Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Smaller eye-clean SI2 vs. bigger SI2 with visible inclusion

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

MrIndecisive

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
23
I have been going back and forth over two stones, both SI2, one is "eye-clean" while the other bigger, whiter, stone has a "visible inclusion at 25cm" according to the vendor. Both are pretty much the same price.

I am wondering when they say it has a visible inclusion at 25 cm how much does this really stand out? With a "visible" inclusion do you pretty much need to know where it is? Or can you usually just look at it and say “oh look there’s an inclusion”? I went to a local mall store to get an idea for sizes and they showed me a whole bunch of SI2s (which I''m sure were on the low end) and, not being an expert, couldn''t see any inclusions with my own 20/20 vision.

For someone who is really only concerned with how it looks during everyday use is having one visible inclusion really that big of a deal. Also does a 0.13mm difference really look that different?

Here are the 2 diamonds I am stuggling to decide on:

1.05
Ideal H&A
H
SI2 (eye-clean)
60.6
55
34.7
40.7
Ideal/Ideal
Neg. FL
6.61x6.65x4.02


1.113
Ideal H&A
G
SI2 (one jeweler visible inclusion)
60.8
54
34.9
40.7
Ideal/Ideal
Medium Blue (makes the G whiter, correct?)
6.74x6.77x4.11


Anybody care to comment? Which one do you guys/gals prefer? Thanks for all your help. This site has been a HUGE help!
 
From a woman''s perspective, if you are buying this for your GF, I don''t think she''s going to want to see an inclusion on her diamond. What does the inclusion look like? Is it a black speck? Inclusions would drive me crazy.
 
I would prefer to go with the first smaller diamond since it is ''eye clean''. If the vendor is telling you the other has a visible inclusion I would imagine that you will be able to see it with your own vision if you look closely. The second is larger and whiter so for it to be the same price I would assume the inclusion is quite noticable or it would be more expensive. Who is the vendor because most of them should be able to send you some good pics of the inclusion.
 
With the size of the 2 stones you are considering being that close, I''d rather have the smaller, eye-clean stone.
1.gif
 
"Eye-clean" is a very subjective term... your opinion of it (and your EYESIGHT!) may not be mine.
10.gif
I have found that most of the vendors here on PS, anyway, are VERY careful before they say a stone is "eye clean"... and I have often seen them err on the side of caution. Is there any way you can look at both stones and compare them? SI stones can be a GREAT value in diamond-buying, and there ARE fabulous, eye-clean ones out there. And believe me, they are worth looking for!

Also, regarding inclusions... some gals actually prefer a small "birthmark" in their diamond... it lets them know at a glance that it's their own stone. I'm not talking about a huge black BOULDER smack dab under the table...
2.gif
but a very small,
"barely-visible-unless-you-know-just-where-to-look-and-tilt-the-stone-just-right" speck, in an otherwise KILLER diamond does not bother ALL women.

But FWIW, if the only difference between two otherwise stunning stones was minimal in size (And I AM a size girl!) I would probably personally vote for the slightly smaller, eyeclean one.
 
Well the larger one is a few hundred $ more but I''m pretty much considering that the same price as they are close enough. Another reason why they may be fairly close in price is that the second stone (the one with the inclusion) has med. blue fluorescense which generally lowers the price although from what I''ve read is almost prefered with a G color diamond. The report doesn''t show it as a black inclusion, actually the report looks pretty clean but that doesn''t mean anything right? I''m waiting to hear back from WF concerning the inclusion.

My main question is: are inclusions usually something anyone can spot pretty much right away or does it usually take some close inspection. My girlfriend has made it pretty clear that she prefers cut and size over clarity and color, and has said "I''m not going to be holding my finger out for 5 minutes while my friends look for flaws, so I really don''t care that much for clarity".

And thanks Portoar for the woman''s perspective! That is worth a lot! My GF tells me she doesn''t care about clarity but she might just be trying to make it easier for me :)

I can''t believe how quickly people have been responding! Thanks!!!
 
It makes sense to trade off size versus clarity... but in these two, the difference in size may not be even visible, let alone significant.

Meaning - one more vote for eye clean.

Give the size, I'd say I or J would work. Those would be less distracting than visible inclusions any day - IMO at least.


E.g.

1.22 cts I-SI1

And this listing w/o a link from Good Old Gold:

Weight:1.207cts
Size:6.92-6.94*4.22
AGS grades: J/SI1

Cut: H&A / AGS0
Depth: 60.9%
Table: 55%
Crown angle: 34.8°
Pavilion: 40.9°
Girdle: 1.0-1.2
Culet: no
HCA: 1.7-EX ex-vg-vg-vg

Finish: id id

Either about $5500

A couple of long threads about I and J H&A set in platinum give reason for this. Maybe not everyone subscribes, but it is not uncommon to hear that these grades are thought to be more tinted by description alone than they truly are.
 
Wow, this site is amazing! I think I agree with you all that the first one is the better choice. I think I have just been looking at so many diamonds all in the range of 1.05 - 1.15 cts. that I am forgeting that the small size difference, while a big in my narrow range, really doesn''t amount to all that much in reality.

Now I just have to wait to see what the price estimate comes back as for the setting! I am thinking of doing two pear shaped side-stones (I want to keep the side-stones pretty small to really make the center stone stand out). They''re sending estimates for both white gold and platinum.

Thanks everyone for all the help!
 
When I actually say the size difference out loud rather than looking at it as just a number it really doesn't sound like much of a difference: "One-tenth of a millimeter"!
 
Date: 12/30/2005 3:18:11 PM
Author: MrIndecisive
When I actually say the size difference out loud rather than looking at it as just a number it really doesn''t sound like much of a difference: ''One-tenth of a millimeter''!
Click to expand...
If you were to hold the diamonds about two feet apart, one in each hand, I seriously doubt you would see a difference in size. Put the extra money into the platinum setting and pear side stones.
 
I''m disagreeing with most of the responses here. If I were your girlfriend I would prefer the one with fluorescence. A little inclusion wouldn''t bother me, I would appreciate the better color, and I adore fluorescence.

You have to remember also that when you compare size, what you see isn''t the difference in diameter but the difference in area, which is a function of the diameter squared. That makes for a bigger visual difference than "a tenth of a millimeter."

Is there any way you can look at the two diamonds in person and chose which you like better?
 
I think the flour is a whole different issue that he would have to decide if his GF likes. I just bought a diamond with strong blue flour and I can''t even notice it but I liked the price discount, but the original question was concerning the inclusion.

The size issue is larger than a tenth of a millimeter when you are talking about squared just like a TV 27" to 32" is not just 5 inches but in something so small most could not tell once it is set on a ring.

I agree if you can see both diamonds that would be best but if not try to get pictures of the inclusion.
 
I have to agree with glitterata. I''d want the bigger G with flour even if there was a visable inclusion. The diamond I''m waiting for has an inclusion that I can spot quite easily, but I think it''s the most beautiful diamond I''ve ever seen. Most people can''t find it even when they''re looking for it, so I figure no one''s going to see it on a daily basis. But they will see the larger size and the better color/flour. I love a bit of flour, so I guess that influences me also. Obviously, though, it''s a matter of what would bother your GF. Good luck!
 
Here is an image of the included diamond. At this magnification it is very easy to see (along with some other smaller inclusions). I''m pretty sure it is what looks like a bubble at the top of the image, is this correct?

Incl1514432441.jpg
 
I''m with those that say go for the eye clean stone. The difference in size between the two is minimal. My 0.2
2.gif
 
I''d also go with the eyeclean stone.

I have a diamond with fluorescence and several without. It''s hard to tell which one has the fluorescence in everyday lighting conditions, so it wouldn''t add enough to overcome the visible inclusion.

Also, there will be virtually no visual difference in the size of these diamonds once mounted, so I''d definitely go eye-clean.
 
do you have a pick of the other stone??

I don''t think everyone will imediately notice that inclusion when seeing it on the ring on her finger but it would be noticable when closely examining it with the naked eye.

I still agree with most that you should stick with the eye clean stone. If you find she really likes flour then maybe keep looking for another eye clean diamond with more flour but I would avoid this one.
 
You''ll barely notice a size difference when comparing them side by side-- let alone when they are separate. Go with the eye clean
2.gif
 
I''d go with the bigger one.

I have a G with medium blue fluoresence AND an eye visible crystal inclusion and I love it! I am the only one who can see the inclusion and even then I have to look hard to find it.

I love a G with medium blue and I also like a bigger diamond.
 
The size difference is so minimal that I''d definitely go with the eye clean stone. A visible inclusion might be an issue for your girlfriend, it would for me. As for the difference between G and H, there''s not a lot in it.
 
I''m with the eye-clean group.
21.gif
The size difference will be barely noticeable.
 
Unless you are in a rush, why not just wait for another stone? Maybe one that''s H-SI2, eye clean and 1.1? It should cost less than the G-SI2 and give you piece of mind. If you aren''t 100% sure about either one, don''t buy it.
 
Date: 12/30/2005 4:38:21 PM
Author: MrIndecisive
Here is an image of the included diamond. At this magnification it is very easy to see (along with some other smaller inclusions). I''m pretty sure it is what looks like a bubble at the top of the image, is this correct?
Click to expand...
Yeah... but the stone will never again be seen under 5X (?).

No wonder the votes are even: the two are not different enough either the by color, clarity or size... and the cut is top anyway. What''s there to choose?
 
Thats a ACA go for it doesnt mater if it was an I-1 youre buying the cut it will be eyeclean IMO
emwink.gif
 
The eye-clean one. As others have said, the size difference in negligible. Plus, the preference for fluorescence is an *educated* preference--not one that is on the average consumer''s radar. Inclusions, though, are "flaws" that the average consumer *is* aware of.
 
I agree that if you are unsure, you should go for the eye clean one.

I prefer fluoresence and I don''t mind seeing an inclusion at some angles, but I''m not like most people.
2.gif
 
Why does it have to come down to just these two diamonds? Personally, I would go for the smaller eyeclean stone but I am not sure why you are being held to only these two stones. You could look at so many other stones - so many different color/clarity combinations. If there is nothing there right now, wait a few days and see what else becomes available.
 
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
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top