Plotting Change on Reports?

[Jim Summa]

Right now grading reports of inclusions plot Red ink for internal and Green ink for the surface.
American Gem Society has considered Blue ink for inclusions visible without magnification (eye-visible).

Thoughts?

 

[Karl_K]

bravo!! as long as they give the conditions under which they are looking at them and the distance.

 

[yennyfire]

That would have totally saved me the mess I'm in now, so I say "brava"!!

 

[stone-cold11]

 

[Jim Summa]

There is a problem with the definition and/or representation of an "eye clean" diamond, so I thought I would give this thread a bump.

 

[kenny]

What about the fact that people's vision, and visual acuity, varies, and certain that lighting and lighting angles can emphasize or obscure certain kinds of inclusion?

Sure some big black inclusions in the middle of an emerald cut are obvious to everyone but many inclusions are borderline and person, lighting, and cut dependent.
It seems like they are trying to make something absolute which is not always absolute.

I applaud the effort but the devil's in the details.

 

[Jim Summa]

Hi Kenny,

Yes, the devil is in the details,
Let's give it a try.
How about 20/20 vision for the grader and a lighting enviorment that would mimic what a person encounters in real life.

The proponets of blue marker use Emerald cuts as a positive example of what this information on the plot can clear up.
That is...a VS2 clarity grade on a 2 carat with a tiny crack on the back of the stone that is visible.