This is the resposibility of the vendor. What the labs do is simply identify what may have been done should the gem be submitted for a report (and not all treatments are detectable). Disclosure is not the responsibility of the lab.
Strictly speaking, I can understand the argument that deliberately acid-boiling a diamond to bleach a surface-reaching inclusion constitutes a treatment. Treatments that substantially affect the value of a gem must be disclosed under FTC rules. But because of the difficulties in identification, disclosure in this case would mean all diamonds would be accompanied by a statement, "Your diamond was acid-boiled after faceting." Somehow, I doubt the clerks at Tiffany would enjoy doing this.
And, frankly, I have serious doubts about the ability of the general public to handle this information in a rational manner. Require disclosure for this routine process, and we''re going to be seeing regular "HELP!!! My diamond was acid-boiled!!!" threads on PS. That, I can do without.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,483
Well said Capt!Date: 7/6/2007 6:09:25 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
Good grief, what a can of worms we''ve opened up here. Since it''s Friday, let me muck things up even further.
The issue is complex because these kinds of pits and cavities can form through a variety of processes. Diamonds do not form with voids in their crystal structure when deep in the earth--the pressures they grow under preclude this. However, when brought to the surface through natural vulcanism, the hot magma and various other corrosive fluids can and do etch the diamond rough. Even pure diamond is not crystallographically homogenous--there are disclocations, misalignments, and various other ''hiccups'' in the array of carbon atoms. Where the structure is strained or otherwise not proper diamond form, the crystal is not as durable or stable. In these areas, the diamond can be preferentially dissolved, meaning that pits and channels can form as the ''erroneous'' structures are dissolved away from the ''correct'' structures. All of this happens before anyone touches it, and the cutting process may or may not remove these etch features.
Too, solid inclusions can simply ''fall out'' of the crystal during polishing. This will leave behind a pit that is indistinguishable from what would be created if the inclusion remained and then was dissolved during acid boiling.
So by the time the diamond gets to the poor jeweler, who may or may not really understand any of this, it can be next to impossible for him/her to tell what happened.
Another point of clarification: What those of us in the trade mean by ''disclosure'' is the act of explaining what treatments have been performed on a gemstone when it changes hands at the point of sale. This is the resposibility of the vendor. What the labs do is simply identify what may have been done should the gem be submitted for a report (and not all treatments are detectable). Disclosure is not the responsibility of the lab.
Strictly speaking, I can understand the argument that deliberately acid-boiling a diamond to bleach a surface-reaching inclusion constitutes a treatment. Treatments that substantially affect the value of a gem must be disclosed under FTC rules. But because of the difficulties in identification, disclosure in this case would mean all diamonds would be accompanied by a statement, ''Your diamond was acid-boiled after faceting.'' Somehow, I doubt the clerks at Tiffany would enjoy doing this.
And, frankly, I have serious doubts about the ability of the general public to handle this information in a rational manner. Require disclosure for this routine process, and we''re going to be seeing regular ''HELP!!! My diamond was acid-boiled!!!'' threads on PS. That, I can do without.
Opps, help my diamond was faceted!!!!!!!!
????
There are normal processes. If the diamond is not acid boiled it will also have bits of metal imbedded in naturals, bruted girdle and any cavities. The normal processes and the normal results ought not in my opinion require declaration.
There are many diamonds with open''s. If the opens are large enough they can become refilled with dirt resulting in a later lower clarity grade. But again this can be improved by a good simple clean. Dilema''s abound.
e.g. a company operated by a past GIA Chairman announced a new patented diamond treatment that they beilieved could not be detected.
They decided they should not need to declare the treatment on that basis (and that the treatment was of the type that can happen naturally).
GIA and others found they could indeed identify diamonds with said treatment.
What should GIA have done in such a case?
A. refuse to grade such stones as is their fracture filled diamond policy
B. agree and grade such stones with a declaration
C. Grade the stones without a declaration
D. Other?
KimberlyH
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,485
Wow, I think this is the first post about diamond cutting, inclusions and such that i can wrap my head around (sort of). I''m so excited! Can you please explain to me how a laser can disperse a cleaning solution into a diamond without leaving a hole? (I know, I know, a novice question, I''m so sorry!).
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,483
Correct
CaptAubrey
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 863
It can''t. Laser drilling always leaves behind a hole of some sort. It''s through that hole that the acid reaches the inclusion. The hole can later be filled with glass, or disguised by the lasering method used (the "KM" Diagem referred to is a method by which the laser extends an internal feather to the surface rather than burning a hole in from the outside... it resembles a natural feather/cleavage to the untrained eye), but you need the hole to bleach the inclusion.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,483
CaptA I believe I read a G&G article where it seemed the intersection of multiple lasers were used to ''bleach'' inclusions using heat alone. Or is it my runaway imagination?
- Status
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)