My jewelers explanation of clarity

[Chitown]

I met with him last evening to go over some things. He explained clarity to me this way:

It''s not about how many inclusions there are it is about where they are. Any inclusion in the top half of the diamond, in the middle (table) is an SI 2. With no inclusions on the table but off to the side and near the upper half of the diamond is an SI 1. Inclusions in the middle but bottom half of the diamond is a VS 2. Inclusions on the sides in the bottom half are a VS 1. He said the diamond could be littered with inclusions in the bottom half of the stone but one in the table automatically makes it an SI 2. Likewise, an inclusion near the edge in the bottom half is a VS 1 but move it up slightly higher and it is an SI 1.

I would like to hear what you think of his explanation. I trust him and hope he is being straight with me. Let me just say this wasn''t his scientific explanation but a way to explain it to me.

 

[strmrdr]

Its not the best explaination but its not the worst either.
The size and type of the inclusiond have a lot to do with it so his explaination is not 100% correct.

A vs2 could have a small embeded crystal under the table.
But a feather that makes a diamond a si2 if it were under the table might make a si1 if it were off to the side or deep in the stone.
Location does play a part.

 

[WinkHPD]

Sorry, but your jeweler needs to go to school, or back to school and learn how to clarity grade diamonds. While location does have some bearing, it is the size and quantity of the inclusions that will be the major factors in the clarity grade of the stone.

There are tens of thousands of diamonds with both GIA and AGS reports that contain inclusions under the table that are graded much higher than SI2. If your jeweler wishes to use the GIA grading system, then he needs to properly learn it and not make up his own rules as he goes along.

Perhaps he should buy a copy of Gary Roskin's excellent book on diamond clarity grading. It contains many photos of inclusions in each catagory and an excellent explaination of each grade.

Wink

 

[Chitown]

Ok but would you say it is an honest explanation?

We were talking about a stone in particular (SI 1) that has an inclusion near the edge that can be covered by a prong. He was saying if it was lower down it would be a VS 1. There was one other very small inclusions that I could hardly see with a loupe even with him telling me exactly where it was.

I think what he was getting at is the savings because of the location of inclusion and that it is a good place to have an inclusion because it can be covered. He was really excited about the stone and so am I.

It is a 1.34 ct, G color, SI-1. 55 table, 60 depth. He didn't have the other angles yet because he just got the stone that morning. It is GIA certed, Ex. symm, ex. polish.

 

[WinkHPD]

----------------
On 8/6/2004 9:06:20 AM Chitown wrote:

Ok but would you say it is an honest explanation?

We were talking about a stone in particular (SI 1) that has an inclusion near the edge that can be covered by a prong. He was saying if it was lower down it would be a VS 1. There was one other very small inclusions that I could hardly see with a loupe even with him telling me exactly where it was.

I think what he was getting at is the savings because of the location of inclusion and that it is a good place to have an inclusion because it can be covered. He was really excited about the stone and so am I.

It is a 1.34 ct, G color, SI-1. 55 table, 60 depth. He didn't have the other angles yet because he just got the stone that morning. It is GIA certed, Ex. symm, ex. polish.----------------

No, I would say it is an incorrect explanation. If the stone has an SI1 inclusion, moving it further down in the stone will NOT make it a VS1. The stone sounds like it is probably very pretty, I see no need to tell you that if it was different it would be different. Why not just show you the stone and the inclusions along with the report and let the stone speak for itself.

It sounds very much like a stone worthy of being excited about, and there is no reason to worry about a prongable SI1 inclusion, nor to tell you that if only it was some where else it would be a VS1. If it was a VS1 it would cost more money, and the information is incorrect. An inclusion large enough to set the grade to SI1 will do so regardless of where it is located.

I believe that your jeweler believes this, hence my comment that he needs to go back to school. GIA offers several refresher courses around the country during the year and all of us benefit from an occassional time back in class. I am always astounded by what I relearn (and have to unlearn) every time I take a continuing education class, usually in conjunction with the Tucson Gem Show where not only GIA but many organizations put on continuing education classes for jewelers.

Wink

 

[nicknomo]

I'll give the jeweler the benefit of the doubt. That is definitely not an accurate overall picture of how clarity works... However I think he was trying to illustrate how location plays a part in the clarity rating.

Obviously, there is a LOT more to it. The number of inclusions, color, SIZE of the inclusions are bigger factors.

If this was his entire explanation he is either dumbifying it too much, lying to you or purposely misleading you. Of course, it's entirely possible you misunderstood him, and he might have been describing just one factor about clarity.

 

[Chitown]

He did say if it was a VS 1 that it would be a lot more money and that is why he said it is a good purchase because you are getting a very well cut stone and you can hide the inclusion.

It was definitely a quick and easy explanation of clarity and I'm sure he understands the other facts of clarity given that he is a certified appraiser in Illinois. Besides, I don't think I would really want to hear the scientific explanation.

Taking into consideration the stone we were talking about, it was an honest explanation. Maybe not the most indepth but honest.

 

[strmrdr]

ihmo its honest enough.
Wink remember we are in a he said he said situation.
It is entirerly possible that the inclusion would have gone up a grade if it was in a different location.
It sounds to me anyway that the guy is being strait up and compared to some of the bs Iv heard at some b&m's it isnt that bad.

What he may have been getting at was with the inclusion pronged He is getting what will look to the world like a vs1 due to the other inclusion.
That has been tossed around here also and its a good way to save some money.

What really matters is what the stone is actualy rated as and what the inclusion looks like not what it might be.
Make sure the inclusion doesnt break the surface then check the price against pricescope it wont be as low likely but you can see if going with a b&m is worth the premium to you.

ps. I dont disagree with winks technical info and that part is 100% currect but his second post which was posted while I was writing this one before the edit is more inline with what I was thinking in this particalar situation.

 

[strmrdr]

PGS is in chicago and there contact info is available in the appraisers link above if you want a second opinion on the stone in person.
An independant appraisal is a good idea anyway on all diamonds.https://www.pricescope.com/appr_list.asp

 

[Chitown]

Thanks, that is what I was looking for an honest answer, I just wanted to make sure the facts are out there. It is true that we are basing it off what he said and how I took and relayed it to you. I am going to get the full report tomorrow and I will post what I find out.

In looking it up on pricescope I haven't found many similar diamonds with similar inclusions. I want to make as fair a comparision as possible. This is the closest I can find but the inclusions aren't that similar. Plus the stone I looked at is Ex./Ex. (not sure how much a difference that makes) http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00592839&query=2&filter_id=0

 

[WinkHPD]

Your are corrrect Storm Rider. It is not my intention to impugn the integrity of the jeweler, but I do believe that if he explained it to our questioner as the questioner explained it to us that he is incorrect. If he is using that criteria to set clarity grades he is going to be down grading a LOT of GIA and AGS reports, and thus creating concern and dissapointment where none is due.

The explanation as given to us is not valid on a factual basis. Perhaps David Atlas or Richard Sherwood can be called upon to add their weight to the discussion.

Wink

 

[oldminer]

The explanation sounds like many I have heard before when restated by a lay person after a technical explanation was made to them by either and expert or a BS artist "expert". Without having been there to hear it with my own ears, I find it amusing, but could not possibly consider it as a serious attempt to explain clarity grading. Possibly you have re-interpreted some of what you heard. Possibly the jeweler knows a lot but is unable to communicate it well to you. Possibly the jeweler or you, or both of you have some misunderstandings.

Please, don't be offended or insulted. It takes a great deal of time to really get a handle on clarity grading.

There is a grain of truth running in your explanation concerning the location of inclusions having a material effect on the final clarity grade. So, it is not all hogwash and nonsense. With a lot more effort you will get a much more refined understanding of the subject. Its an area that is very hard to deal with verbally and much more readily learned with the eyes and with hands on the microscope experience.

 

[Chitown]

Well honestly I wasn't looking for an explanation on a factual basis and you are getting into way more than he was. It was a quick and dirty explanation of the clarity on this diamond. I am sure that that is not how he sets his clarity grades, it is GIA certd. as an SI 1.

I think you are missing something here Wink, a sales aspect. Yes he is an appraiser and jeweler but he has to be able to relate to his customers to make a living. If I would have gotten some big technical ideology on rating diamonds I would have fallen asleep and been very uninterested. It is GIA certified as SI 1 so I am 100% confident in the rating.

I didn't want to get into a position where I feel like I have to defend him but it looks like that is where it is going.

 

[Chitown]

----------------
On 8/6/2004 10:08:58 AM oldminer wrote:

The explanation sounds like many I have heard before when restated by a lay person after a technical explanation was made to them by either and expert or a BS artist 'expert'. Without having been there to hear it with my own ears, I find it amusing, but could not possibly consider it as a serious attempt to explain clarity grading. Possibly you have re-interpreted some of what you heard. Possibly the jeweler knows a lot but is unable to communicate it well to you. Possibly the jeweler or you, or both of you have some misunderstandings.

Please, don't be offended or insulted. It takes a great deal of time to really get a handle on clarity grading.

There is a grain of truth running in your explanation concerning the location of inclusions having a material effect on the final clarity grade. So, it is not all hogwash and nonsense. With a lot more effort you will get a much more refined understanding of the subject. Its an area that is very hard to deal with verbally and much more readily learned with the eyes and with hands on the microscope experience.

----------------

I understand that completely but learning the scientific details is not what I had in mind. That is why I went to a jeweler that was referred to me by many people. I'm smart enough to know what I don't know. I honestly don't have the time to spend on studying months of information about diamonds so I can only come away with a minute amount of information.

 

[strmrdr]

Its all kewl wink :}
You should hear some of the stuff some jewlers spout off to consumers Iv heard my share of bs which is why I went here and then to you for the diamond for my ring without even bothering to ask them.

chitown if your are comfortable with the guy and like the diamond then go for it.
It sounds like you will be happy.
Being the one that has actualy talked to him and seen the diamond your in the best position to know what your comfortable with.
Having an independant appraiser look at the diamond would be the best second opinion and is recomended for insurance purpases anyway.

 

[Chitown]

can i take the ring with the diamond set in it to the appraiser

 

[WinkHPD]

----------------
On 8/6/2004 10:50:09 AM Chitown wrote:

can i take the ring with the diamond set in it to the appraiser----------------

Yes, and you should take the report with you also. It is not really fair to ask an appraiser to grade a mounted stone with possibly hidden inclusions and then "spring" a GIA or other report on him. If you discuss the stone and its report with the appraiser up front he can do a better job of verifying that the stone is indeed the one in the report.

If he dissagrees with the report he can tell you that also, but remember that GIA or AGS will carry a lot more weight with the market than an independant appraiser, regardless of whether or not the appraise is correct, that is just a fact of the market place.

Chitown, it is not my intention to make you feel you have to defend your jeweler/appraiser. You asked if this was a good explanation, and as you reported it to us it is not. I have seen many diamonds and probably have diamonds in my possession with inclusions located in the crown (top) of the stone under the table that are graded higher than SI2. The explanation as you give it does not leave any room for VVS grades either.

The picture below is a picture from Gary Roskins book, used with his permission. It has an inclusion that would classify this stone as an SI2 under the description that you gave us. It is one of his photo masters for VVS1. I accept and appreciate that your description was probably not an accurate account of what he told you, and this picture illustrates much better than I can why I so strongly dissagree with the desciption as given to us this morning.

Wink

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 8/6/2004 10:50:09 AM Chitown wrote:





can i take the ring with the diamond set in it to the appraiser
----------------

Yes, but it would be much easier for the appraiser to look at the diamond loose. Mountings acn hide inclusions and make it mre difficult to see the entire stone. If you're OK with the jeweler and diamond then go for it.

You know, Wink and Oldminer are just trying to be helpful and you did ask for opinions. There's no need to be defensive or be offended. In my view the explanation you got was oversimplified and not entirely accurate. But in the end it's all up to whether or not you like it and you are comforatble with the price. An SI1 grade is not going to define where the inclusions are in the stone. It will give you a general indiaction of what to expect and has a bearing on price. So at the end of the day, if you see it, like it, like the price, then everything's great.

 

[moremoremore]

I recently viewed a GIA stone with dark crystals and a cloud right under the table and in the center of a stone. it was graded a Vs2.

 

[quaeritur]

I think that as long as your jeweler is not charging you the price of a VS1/2 for an SI1, then it's all good. I don't think anyone is calling into question the GIA grade, just pointing out that the jeweler's explanation is oversimplified and not totally accurate. Then again, you were not asking for a detailed explanation, so this may be the best he could do without getting too technical. As long as you are aware of the inaccuracy, and not being overcharged for the stone as a result, I see no problem with it. It doesn't strike me as "dishonest" just not entirely correct.

 

[Chitown]

Thanks to everyone for the help.

My total price for the ring is 8000. The stone, plus the setting, which I'm getting custom made: platinum, channel setting with Rounds color D & E VVS 2, weight of setting is 1.10 ct.

Is that a fair price?

I have to all the out to the suburbs to see it so I'll check it out tomorrow afternoon.