Question about brilliance...

[togal]

I have a question....I''ve been talking to various jewellers, looking to upgrade my diamond. Mine is a VS2, Excellent cut stone, "I" colour. The jeweller offered me a trade value on my diamond, then proceeded to say that my diamond was a bit "cloudy" , which, frankly, I can''t see, even when I compared it with larger Ideal Cut stones in a higher color grade. Mine has alot of sparkle/scintillation. Being an "I" colour, it definately looked deeper in shade, but still very sparkly. I asked him if he thought it was "somewhat cloudy" due to the cut, as I know that that''s what determines a diamond''s brilliance. He said no, and then went on to say that about 20% of diamonds are inherently more "cloudy" than others, having nothing to do with cut, clarity, or colour....just an interhent trait of the stone itself. Although the jeweller seemed credible in his knowlege of diamonds, this statement threw me off. Does his statement have any merit?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Maybe if 20% of his diamonds are dirty or have soap/residue on the pavilion.

The short answer is no. As you probably know, clarity issues that might cause this would be SI2 (with large, grade-setting clouds) or below. The other cause would be strong fluorescence, but that would be noted (SF) and only a fraction of diamonds with strong fluoro appear cloudy.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/27/2006 5:08:35 PM
Author:togal

Does his statement have any merit?

.... for creativity ?

 

[togal]

Thanks for your reply John.

Interestingly, the stone that the jeweller was trying to get me to trade up for was an SI2....which I'm going to pass on. He also used terms (not about my stone per se) such as "oily", but again, not in relation to cut and/or clarity.

 

[Rod]

Well, I''m no expert, but I say BUNK. If the cut is ideal, and the clarity is graded correctly, I don''t believe a professional could say with any conviction that 20% of diamonds are inherantly cloudy regardless of cut or clarity. Either the cut is poor, or the clarity is low. A well cut stone with decent clarity, such as VS or SI should be clear, not cloudy. Sounds to me like this guy was trying to put a shadow of doubt in your mind about your stone. As one of the regular PS''ers tag line says, "It''s harder to find a Mind Clean stone."

Gosh......he''ll be able to put you in a "clear" diamond for only XX $$''s. What a sweetheart.

 

[togal]

You're quite right!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/27/2006 5:23:03 PM
Author: togal
Thanks for your reply John.

Interestingly, the stone that the jeweller was trying to get me to trade up for was an SI2....which I'm going to pass on. He also used terms (not about my stone per se) such as 'oily', but again, not in relation to cut and/or clarity.

It's very difficult to find jewellers that can be trusted in the brick and mortar stores....or so I'm learning.

You're welcome, Togal. 'Oily, cloudy and milky' are terms commonly used to describe the fractional number of diamonds with issues caused by strong fluorescence. It sounds like he may be miscommunicating or applying the terms incorrectly.

Whether it's online or live, people in all professions come at different levels of reputabulity and expertise.

Date: 2/27/2006 5:22:21 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 2/27/2006 5:08:35 PM
Author:togal

Does his statement have any merit?

.... for creativity ?

Ana:

 

[diamondsrock]

Renee Newman has an entire section (although small) in her book Diamond Ring Buying Guide Sixth edition about transparency. According to her, transparency is something which must be judged with the eyes. No grading report will tell you this. I get the impression most cloudy diamonds are low priced bargain deals but I''m sure there are subtle differences in transparency from diamond to diamond. I''m sure if a diamond sparkles like crazy then it has good transparency. I have seen some lifeless ones as well, even in some respetable jewelry stores.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Transperancy is often refferred to as LUSTER in the trade.

GIA could not do a study on it because they could not find enough stones out of many tens of thousands to survey. But then many people would not send such stones to GIA - which is kind of silly since they do not know how to grade luster or transperancy anyway.

But diamonds with SI1 and lower clouds (just clouds - no other note worthy inclusions) can also loose luster

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/27/2006 8:10:36 PM
Author: diamondsrock

Renee Newman has an entire section (although small) in her book Diamond Ring Buying Guide Sixth edition about transparency. According to her, transparency is something which must be judged with the eyes. No grading report will tell you this.

Ok... there is this half-mythic ''crystal'' quality of things. That, before the current four C system came in and (mostly) did away with this part of the old diamond talk. It still survives among musty auction houses and dealers of jewels so old they come with their own myths attached

The ''20%'' thing is new (ref. Garry''s mention that GIA found sampling difficult, which for 1 in five...). The mention of this to downgrade a client''s diamond rather biased. It sounds like an attempt to also ''downgrade'' any other seller''s diamonds and make sure the client returns for the one and only shop on the planet that sells non-cloudy diamonds. If it works for them, why not.

I''m not buying.


Anyway, even if the pitch deserves the prize for creativity, it doesn''t mean it is completely original. Lets say, it is a unique use of an obscure myth.

 

[diamondsrock]

I agree that it was improper of the salesperson to downgrade another''s stone based on a quality that, according to the poster''s comments, didn''t exist in his stone. That said, I don''t think it''s a reasonable comment to say that there aren''t cloudy stones out there. Gary''s mention of clouds as a clairty feature is one example. I know when looking at a grading report this is one thing which I look out for. I would much rather have pinpoint inclusions than clouds. I"m not saying that it''s a common thing or that there are a lot of stones out there with this low transparency but I think they do exist and the consumer has to look out for things like this.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/28/2006 8:21:25 AM
Author: diamondsrock

That said, I don''t think it''s a reasonable comment to say that there aren''t cloudy stones out there. Gary''s mention of clouds as a clairty feature is one example.

Cool... this is getting mysterious

So, aside fluorescence, and pervasive cloud inclusions, what else could be in there? Esp. something that the clarity grade does not catch?

I am trying to think of graining or twinning, but those don''t quite look ''cloudy'' to me if showing at all. And more importantly, are taken into account by the clarity grade and mentioned on the lab report.

I don''t have Newman''s book. Does she explain?

Sorry for being nosy... anything that remotely sounds like... scare tactics gets my stomach on the run. Much like Cuellar''s one-man war against warped diamonds.

 

[togal]

Just to close off this thread...lest there be anyone wondering about the elusive transperency/luster question ....I just came back from taking my ring into a respected jeweller in my area, on the guise of having my ring cleaned....and asked him if my ring was "inherently cloudy". After careful study, he told me that my diamond was lovely and had no clouds or inclusions that were visible in his loupe. He also tested it for flourescence, which proved to be negligible.

Evidently, the 20% thing was a figment of a not so scrupulous jeweller''s imagination....or, if he thought he was being honest, it''s something that only he can detect....sort of like really high pitched noises that are only audible to dogs.

 

[diamondsrock]

Hi Val!
sorry for the late reply. Just got in from work.
To sum it up, she pretty much says that there are varying degrees of transparency in diamonds and some retailers will sell low grade diamonds that are not all that transparent. I think we''ve all seen some of these in stores, and they usually have low clarity grades, if they are graded at all. For colored stones transparency is called texture and is included on lab reports, but it isn''t graded on diamonds. She gives some other people''s definitions of transparency and how important it is to the overall beauty of a diamond. Diamonds that don''t have good transparency will not be as brilliant, even if cut very well. I''m sure we would all agree that Cut is a major factor but when the rough diamond isn''t all that clear the cut can''t perform miracles.
Besides clouds I''m not sure of a distinct clarity feature that would cause this. Small scale overall cloudiness or haziness I guess would be an example rather than just one specific spot on the diamond being cloudy and the rest being transparent.
I have no doubt the poster''s diamond was fine and the 20 percent figure was high. Most diamonds probabaly have very good transparency but I still think this is an important factor in diamond beauty and should be considered. Problem is you can''t judge it from a lab report.