Need some knowledgeable help on this diamond...

[sparkler-crazed]

Date: 11/22/2009 5:17:39 PM
Author: rockabee
congrats on the huge stone! it does appear milky in some of those pics for sure. almost as if it has very strong flourescence, which would also explain why it may look whiter than normal for its color. however, on the GIA cert it says there is no flouro so go figure. could it be that we are seeing light reflecting off the twining wisp? at any rate, my only concern would be how much seeing an occlusion bothers you. if you could care less, then i say go for it!


i would encourage you to search on the boards here, in some cases, a person sees it and at first they are ok with it, but eventually it starts to bother them more and more. in other cases, people find the occlusion part of the charm and personality of their stone. i personally don''t like seeing them. i know someone who once got a 3.5ct SI1 that was not eye clean. even though it ''wowed'' everyone, the visible occlusions started bothering her so much she got self conscious about it and actually sold it for a smaller one that was eye clean. again, just personal preference

Thank you! No, no flour. (I did read up on that). I am so WOW''ed by it in every light BUT sunlight. Th wisp is a single line, like a diameter marking. The milky areas are around the cuts towards the culet. Weird.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Success!

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Another note - I have what most would consider extremely good vision, and the stone does appear to be eye clean (my definition, no obvious pinhead dots, etc), except for one tiny cloud that is off to the side that seems to be part of the wisp. No one would EVER see this! It took a long period of time starring at it, up close, unmounted, etc. The wisp can be seen in sunlight if you are searching for it, but it is faint and broken (not a continuous line), ad follows the cuts.
If I am having this much uncertainty though, I think I should send her back

 

[rockabee]

that is a very interesting twining wisp. not so twining really. i can see what you mean by a diameter marking. can you take a pic to show what it looks like when you see the wisp in sunlight to give a sense of how visible it is? is it obvious?

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Date: 11/22/2009 5:39:14 PM
Author: rockabee
that is a very interesting twining wisp. not so twining really. i can see what you mean by a diameter marking. can you take a pic to show what it looks like when you see the wisp in sunlight to give a sense of how visible it is? is it obvious?

I had no lucky earlier, but I''ll try again tomorrow - it''s cloudy now. Honestly, unless I told you or if you starred at my hand for a few mins, you probably wouldn''t notice.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

another pic

 

[sparkler-crazed]

and here you can see the t. wisp running up/down the diamond (but technically it runs under the face).

 

[rockabee]

is this stone for your significant other? if so, do you think she would mind an occlusion that obvious (from the side)?

 

[LGK]

It''s amazing how much that stone looks like it has fluoro. Even though GIA says it doesn''t have fluor I''d be tempted to blacklight it. I have a stone that''s supposed to be non-fluorescent (according to two appraisers, not GIA, though) and it definitely has some visible under blacklight.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Date: 11/22/2009 8:47:06 PM
Author: LittleGreyKitten
It's amazing how much that stone looks like it has fluoro. Even though GIA says it doesn't have fluor I'd be tempted to blacklight it. I have a stone that's supposed to be non-fluorescent (according to two appraisers, not GIA, though) and it definitely has some visible under blacklight.

Interesting...how can that be with GIA? I mean, you pay this premium price for what?!

Man, I wish I still had a black light! I was going to get it appraised this week, but the more I think about it the more I am questioning this stone and think I will just return it. I should have stayed with a princess! I love mine so much, even if it looks warm in color next to this one!!

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Date: 11/22/2009 7:34:01 PM
Author: rockabee
is this stone for your significant other? if so, do you think she would mind an occlusion that obvious (from the side)?

It''s not at all that obvious, just magnified.

 

[John P]

Date: 11/22/2009 5:28:13 PM
Author: sparkler-crazed
Success!

That helps Sp-Cr.

BTW Rockabee - It's 'twinning' wisp, as in twinned crystal, not twining

A twinning wisp may be a twisting together of pinpoints, fractures, or clouds within a twinning plane. Based on the plot, the fact that the TW is the grade-setter and serious enough to warrant SI2 I'd think it's possible that this wisp may be a series of clouds. It is hard to make out all details of course. I see the report says additional twinning wisps and surface graining not shown, but I can't tell if any surface graining is plotted at all? It would be a dashed green line if it is?

What you are seeing may be unreported fluorescence or the effect of a notably gnarly wisp. I once saw a TW with such distortion that it looked like cotton candy suspended inside an entire half of the diamond. That was an I1 but some professionals report (not frequently) GIA SI2s with clouds numerous/large enough compromise optics.

I may ask Todd Gray to chime in here. He spends far too much time on twinning wisps.

...However our ability to make decisive assessments are limited. For this purchase I suggest you should definitely make a trip to appraiserland.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

I''m not sure if it''s worth the money to appraise...I''ll make up my mind by Tuesday : )
I was considering this stone, though...
http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=2105396089&weight=3.53

 

[sparkler-crazed]

picture

 

[John P]

Date: 11/22/2009 10:50:39 PM
Author: sparkler-crazed
I''m not sure if it''s worth the money to appraise...I''ll make up my mind by Tuesday : )
I was considering this stone, though...
http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=2105396089&weight=3.53

Keeping things in perspective, if these each cost $30-40K you can budget $600 for appraisals (that buys a lot of appraisal) and still be investing under 2% of what you''ll pay for whichever you choose. To me that''s pretty reasonable for expert advice, peace of mind and further documentation.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

I know what you are saying, and I agree- I just mean it's not worth the appraisal now that the haze/milkiness obviously bothers me. It took starting this thread for me to realize that

It's too bad though, it is a nice size and pretty clear for an I...
I might try the one pictured above.

 

[rockabee]

i like the proportions on the 3.5 better than the 4.0. if you are more comfortable with the inclusions on this one, then i say go for it. plus, imho, you are really not sacrificing any "wow" factor by going down in spread the 0.35mm or so - still a monster rock! either way, would absolutely get it appraised either before purchase or before 30 return policy.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 11/22/2009 10:28:06 PM
Author: John Pollard
I may ask Todd Gray to chime in here. He spends far too much time on twinning wisps.

As John indicated previously, Twinning Wisps are technically "intergrowth" or the twisting together of inclusions, pinpoints, fractures, crystals, feathers or clouds (groups of pinpoint size diamond crystals).

John is actually poking a little fun at me by calling on me within this thread because he KNOWS that we automatically reject for Twinning Wisps because I don''t like diamonds which have been fashioned from twinned crystals because of the possibility (read: minor, minor possibility) that the striations within the crystal structure ''might'' pose a ''potential'' durability risk to the longevity of the stone. While the possibility is minor, I just don''t feel like fielding that potential phone call from a client one day, so our selection process doesn''t allow for twinning wisps. Personal preference and all that.

Fortunately twinning wisps are not something that I have to worry about often within round brilliant ideal cut diamonds because typically twinned rough is something more apt to be used for the production of pear shapes, heart shapes and triangles...

 

[FB.]

Hmmmm.....that milkiness is probably the effect of the wisps and the sun catching them just right.
Wisps are often like large clouds or trails of smoke.

Although your stone *apparently* doesn't have fluor, I have generally avoided large clouds and wisps in strong fluor stones because I am of the belief that they may be the cause of the "milky" "overblue" stones that strike fear into the heart of all would-be diamond buyers, when fluorescence is mentioned.

A fluoro stone would, of course, activate in the sun - just as yours has gone cloudy.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

, but I can''t tell if any surface graining is plotted at all? It would be a dashed green line if it is?

No green, only red.

 

[sparkler-crazed]

Date: 11/23/2009 12:45:00 PM
Author: FB.
Hmmmm.....that milkiness is probably the effect of the wisps and the sun catching them just right.

Wisps are often like large clouds or trails of smoke.


Although your stone *apparently* doesn''t have fluor, I have generally avoided large clouds and wisps in strong fluor stones because I am of the belief that they may be the cause of the ''milky'' ''overblue'' stones that strike fear into the heart of all would-be diamond buyers, when fluorescence is mentioned.

A fluoro stone would, of course, activate in the sun - just as yours has gone cloudy.

The only thing is the haze, for a lack of a better word, does not follow the twinning wisp - it actually follows the cuts leading towards the culet, and is only noticeablein bright sunlight-SOMEtimes. I can still return it, and probably will, but then I''m afraid I missed my opportunity at a great diamond-all things considered-for the price. I really wanted something larger, but still just as nice. I am just plain confused. I am going to a jeweler tomorrow and hopefully he will have some rounds close to this size to compare to. Maybe I am just not used to a round cut-???