Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Stone for a very special girl - Help please!

I'm seeing it in person next week so hoping for the best. I looked at that setting too but she has a small hand so I was looking for a setting that has width less than 2. Would the straight prongs make the diamond easier to fall out?
 
I cannot comment on specific diamonds as I am a trade member - but ANY diamond with an AGS 4 (VS2) clarity grade should be eye-clean.

As long as you have a competent bench the diamond will be secure in any setting that is the right size.

Regardless, I would always recommend insuring your ring upon receipt.
 
The stone is beautiful

Don't love the setting - lines are too straight. Check out Vatche Corsica or Grace. Double prongs and more fluid/graceful
 
wow, the Vatche Corsica and Grace settings are gorgeous. Thank you so much for the rec!
 
Oops, I meant Venus and not Grace but grace is beautiful too!
 
Haha, just making me realize how many more beautiful settings there are. Definitely looks like i have more research to do..
 
Diamond_Hawk|1488929837|4137841 said:
ANY diamond with an AGS 4 (VS2) clarity grade should be eye-clean.
Click to expand...
Agree with “should be.” I would just note that the lab doesn’t actually judge eye-clean. And since the grade is set at 10X magnification it’s possible for a borderline SI-VS diamond to earn VS2 under the grading scope while having an element that’s eye-visible. This is rare but it happens. So, like vetting fluorescence, it’s not a bad idea to have an expert on your side verify how clean the VS2 is.

The definition of eye-clean also comes into play. Eyesight, distance, lighting and orientation are variables. Some young people with Hawk-eyes (see what I did there?) might be able to detect a characteristic at close examination which would pass other “eye-clean” definitions.
 
John Pollard|1489010350|4138145 said:
Diamond_Hawk|1488929837|4137841 said:
ANY diamond with an AGS 4 (VS2) clarity grade should be eye-clean.
Click to expand...
Agree with “should be.” I would just note that the lab doesn’t actually judge eye-clean. And since the grade is set at 10X magnification it’s possible for a borderline SI-VS diamond to earn VS2 under the grading scope while having an element that’s eye-visible. This is rare but it happens. So, like vetting fluorescence, it’s not a bad idea to have an expert on your side verify how clean the VS2 is.

The definition of eye-clean also comes into play. Eyesight, distance, lighting and orientation are variables. Some young people with Hawk-eyes (see what I did there?) might be able to detect a characteristic at close examination which would pass other “eye-clean” definitions.
Click to expand...


I agree - that is all true. I also believe that AGS with only one lab-location has better control over consistency than other labs with multiple locations. Would you agree?
 
Diamond_Hawk|1489033936|4138289 said:
I agree - that is all true. I also believe that AGS with only one lab-location has better control over consistency than other labs with multiple locations. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
I would. In that context the initial “should be” comes a lot closer to “will be.” ;))
 
Hawk,
I have to disagree with the semantics of your statement that "ANY VS2 should be eye-clean", especially since you put emphasis on 'any'. As John said, eye-clean is not a specific test at the labs, although the graders absolutely evaluate the face-up appearance of the stone as part of the process.
The thing is that size does matter (stone size) when it comes to eye-clean, and clarity grading is somewhat relativistic. The exact same inclusion in a 2ct stone that gets graded VS2 would result in a grade of Si1 or Si2 in a .50ct stone. The practical implication of this is that the bigger the stone, the larger the allowable inclusion at a particular grade. As the absolute size of the inclusion increases, it becomes more and more likely that it can be resolved by the naked eye.

So, I would say that VS2 in any one carat and below diamond should be eye-clean, but when you get into bigger diamonds, that becomes less of a rule of thumb.
 
Well, shape and perspective also come into play. All else equal, an emerald cut with its long, flat facets may facilitate the visibility of an inclusion more readily than a brilliant, where the cutting style can help to mask it. In the same way, an inclusion that's undetectable face-up may become visible when a diamond is viewed through the more transparent side-view.

This makes the precise "eye-clean" definition of paramount importance.

Ultimately there are five variables at work. 1. The specific diamond. 2. The eyesight of the viewer. 3. The perspective. 4. The illumination scenario. 5. The length of search (related; what about searching again after louping it?).

Thus: "No inclusions visible to a person with 20-20 vision when seen face-up under office lighting at a distance of 25cm, after a 10 second search."

Is much different than: "No inclusions or blemishes visible to a nearsighted 24 year old when seen from all perspectives under a diamond grading lamp at any distances, after a weekend of inspection and cuddling, and then again after a thorough microscopic examination."

:saint:

Some companies publish their eye-clean definitions, which is extremely helpful in building confidence in uniform messaging. Regardless, when discussing whether a diamond is "eye-clean" with someone else - especially when they're making the judgment - make sure you are both using the same definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top