shape
carat
color
clarity

Milky Diamonds – What Causes Transparency Issues and How to Identify Them

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,885
We tend to think of diamond as a totally transparent material but that is not always the case. Sometimes diamonds are hazy and often described as looking “milky”. Diamonds can appear milky for a number of reasons. Most often the cause is related to the presence of clarity characteristics such as microscopic inclusions, but can also be the result of defects at the atomic level in the carbon lattice. Strong fluorescence, particularly in combination with light scattering inclusions, can also cause a loss of transparency resulting in the diamond having a hazy or milky appearance.

It should be noted that transparency is not currently graded or measured on a laboratory report, arguably a failing of the laboratory community given how common transparency issues are and how much they can affect the appearance and performance of faceted diamonds. But there are sometimes clues to a transparency issue if you understand the nuanced way reports communicate certain information. In laboratory grown diamonds, atomic level transparency issues are more common, as we will discuss below in a separate section. Otherwise, this article is generally aimed at natural, mined diamonds.

Transparency deficits can be very subtle and require a trained eye to assess accurately. Sometimes online images will reveal them, though they may not be obvious - particularly images taken in diffuse lighting. Directional lighting (such as spot lighting) can show the effect more prominently. But being able to compare to a diamond with full transparency is often required.

1733172229954.png
1733172254948.png


Milkiness in diamond on right is subtle in diffuse lighting above

1733172411427.png 1733172435747.png
Milkiness is more pronounced in directional lighting

Clarity Features as Cause of Milkiness
Inclusions can cause light to be scattered and prevent light rays from fully propagating through a diamond. This can result in a hazy, cloudy or milky appearance depending on severity. Light scattering inclusions such as twinning wisps, graining, and clouds can interfere with light rays as they are internally reflected within the diamond. As they exit the crown on their way to our eye those rays are degraded to a point where they no longer have the sparkle or fire we expect from a fully transparent diamond. Depending on the extent of the interference, the diamond may have only very slightly diminished transparency that is not obvious to the untrained observer. But if the inclusions are extensive and dense enough or the distortions in the carbon lattice severe enough, the degradation can be obvious – a dull diamond that has no life. It’s a diamond that looks perpetually like it needs professional cleaning.

In natural diamonds the chance of this being the case in the high clarity grades is extremely low. The problem usually exists in the Si and below range. It is also possible in the VS range, particularly VS2 that might be on the border of Si1.

Fluorescence can Cause a Diamond to be Milky
About 30% of natural diamonds have a property known as photoluminescence – most commonly called fluorescence. The strength of the effect varies from none or very faint to strong and very strong. It is known that some strongly fluorescent diamonds appear milky. A 2021 GIA study on the subject found that most of the fluorescent diamonds that show diminished transparency also contain light scattering inclusions and that fluorescence alone does not cause milkiness. Therefore, if you are considering a fluorescent diamond it is wise to avoid those stones with graining, twinning wisps and cloud inclusions.

The same GIA study also revealed for the first time that strong fluorescence can cause diminished contrast, a component necessary for optimal scintillation. It is possible that this factor may contribute to the perception of the diamond appearing a little flat. This, in combination with light scattering inclusions in the presence of strong fluorescence may be a more complete explanation of why strongly fluorescent diamonds sometimes appear milky.

Atomic-level Defects can cause of Milkiness
Diamond is composed of pure carbon atoms bonded to one another in a regular lattice structure. Diamonds are formed as carbon atoms are laid down layer by layer upon this lattice.

But during formation diamonds can undergo forces that alter the regular pattern of their carbon lattice. In addition to trace elements being introduced such as nitrogen, hydrogen, boron and nickel, other defects can occur such as atomic vacancies in the lattice. Strain can also occur causing the lattice to be deformed. Defects in the lattice can have many different effects including causing the diamond to have body color, fluorescence, and also to have diminished transparency.

Laboratory Grown Diamonds - Strain and Striation can cause Milkiness
As noted above, atomic level defects can have impacts on transparency. This is relatively common in laboratory grown diamonds, particularly those grown by the CVD method. Whereas HPHT grown diamonds are rigidly constrained during growth by enormous pressure from all sides, CVD grown diamonds are not. This can lead to deformation of the carbon lattice in the form of crystal strain. Strain in diamond can best be seen when viewed through polarizing filters, but if severe enough can also affect its visual appearance causing a faceted diamond to have a roiled look. This can cause the virtual facets to look blurry and for the stone to take on a slight haziness. A diamond with this problem will never achieve optimal light performance, no matter how precisely cut. Unfortunately, there is nothing on a laboratory report to draw attention to a problem of this nature.

The CVD growth method allows an operator the opportunity to stop and re-start the process, sometimes to correct problems that can be observed through a view window on the CVD machine. Starting and stopping can present its own set of problems however, in the form of striations in the carbon lattice. This is a type of graining due to fluctuations in the growth environment and if severe enough can make the diamond look milky. HPHT growth is done in a single uninterrupted run and normally produces diamonds with no appreciable striation, little strain, and generally no transparency issues.

BGM – Brown, Green, Milky
Milky diamonds have a stigma in the market which derives from the diminished fire and brilliance they possess, even when precision cut. Two other characteristics are likewise stigmatized in the market for different reasons. Diamonds in the “normal” color range (D-Z) are graded on the basis of the degree to which they have body color in the brown and yellow hues. Brown in particular is considered by many to be less desirable than yellow. And rough diamonds with a greenish skin from natural irradiation stains sometimes show a green hue when faceted. These diamonds are highly associated with origins in Zimbabwe (Marange diamond field), and with the political infighting and human rights abuses which led to a ban on trading diamonds from the country.

To underscore the stigma associated with these three particular characteristics, some diamond manufacturers have developed a designation on their trade listings as “No BGM”, meant to assure their clients that the diamond in the listing is free of these issues.

Fancy White Diamonds – the Ultimate Milky Diamond
Milky diamonds are generally not desirable. That is, unless they are so milky that they cross over into the fancy color diamond realm. The ultimate milky diamonds are those that appear white (not to be confused with colorless diamonds that are often referred to as white). The nano-level inclusions and atomic level “dislocation loops” that typically cause this level of milkiness can make the diamond almost opaque. The best of these rare diamonds are sometimes described as having an opalescent appearance.

1733172648125.png










Fancy white diamond on right above

Conclusion
Diamonds are not always fully transparent. There are a number of causes for diminished transparency including light scattering clarity characteristics such as twinning wisps, clouds and graining as well as defects in the carbon lattice such as strain. Strong fluorescence can also cause diminished transparency, usually in the presence of light scattering inclusions. Depending on the severity of the issue a diamond with diminished transparency will look hazy or milky, or just lack the crisp scintillation, fire and brilliance we expect from a gem diamond.

Because no major diamond laboratory yet measures or grades transparency, it is up to the consumer to understand how to detect an appreciable transparency problem. This can require a trained eye to assess accurately. Knowing how to interpret some of the nuances of a laboratory report can be helpful as there are sometimes clues to be gleaned from them.

Transparency issues in natural diamonds are generally caused by clarity characteristics such as graining, twinning wisps and clouds and are more prevalent in the lower clarity grades. Laboratory grown diamonds on the other hand are more likely to have transparency issues due to atomic level defects such as strain and striation, even in the highest clarity grades.
______

What are your thoughts on the importance of fully transparent diamonds?
 
What a wonderful and informative post, Texas Leaguer - thank you! - I was just explaining to someone on Reddit a day or two ago on what to check for when they received a diamond that they ordered...a VS2 with clouding and graining notated on the report.
 
Can you tell us how the ACA diamonds are assessed for milkiness and BGM? Can we assume that those two characteristics are not present in ACA diamonds?
 
Can you tell us how the ACA diamonds are assessed for milkiness and BGM? Can we assume that those two characteristics are not present in ACA diamonds?

Yes Ma'am. Definitely. We end up rejecting a number of stones from our producers for transparency issues. Mostly Si1 but sometimes VS2. And this is in the context of longterm relationships where our manufacturers understand our criteria very well. This is what raised my consciousness years ago about just how common this issue is out in the wild, and how remiss the laboratories are for not developing an actual metric or observational standard (like fluorescence) to report on transparency.

On our specs and qualifications page, transparency is listed as something that is specifically vetted for in A CUT ABOVE. The process is a combination of initial gemological inspection, consideration of clarity grade and comments on the laboratory report, and photography in directional light. If we see any indications at any of these stages of our QC process the stone undergoes an elevated critical exam sometimes requiring side-by-side comparison to a fully transparent diamond such as an IF. Any appreciable transparency issue will disqualify the stone for the brand.
 
soooooo can WF help me find a v strong blue fluor VERY MILKY stone that you guys would usually reject outright? Why are they so hard to find if no one wants them? Lol it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack!
 
soooooo can WF help me find a v strong blue fluor VERY MILKY stone that you guys would usually reject outright? Why are they so hard to find if no one wants them? Lol it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack!

Our producers don't send us strong fluorescence because it is a no-go for our brand. We would just have to go on to the global database and search for such a stone. Most of this virtual inventory can be found in the listings of the major online sellers.

I would filter for VSB and look for Si stones that have twinning wisps as their grade setting inclusion, and preferably also have additional twinning wisps and/or graining in comments. Likely to be very milky.
 
Yes Ma'am. Definitely. We end up rejecting a number of stones from our producers for transparency issues. Mostly Si1 but sometimes VS2. And this is in the context of longterm relationships where our manufacturers understand our criteria very well. This is what raised my consciousness years ago about just how common this issue is out in the wild, and how remiss the laboratories are for not developing an actual metric or observational standard (like fluorescence) to report on transparency.

On our specs and qualifications page, transparency is listed as something that is specifically vetted for in A CUT ABOVE. The process is a combination of initial gemological inspection, consideration of clarity grade and comments on the laboratory report, and photography in directional light. If we see any indications at any of these stages of our QC process the stone undergoes an elevated critical exam sometimes requiring side-by-side comparison to a fully transparent diamond such as an IF. Any appreciable transparency issue will disqualify the stone for the brand.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Always good to have something to refer back to for posters with questions!
 
Our producers don't send us strong fluorescence because it is a no-go for our brand. We would just have to go on to the global database and search for such a stone. Most of this virtual inventory can be found in the listings of the major online sellers.

I would filter for VSB and look for Si stones that have twinning wisps as their grade setting inclusion, and preferably also have additional twinning wisps and/or graining in comments. Likely to be very milky.

I forgot to follow up on this question. I always thought that clouds were the most likely to lead to transparency issues. So I've been looking for clouds as the grade setting inclusion, + graining. I didn't realize twinning wisps could also cause milkiness. Csn you explain a bit about how/why TWs make more milky stones vs clouds?

Edit. It seems like the "ultimately" overblue stone would be SI2/I1, twinning wisps, clouds, internal graining, and external graining. Does that sound right to you?
 
Like this one...graining and wisps
still.jpg

 
Great article Bryan, deserves a bump!
In my experience, supporting your words Bryan, Clouds and Internal Graining are the critical nasties.
And always when combined with Medium or Strong + fluorescence.

GIA miss most internal graining, or choose not to mention it on reports.
Almost always when there is surface graining mentioned, there is internal graining.
I have seen many Flawless and Internally Flawless diamonds with nasty graining. Even up to eye visible level!
In my experience twinning is less of an issue and graded a little too harshly in non fluorescent diamonds.
 
I forgot to follow up on this question. I always thought that clouds were the most likely to lead to transparency issues. So I've been looking for clouds as the grade setting inclusion, + graining. I didn't realize twinning wisps could also cause milkiness. Csn you explain a bit about how/why TWs make more milky stones vs clouds?

Edit. It seems like the "ultimately" overblue stone would be SI2/I1, twinning wisps, clouds, internal graining, and external graining. Does that sound right to you?

Since clouds are essentially clusters of pinpoint inclusions, they are highly variable in their light scattering impacts. Even if they are the grade-setting inclusion type, their impact depends not only on how big and how numerous they are, but on the density of the pinpoints. Therefore they run the gamut of being totally benign to highly detrimental. Clouds can and do cause milkiness in some cases, such as in Si's with the dreaded "clarity grade based on clouds not shown", which is basically saying the crystal was fully proliferated with pinpoint inclusions.
 
Since clouds are essentially clusters of pinpoint inclusions, they are highly variable in their light scattering impacts. Even if they are the grade-setting inclusion type, their impact depends not only on how big and how numerous they are, but on the density of the pinpoints. Therefore they run the gamut of being totally benign to highly detrimental. Clouds can and do cause milkiness in some cases, such as in Si's with the dreaded "clarity grade based on clouds not shown", which is basically saying the crystal was fully proliferated with pinpoint inclusions.

I have seen plenty of GIA graded VS2's that are milky hazy because of clouds only Bryan.
From my book

How to Select the Best DIAMONDS: Insider Secrets​

1734590984705.png
 
I have seen plenty of GIA graded VS2's that are milky hazy because of clouds only Bryan.
From my book

How to Select the Best DIAMONDS: Insider Secrets​

1734590984705.png

That's logical, as VS2 is often bumping firmly up against Si1.

This is one reason my personal failsafe grade is VS1.

That's an excellent illustration Garry!

Btw, I have your book and have read portions of it. This reminds me to go look for your take on transparency. I think this is an area that we very much see eye-to-eye.
 
That's logical, as VS2 is often bumping firmly up against Si1.

This is one reason my personal failsafe grade is VS1.

That's an excellent illustration Garry!

Btw, I have your book and have read portions of it. This reminds me to go look for your take on transparency. I think this is an area that we very much see eye-to-eye.

I like VS1 too but am interested in hearing your thoughts about them. Do you feel assured that the inclusions won’t be eye visible or do you like the number of them being limited? I like both of those attributes but don’t always feel guaranteed of both based on clarity grade. I am probably harsh on clarity so would love to hear opinions!
 
I like VS1 too but am interested in hearing your thoughts about them. Do you feel assured that the inclusions won’t be eye visible or do you like the number of them being limited? I like both of those attributes but don’t always feel guaranteed of both based on clarity grade. I am probably harsh on clarity so would love to hear opinions!

There are always outliers, after all it is a human grading call for the most part. But VS1 should be completely eye-clean to people with normal vision in the most common diamond sizes and shapes. And there should NOT be enough going on in a VS1 to negatively impact transparency in any appreciable way. For these reasons I consider it a safe choice, but that does not mean that the stone should not be scrutinized closely.
In terms of numbers, if there are multiple features in a VS1 they should be super small. If there is just one and it's a black crystal in just the right location, and it's a large diamond or an emerald cut, then there could potentially be an eye-clean issue from face up or from the side. But in either case it should be very difficult to see, and it won't have any light scattering effects.
 
I like VS1 too but am interested in hearing your thoughts about them.
Its always going to be a case by case basis for me.
The problem is with how diamonds are graded and what is ignored with a clarity call.
Sub 10x viability inclusions can cause transparency issues and not lower the clarity grade.
Graining is in many cases just ignored by the lab.
Large diamonds say 5ct and up all bets are off for fancies.
Those are just a few of the issues.
 
Its always going to be a case by case basis for me.
The problem is with how diamonds are graded and what is ignored with a clarity call.
Sub 10x viability inclusions can cause transparency issues and not lower the clarity grade.
Graining is in many cases just ignored by the lab.
Large diamonds say 5ct and up all bets are off for fancies.
Those are just a few of the issues.

I agree. The sub 10x issues, including crystal strain, can cause loss of transparency and can potentially be present in VS1.
The market has become more aware of the effects of strain as it is frequently an issue in lab grown CVD diamonds due to the fact that the crystal is not constrained by high pressure on all sides as it grows. It is more rare in HPHT grown diamonds, and natural diamonds that grow dozens of miles under the crust of the earth under enourmous pressure, but still something that can happen.
 
That's logical, as VS2 is often bumping firmly up against Si1.

This is one reason my personal failsafe grade is VS1.

That's an excellent illustration Garry!

Btw, I have your book and have read portions of it. This reminds me to go look for your take on transparency. I think this is an area that we very much see eye-to-eye.


Hahaha - we see eye to eye on a topic of transparency Bryan - its almost punny :)
One of the major issues with diamond transparency is internal graining, made worse if the diamond is fluorescent.
As mentioned, labs often do not report graining.
Warning - if they report external graining, please assume there is internal graining. GIA is much better at picking external up.
Internal stress will often be a result of graining.
And please remember, as per my debates with Michael Cowing (and sometimes you too Bryan) that the GIA taught and say they grade fluoro under invisible 365nm UV light. In the visible and just visible violet light there is way stronger fluorescence in N3 Blue fluoro diamonds. So even in a diamond with GIA Faint - there can be milkyness in a diamond where graining has been missed.
Why do they miss it? Read the chapter of my book on how they grade diamond clarity with photos and IBM AI. Seems like they just copied the backlit microscope method.
1736049991191.png
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top