shape
carat
color
clarity

Placement and Location of Inclusions (by type)

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

wallace

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
282
There is a lot of information about the types of inclusions but I have yet to see a detailed account of the "ideal" location of the different types in the diamond (let''s leave gems aside for now). Obviously this affects light refraction to some degree so what are the best spots for the different types of inclusions (besides under a prong)! THey all look better under a prong! Inclusion placement may differ somewhat per cut - let''s list that, too. Some inclusions seem like they would be totally undesirable, like externally projecting feathers... so let''s rank them. This may help us understand the nuances of lab cert determinations (one lab calls it SI1 and another SI2). THe cutoff distinction is defined by eac
h lab generally but as stones have every possible variation combo., it would such a list would help to elucidate the subjectivity in evaluation. Thus, we couls make better decisions about which stones to send for appraisal.

I would be happy to compile a list to eventually post on the FAQ page.
 
How about a bootleg version of that nice "Diamons Essentials" at GIA's

C'mon... there is no way to predict this from the plot on the certs and once you see the stones you just see it.

It might make a good note that the appearence of inclusions does play a part in the process of clarity grading. I am not sure that any amount of extra info would make anyone buy into SI grades sight unseen...

It's already a hard battle to relate those grades with the 'eye clean' quality
sad.gif
 
Actually not always an inclusion by the girdle is the ideal choice... e.g. If you choose a tension setting, the possibility of tension setting depends on the type of inclusions and locations and, in this case, feathers along the girdle edge would not be a good idea.
And... I would much prefer an inclusion in the middle than one on the edge that breaks the surface. So, as a general rule of thum, inclusions by the girdle are good or great, but it depends on their nature, size, brightness, deepness within the stone. Sometimes that can reflect all around creating a really messy look. So every stone should be evaluated on its own.. And plots don't tell the whole story -they have 2 dimensions, while diamonds have 3 dimensions.
 
Perhaps I was unclear - I do not propose a list of inclusions locations to override plotting! This has nothing to do with plotting.

I just thought it would be interesting to note - like Giangi's suggestion of what would be preferable or better to avoid inclusion when e.g specifically considering a tension setting. THat same inclusion might rule it out or make the stone perfect for other type of setting.

I was thinking more in terms of when people are already looking at the stones (physically) - they already have the plot - and they may have a couple similar stones narrowed down. THis type of nuance might help settle a tough decision.

Or someone looking at stones without a certification yet.

Or someone just starting to look at stones so they won't have a salesperson tell them that the big black dot in the middle is really good thing!

The GIA list does describe the flaws well but technically and not with regard to location. There are many other labs with slightly different distinctions. And people's personal experience and information is definitely the best source of information here since it is what will really help in this rather sunjective and very individual interpretation of flaws.

Perhaps it is more of a thought-question - I thought it might be intersting... oh well!
 
----------------
On 4/29/2004 3:51:12 PM wallace wrote:




Perhaps it is more of a thought-question - I thought it might be intersting... oh well! ----------------



What would be a good visual representation of clarity to you ?

Your Q is very interesting... but with the info on certs it is hardly possile to give a checklist of what not to look for. Each 'village seems to have it's own credo about wether inclusions get more 'invisible' deep in the mid of the stone, near the girdle, under star facets or what not. I guess the only clear cut comments would rule out larger, colored inclusions and those that might make the stones less sturdy (breking surface next to girdle... or such).

The little 'devils' in my previous post were a bit hasty (and now are gone): since this little chat could hardly NOT discredit the good ol' VS2 and SI1s without much else going for it.

For once, it seems hard to place anything inside a diamond just so that it gets reflected around regardless of where the prevailing light source sits.

Also, the qualtity of facts about what type of visual representation gets the best impression of inclusions is worth some 'ink'. On the GOG 'cut enciclopedia
2.gif
' one might note the comparison between darkfield and overhead lighting... And much photographic evidence of SI stones passes just 'cause many such stones have little 'stuff' inside and less than the price and general clarity hype would let one assume. However, these super clear, huge pic are of tiny subjects and do not catch the 'look' of the stone.

One can only wander why are SO FEW diamond pictures on all these info-packed sites. The "Virtual models" on GOG are nice to play with, but after all the 'scopes and charts one would likely want a good ol' pic
1.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top