OMC with Feather inclusion?

[stepcutnut]

I ran across a lovely Victorian ring but the center OMC has a feather under the crown reaching the surface with two tiny chips on the edge of its crown facets. GIA gave it an I2 grading.

It would be a very occasional wear ring. I am curious if anyone here owns and wears an antique stone that is an I2? Have you had any integrity issues with the stone?

TIA-I won’t post any pics until I make a decision on purchasing or not.

 

[Dreamer_D]

How large is the stone and how high and exposed is the setting and the crown ? Might affect how susceptible it is to being knocked around.

 

[stepcutnut]

@Dreamer_D The stone is 1.5ish ct and is just over 4.5 mm in depth. The ring stand 5mm off the finger, set with 8 prongs and surrounded by a halo. So the crown is certainly exposed. Most clarity issues don’t bother me in old cut stones, I expect some beauty marks if the piece was loved and worn, but an I2 kind of makes me think twice.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Can you post a close up of the clarity plot?

I1 wouldn’t be concerned but I2 is problematic. I’m not sure it’s a concern for durability so much bc it has already survived 150 years. But I like to know I could liquidate my diamonds if needed and I2 could make that hard. This may not be a concern for you.

 

[Rfisher]

How unique (read as beautiful/striking) is the stone itself and the setting? Not easily found?

That plus what dreamer says about liquidity (perceived value to someone else) sums it up - for me- if that’s a concern.

If there needs to be a guarantee or mind clean aspect of possible damage further on - that in itself is a no go - imo

 

[stepcutnut]

@Dreamer_D here is her messy clarity plot, because of her color the clarity issues are not distracting. Resale of a piece is always on my mind but wouldn’t stop me from purchasing if I loved a piece and it really spoke to me like this one does.

 

[stepcutnut]

How unique (read as beautiful/striking) is the stone itself and the setting? Not easily found?

That plus what dreamer says about liquidity (perceived value to someone else) sums it up - for me- if that’s a concern.

If there needs to be a guarantee or mind clean aspect of possible damage further on - that in itself is a no go - imo

The stone is unique and not easily found, the setting is lovely and fits her but not overly ornate.

The piece has been on my radar for a bit but the clarity issue does raise a few questions for me with stone integrity being the most important concern.

I am revisiting her because there is another piece I am currently considering but it also has a concern for me-the main stone on this piece has white fluorescence and I am a little worried this would wash out the fancy color of the old stone and I won’t be able to view it in person.

 

[Dreamer_D]

@Dreamer_D here is her messy clarity plot, because of her color the clarity issues are not distracting. Resale of a piece is always on my mind but wouldn’t stop me from purchasing if I loved a piece and it really spoke to me like this one does.

Nice placement of the inclusions. Which feather is surface reaching?

I found this article really helpful when I was evaluating my diamonds that were purported to be I1 at the time (GIA graded them SI2 but the point stands).

Diamond Feather Inclusions: A Durability Risk?

When is a Feather a Durability Risk? There have been multiple forum discussions about feathers and durability. In an effort to alleviate Pricescope poster concerns, we have asked several participating diamond […]

www.pricescope.com

 

[newtojewels]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it generally better to have lots of smaller inclusions than a single big one within a given clarity grade? Also I thought that feathers were basically by definition surface reaching?

Here's a Reddit comment from @Texas Leaguer (I'm not sure about the rules of linking to Reddit but this is a direct quote)

A feather almost always reaches the surface. There are some that have been "healed" naturally but that is the exception rather than the rule. The feathers in this case are so small as to NOT present an elevated durability concern.

 

[stepcutnut]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it generally better to have lots of smaller inclusions than a single big one within a given clarity grade? Also I thought that feathers were basically by definition surface reaching?

Here's a Reddit comment from @Texas Leaguer (I'm not sure about the rules of linking to Reddit but this is a direct quote)

Yes, my understanding is that feathers are surface reaching.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The blog post I mentioned saying otherwise. They are called cavities when surface reaching.

 

[newtojewels]

The blog post I mentioned saying otherwise. They are called cavities when surface reaching.

I thought a cavity was when there was a divot regardless of the cause, so maybe something occurring at the 'mouth' of a feather, if a knot loses its crystal....but obviously I'm not an expert!

I tried searching the GIA website and this is the most I could find, but the search function seems to be broken for me: "In a diamond, a feather is a surface reaching break" from https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/scope-unique-diamond-inclusions/

I remember reading discussions on PS a long time ago about determining if a feather was surface reaching or not for durability and then also reading that by definition a feather had to be so now I don't know!

Tagging @Karl_K and @Rockdiamond and @Garry H (Cut Nut) for help! I don't know who else to tag.