shape
carat
color
clarity

Should I be worried about these inclusions? G/Si1

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by ptsun, May 7, 2011.

  1. ptsun
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    by ptsun » May 7, 2011
    Hello,

    First post here, have read a bunch of threads on here, thanks for all the experts posting in this forum!.

    I am currently considering this diamond... Unfortunately, I will not be able to see it in person, but I could use some expert comments at least on how it looks on paper.

    These are the specs:

    GIA Report says:
    G/Si1/1.15ct/Excellent/Excellent/Excellent/No Fluoresence/H&A Inscription.

    There appears to be a bunch of clouds and inclusions around the the diamond from the report. So how concerned should I be about these inclusions? Is this diamond worth 7500$?

    diagram.jpg

    Your comments are appreciated!
     
    


    


  2. ptsun
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    by ptsun » May 7, 2011
    Forgot to mention the measurements are 6.71 6.77 4.17
     
  3. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,536
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » May 7, 2011
    Does the vendor say it is eyeclean? Can they provide you with magnified images of the diamond? Do they have an unconditional return policy in the event you don't like it?
     
  4. ptsun
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    by ptsun » May 7, 2011
    hello. There is a return policy that allows me to return it. But i'd prefer not to have to do that. I've got to check about the eye clean. But how do the 'specs' look on paper?
     
    


    


  5. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,536
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » May 7, 2011
    The number specs look okay. But I'd never take the chance of ordering an SI1 without seeing magnified images. Plus, I would at least want to see an idealscope image. If you could see the stone in person, that would be different. But if you want to order and not have to return, you'll either need some visual proof (as well as assurance that it is eyeclean) or else go with a VS2 stone.
     
  6. slg47
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,667
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by slg47 » May 7, 2011
    definitely ask if eye-clean, and tell the vendor what eye-clean means to you (from the top only or top and sides? from 10" or 6"?)
     
  7. kristi2011
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    64
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    by kristi2011 » May 10, 2011
    If its me I would definitely say no to Si1. I would go down on size or color and get a higher clarity. My fiance first proposed w/a 1.20 carat F color VS2 clarity and it was a touch too white for me so we return it and got a 1.72 G color Si1, triple Ex, No fluorescence and let me tell you when im outside on a sunny day or in my car driving my ring did not look pretty at all. I can see all the inclusions. It hard for me to describe it but it just look dirty and cloudy. We had James Allen inspected 3 diamonds all Si1s and that one was the most eye clean. Eye clean if its at a distance. If i bring it up to my eyes and look it at. Its not eye clean. This is your girlfiend''s e-ring, she gonna want to admire it and look at it all the time. She will see the inclusions. Trust me. My vision is not 20/20 and I see it. I say the lowest to go is VS2. G is a pretty high color why not get higher clarity to match it. I guess it all depends on your girlfriend too. What type of person is she. She is the type of girls who wants size or quality. Good luck and hopefully this helps.
     
  8. Haven
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    13,166
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    by Haven » May 10, 2011
    I do not believe that all SI1 stones are like this. In fact, I *know* not all SI1 stones are like this because I've owned two SI1s that do not look dirty *or* cloudy no matter how closely I inspect them. I just don't want this information to scare consumers away from all SI1 stones.
     
  9. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,467
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 10, 2011

    Yikes. My 2.7 SI2 isn't the least bit dirty or cloudy. It wasn't dirty or cloudy before I had it set and the main inclusion was still visible. And I didn't choose size 'over' quality, either - I simply had different priorities from you.

    kristi - if you are shortsighted then you are actually in a better position to see the inclusions in your stone than someone w/ 20/20 vision who requires greater distance to be able to focus.


    ptsun - ditto PPs, ask your vendor whether it's clean to *your* specifications, whatever they are, and have the stone shipped out before setting it to confirm that it meets expectations. It'll cost you an extra hundred, maybe two hundred - well worth it IMO!
     
  10. OCgirl
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    509
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    by OCgirl » May 10, 2011
    I agree with Haven and Yessie. I know for a fact that some SI1s appear as clean if not cleaner than some VS2s. You just have to take the time to look at the stones yourself. I even saw an SI2 stone that appears totally eye clean. I have really good vision and I've seen plenty of "dirty" SI stones but the eye clean ones are definitely out there, you just have to find them.
     
    


    


  11. Dancing Fire
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    29,260
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    by Dancing Fire » May 10, 2011
    this is a nice looking SI1 map... :appl:
     
  12. kristi2011
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    64
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    by kristi2011 » May 10, 2011
    I completely disagree. A Si1 is an Si1 for a reason. It definitely have a lot more inclusions than a VS of which some you can see in different lighting and certain distance . "Eye clean" its a matter of who's looking at it and their vision.

    When I had my Si1 my fiance and I took it to a very reputable jeweler in town to compare it to their Si1s which has excellent everything. We must had look at half a dozen of them. In the store they are eye clean but if you take it outside-with your back facing the sun you can see the inclusions. Well depends on one's vision too. It hard for me to describe it exactly the look of it but my fiance and I can definitely see the inclusions. Of course if the ring is on your finger at a distance or so it will be hard to see the inclusions but if you put it up to they eyes its visible.
     
  13. kristi2011
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    64
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    by kristi2011 » May 10, 2011
    Haven, it was not my intent to scared people away from Si's. If you got that impression i apologize. I shared my personal experience from what I seen that all. I would hope that that's people post on here to get other's opinion.

    Bottom line if all Si's are that great then everyone would be buying them and saving a ton of money instead of buying higher clarity.
    Vision, lighting, and distance plays a big role.
     
  14. Dancing Fire
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    29,260
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    by Dancing Fire » May 10, 2011
    at my age they all look FLAWLESS.. :lol:
     
  15. kristi2011
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    64
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    by kristi2011 » May 10, 2011
    lol...thanks for getting me to laugh.. you're right.
     
    


    


  16. ptsun
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    by ptsun » May 10, 2011
    Thanks guys, so it really depends on how 'eye clean' it appears. And how obvious the inclusions are. I was hoping there was a rule i.e. if inclusions are around the edges, it has less of an effect.. etc.. i guess not?
     
  17. slg47
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,667
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by slg47 » May 10, 2011
    no, you really have to evaluate each stone on an individual basis.
     
  18. Haven
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    13,166
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    by Haven » May 10, 2011
    Kristi--No need to apologize. As a site dedicated to providing information to consumers I just wanted to pop in and share *my* experience because it is different from yours.

    We've seen a lot of SI1s around here that do not look dirty or cloudy *at all* to their wearers. I think it's important for consumers to understand that not everyone will see the inclusions in an SI1, and that each stone must be inspected on its own by the consumer to really make a sound judgment. You wrote "She will see the inclusions" but I'm not 100% sure that is actually true. That's all I was trying to say.

    I have an SI1 stone that looks completely eye clean to me and to my husband. It has feathers on the bottom view of the plot, and only one small cloud on the top view:
    GIAPlotTopView.jpg

    ptsun--I wish it were that easy! You really do have to judge each stone on its own merits. Take the time to look at a lot of diamonds, and then trust your eyes.
     
  19. stci
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,514
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    by stci » May 10, 2011
    I say no no Sweety! For me It's a no buy cause It's too expensive and too included.
     
  20. Laila619
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    11,467
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    by Laila619 » May 10, 2011
    Yep. I have a 1.8 ct Si1 and you can't see a thing.
     
  21. slg47
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,667
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by slg47 » May 10, 2011
    as far as price, it seems reasonable (ED has two 1.10 G/SI1 for 6500, JA has two 1.20 G/SI1 for 8500) and as far as too included...it is graded SI1 by a reputable lab...
     
  22. dreamer_dachsie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    24,014
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    by dreamer_dachsie » May 10, 2011
    OP: Can the vendor send you a photo or tell you about eye clean status on this stone?

    I owned an SI1 for a year, 1.16ct, and it was 100% clean in all lighting environments and I am very nearsighted and hate inclusions.

    It is too broad a generalization to claim all SI1 will have eye visible inclusions, it simply contradicts many many other people's experiences here on PS.

    I also frankly dislike the term "quality over quantity". It is a term people use to disparage other people's choices when they emphasize carat, for example, over clarity or color, and it turns me off. No one C is inherently better than another. Except cut :devil:
     
  23. ptsun
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    by ptsun » May 11, 2011
    Hi there, It's actually through a friend's contact where I got the specs for this diamond so it's not straightforward process for me to get the picture/eye clean check. Also one thing I wanted to ask was, the measurements are "6.71x6.77x4.17" are those good given the carat (1.15)?
     
  24. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,467
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 11, 2011

    Dimensions are fine - proportions are fine, "normal" dimensions are the natural result of that.

    Re. the H&A inscription - GIA is not endorsing the claim of H&A, all that means is that someone somewhere inscribed the letters H&A onto the girdle. Since we have no way of knowing who did that and what requirements they specified for H&A don't pay a premium for this stone because it's a hearts and arrows without confirming nice hearts and arrows w/ a scope in-person, or w/ pics taken through a scope
     

Share This Page