''loupe clean'' SI?

[:)]

For those of you who grade stones (or anyone else who knows), is it possible to have a 'loupe clean' (at least to the consumer) SI1? I have good eyesight, am usually very observant, and have gone crazy trying to loupe a stone for a few days now from all angles (just trying to find any hint of inclusion), even lighting it from below. I finally let myself look at the report tonight - there are two inclusions (originally I thought the report just didn't scan well online, and was told it was eye clean - I didn't look at the report when I got it because I wanted to see if I could find inclusions myself without any clues (I am weird like that) - it has been a sort of fun test for both of us trying to loupe it and find the inclusions - my fiancee was proud and thought he found it from the side, until I told him it was the girdle reflection! LOL). At first I thought they forgot to plot the inclusions on the report when I looked tonight, then realized they were there, just very small - a tiny dot of red ink and a short, small, thin line. One is a pinpoint and one is a tiny needle (at least I presume from the key)- I will be danged if I can find either. Obviously the grader with experienced eyes could see, so technically it isn't 'loupe clean' (and must have been very easy for him/her), but I think you can get my gist. What would have determined VS vs. SI grade here with two small inclusions difficult (or impossible) for the average person to see? Is it the type of inclusion (i.e. the needle?).

It does have two naturals plotted (one on the pav pic and one on the top down pic - not in the table) that I did not mention earlier, because I assume that they don't set the grade based on these, but maybe I am wrong?

I gave the stone size above because I expected larger inclusions (meaning more visible) on this size stone.
Thanks

 

[Londonchris]

Date: 12/13/2006 1:35:38 AM
Author:
For those of you who grade stones (or anyone else who knows), is it possible to have a ''loupe clean'' (at least to the consumer) SI1?

Looks like you can answer that yourself

Sure is possible.Sounds like your looking too long and hard.
Wether it`s si or vs might have something to do with exactly where these elusive inclusions are,though not to worry since you will have saved yourself quite a few $$$,and since you can`t see anything wrong

 

[:)]

Date: 12/13/2006 2:01:05 AM
Author: Londonchris

Date: 12/13/2006 1:35:38 AM
Author:
For those of you who grade stones (or anyone else who knows), is it possible to have a ''loupe clean'' (at least to the consumer) SI1?

Looks like you can answer that yourself

Sure is possible.Sounds like your looking too long and hard.
Wether it`s si or vs might have something to do with exactly where these elusive inclusions are,though not to worry since you will have saved yourself quite a few $$$,and since you can`t see anything wrong

Haha, good points! I kept looking because it became like a game - trying to find what I couldn''t see! Kind of a diamond ''Where''s Waldo?'' of sorts! None are in the table, so I guess that''s good. I was kinda thinking finding a little garnet or something in there would be kinda cool, but I won''t complain!

 

[Londonchris]

I was doing the same just the other day.
Try putting the stone upside down on white paper and looking from the back.
After all the years in the trade i still can`t get the hang of tweezers PING!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am instantly suspicious of such stones as they are usually given that grade because they have clouds - and clouds can (not always) dull the diamond.

I prefer to see an ''honest'' SI than 1 with clouds.

The best test is to compare the stone to another of similar size and cut quality in at least 3 different lighting types.

If there are clouds AND a lot of Fluoro then the stone will very likely be dull.

You must look for fire under spots and life in diffused fluor office / kitchen lights as well as difffused or shaded daylight

 

[:)]

Date: 12/13/2006 3:04:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I am instantly suspicious of such stones as they are usually given that grade because they have clouds - and clouds can (not always) dull the diamond.

I prefer to see an ''honest'' SI than 1 with clouds.

The best test is to compare the stone to another of similar size and cut quality in at least 3 different lighting types.

If there are clouds AND a lot of Fluoro then the stone will very likely be dull.

You must look for fire under spots and life in diffused fluor office / kitchen lights as well as difffused or shaded daylight

I really appreciate all of you helping, I have felt a little lost with this stone because it seemed like such a good buy - maybe Garry hit on the problem.

The cloud thing is interesting - the report does not mention any clouds - plotted or ''not shown'' - would they have left them off the report? (It is AGS) I know sometimes GIA will write ''clouds not shown'' - Does AGS sometimes not even mention it? It is an F stone with strong fluoro (I bought a UV bulb to look at it too - pretty cool!) - I took the plunge on the strong fluoro b/c actually you mentioned that if you bought a big colorless stone for your wife, you would get no less than strong fluoro. That and Wink, and OldMiner, and several others would have too. That and fluoro is just really neat scientifically!

It is a DQD instead of light performance based which made me very worried as to why, but I liked the numbers and kept coming across it again and again for several weeks. The company assured me it was eyeclean and no neg effects from fluoro, but could not send pics or IS first so I was not able to post to ask others opinions prior to purchase. My IS is in the mail and hopefully will be receiving any day now. It bothers me that I purchased without any more info on it, but I felt like I had to look at it b/c I liked the numbers and kept coming across it again and again. I just feel like I cannot trust my eyes and wish I had more hard data. I was hoping to purchase it from GOG since they do so much testing, but Tim couldn''t get it.

I have taken it with me outdoors, indoors, direct sunlight, shade, to the mall, to the grocery store - It seems extremely lively - kind of like a disco ball (actually that is what I have been calling it). My friend said it made her feel like she was about to get a migraine (because it looked like the bright flashes of light and color that she gets just prior), and couldn''t look at it for more than a moment. It is extremely white and at first I was worried about fire (since I love it so much) - it definitely has fire in there, esp in places like the mall and the grocery store where the lights are higher overhead (or in dim/soft lighting). In sunlight it is incredibly bright and has strong flashes of bright white and blues, reds, etc. I was relieved to see the fire, it made me so happy! In the office it is mostly white and very sparkly with much less fire.

I don''t know where I would be able to find a similar sized stone with similar cut to compare in diff lightings, etc- Is this something that an appraiser could help me figure out if I took it to one (meaning the performance - I assume if I asked he/she could find clouds)? I thought about sending the stone to RockDoc for performance testing (I have until mid Jan to return it), but when I looked at his website, I realized that they engrave the stone when they remove it from the box (understandably, as they would need some protection if someone claimed they switched a stone), so I couldn''t return it if it was engraved.

I went last night to a Lazare dealer on the Promenade hoping to compare as I would have returned the stone, long story short he didn''t want to pull his one Lazare (which was a 1 carat) out of the case. I think he thought I was trying to pull some kind of fast one on him!!!

LondonChris - I did flip it upside down on white paper, and side ways, and every which way! I even have one of those multipronged display stone holders (in addition to temp ring holders) that I used to keep it steady. Maybe I am missing the clouds that Garry is suspicious of - can''t see the forest because I am looking for the trees!


I was going to post the specs later to get criticisms - I was waiting to get my IS to peek at it to see if it was worth posting the #s.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

you will not be able to detect cloud effects with an ideal-scope.

Not sure if AGS mention clouds not shown on plots or comments.

Consider an appraiser - or find a comparison.

The other thing you can do with your loupe is examine the stone from many directions from the pavilion side looking for paralel planes that look like white - grey grooves in a record - these are grain lines that can cause cloudiness - and they are easier to spot pavilion side.

But it is quite likely your stone is a keeper, so keep smiling ; - )

 

[:)]

Thanks Garry!

Lisa

 

[SKR]

Garry - surely if clouds in a diamond are freuest or large enough to dull the stone, then they would be mentioned on the GIA report. Not just mentioned ie "clouds not shown" but plotted or pointed out it some other way ?

 

[zjt3]

My 1.65 I SI1 Radiant is the same way (loupe clean) from every direction unless I look at it from the side, and I can see the surface graining (looks like a couple of tiny little clear bubbles in maybe the top 1% of the stone).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/13/2006 3:49:35 PM
Author: SKR
Garry - surely if clouds in a diamond are freuest or large enough to dull the stone, then they would be mentioned on the GIA report. Not just mentioned ie ''clouds not shown'' but plotted or pointed out it some other way ?

It is most unfair to the diamond owner vendor to kill a stone by shading a large area of the stone that is invisible to a loupe - so no - that is why they use the comment section