Should I be concerned about the feather?

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/20/2009 2:30:38 PM
Author: 30yearsofdiamonds
A feather can occur in any direction, however there are cleavage directions which can result in a more severe break and this would fall under the discription of a ''cleavage'' break when severe enough.

Welcome 30years...

Intesting Professional Jeweler article which categorizes (incorrectly in my opinion, and historically)

that "feathers are visible forms of cleavage", and incomplete definition.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes, Welcome aboard 30Years

Date: 9/21/2009 1:28:25 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 9/20/2009 2:30:38 PM
Author: 30yearsofdiamonds
A feather can occur in any direction, however there are cleavage directions which can result in a more severe break and this would fall under the discription of a ''cleavage'' break when severe enough.

Welcome 30years...

Intesting Professional Jeweler article which categorizes (incorrectly in my opinion, and historically)

that ''feathers are visible forms of cleavage'', and incomplete definition.

Hi Marty,
I don''t entirely disagree with that article.
here is the last part of Roberts article:

"But internal feathers that are small, unobtrusive and have no possibility of enlarging or harming a diamond can also be viewed as marks that distinguish it from all others. No two feathers are alike. Nor are two cleavages."
I agree that feathers and/or cleavages can be internal and not at all surface reaching. 30years GIA may have internal lab policy, but that does not mean they are either right or they set the rules. They set their own rules maybe - but Storm says he has seen contradictory evidence with his own eyes. I think he has pretty good eyes. He also comes with the luxury of learning (and observing) by desire and not as part of work which can sometimes be a cause of very slow and impaired learning.

But Marty the very last 2 sentences from Robert seem a little strange and contradictory? Perhaps he means cleavages that have parted into 2 stones?

 

[strmrdr]

thanks Garry

There is actually a funny story about the internal feather.

One of my clients runs a vet clinic and I got a call from the owner.
His wife had looked at her diamond under the microscope they have and saw it and thought she had broke her diamond.
I dropped by the next day and looked at it under the microscope and it was internal up to 60x and there was no way she had done it.
You could clearly see both ends of it were contained deep inside the diamond.
While I was there I arranged to come back and do some work as I had just dropped in on the way to someplace else.
She brought in the grading report, sure enough, grade setting vs1 feather.
So I showed it to her along with the pinpoints that were the other 2 plotted inclusions.
He said he was going to tease her about breaking her diamond, I said don''t or she might break it when she punches you.
They both cracked up.

 

[Todd Gray]

I''m truly enjoying how everybody involved in this thread is enthusiastically discussing the definition of a feather! The thread has not imploded as I''ve seen so many similar threads implode. Love it!

 

[tallchickbarbara]

Date: 9/21/2009 6:31:29 PM
Author: Todd Gray
I''m truly enjoying how everybody involved in this thread is enthusiastically discussing the definition of a feather! The thread has not imploded as I''ve seen so many similar threads implode. Love it!

I agree. I feel a sudden urge to listen to The Carpenters and bake diamond shaped sugar cookies with cleavages.

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

Thank you, Marty, Richard and Garry.

I may not have the available time to respond as quickly as most of you. It was a nice day to golf, today.

And I don''t think there is anything else I can add to the feather discussion except that I have never seen a diamond with a feather that was a stand alone inclusion and didn''t reach the surface. Some may appear to not reach the surface because the nature of it is very transparent and so the light inside the diamond reflects off the internal ends and not the middle of the feather, but when viewed closely, and with a higher power the place that it touches the surface will always be found.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/21/2009 9:00:37 PM
Author: BarbaraP

Date: 9/21/2009 6:31:29 PM
Author: Todd Gray
I''m truly enjoying how everybody involved in this thread is enthusiastically discussing the definition of a feather! The thread has not imploded as I''ve seen so many similar threads implode. Love it!

I agree. I feel a sudden urge to listen to The Carpenters and bake diamond shaped sugar cookies with cleavages.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/21/2009 4:26:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Yes, Welcome aboard 30Years

Hi Marty,
I don''t entirely disagree with that article.
here is the last part of Roberts article:

''But internal feathers that are small, unobtrusive and have no possibility of enlarging or harming a diamond can also be viewed as marks that distinguish it from all others. No two feathers are alike. Nor are two cleavages.''

I agree that feathers and/or cleavages can be internal and not at all surface reaching. 30years GIA may have internal lab policy, but that does not mean they are either right or they set the rules. They set their own rules maybe - but Storm says he has seen contradictory evidence with his own eyes. I think he has pretty good eyes. He also comes with the luxury of learning (and observing) by desire and not as part of work which can sometimes be a cause of very slow and impaired learning.

But Marty the very last 2 sentences from Robert seem a little strange and contradictory? Perhaps he means cleavages that have parted into 2 stones?

Or he might have been be talking, tongue in cheek, about a different type of cleavage