"Transparency" question

[Baxter]

Hi. I spent a lot of time on PS learning about diamonds. After much research, I finally purchased one from a PS vendor and received it this week. I have yet to have it appraised.

It is a round brilliant, 1.0ct J, SI2, AGS 0, Fluorescence - negligible, 1.7 on Holloway Cut Adviser.

Although the stone appears nice, with plenty of fire and brilliance, I noticed that the center of the stone seems kind of "misty", almost as if the table had a fingerprint or smudge on it (even though it does not, of course). Under a loupe, the most noticeable inclusion is off to the side, not in the center. To clarify - it doesn''t appear to be on the surface of the stone, but rather inside the stone with the appearance as if looking through a smudge.

When I was at a local jeweler looking at settings, I brought out the stone to set loosely in a setting for viewing. He took a look at in under the loupe and said it was "nicely cut". I didn''t tell him any of the specs or of my observation of the "misty" quality. We talked some more about various settings, etc. Before leaving, I asked him if he thought the stone was a good one. He replied again that he thought it was "nicely cut" and would serve me well. I then told him that I had purchased it recently and still had the option of returning it and was looking for an honest opinion. He then proceeded to tell me that he thought the stone had a "transparency issue" - he said it couldn''t be quantified, but pulled out a similar stone and did a side by side comparison. It was obvious that my stone was not nearly as "clear" in the center.

I really didn''t get the feeling that he was trying to sell me a stone -- he was very low key about it and of course he independently made the same observation as I had, and only after I asked him a couple of times. He said he noticed it when he first looked at it, but thought it might be fluorescence. He said he didn''t want to be critical of my stone until I told him I had the option of returning it.

So.... PS-ers - What would cause this "transparency issue" or "misty" quality on an otherwise fine stone (at least number-wise)???

Could it be related to the J color somehow?

I''m going to return the stone, because it will continue to bug me, but I''m curious as to what factor(s) might be contributing to this appearance.

Thanks.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It could be the inclusion grade is partly made by a central cloud?
Is the sI2 really hard to see / very eye clean?
what does the report say about clouds or graining?

 

[LGK]

Well, it's an SI2 so I guess the obvious question is, could it be the grade-making inclusion? Colored internal graining and strain? A cloud? What's the inclusion plot like, does it show anything where you're seeing the mistiness?

The color of a stone wouldn't create an effect like that. Even in the lower colors like M or N, the color of a stone is unobtrusive and definitely is separate from clarity or sparkliness.

That being said, I suppose you're on the right track to return it- whatever is causing the "transparency issue".

EDIT: Haha, Gary & I posted at the same time, but he's more succinct

 

[Baxter]

Date: 8/23/2008 2:02:18 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It could be the inclusion grade is partly made by a central cloud?

Is the sI2 really hard to see / very eye clean?

what does the report say about clouds or graining?

The main inclusion marked on the report is eyeclean, but easily seen with a loupe. It is off to the side, not in the center of the stone.

BUT... There is a comment -- "additional clouds and surface graining are not shown." I initially did see this comment and searched it on PS, and most of the responses indicated that these factors rarely affect the performance of the stone (see https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-does-this-mean-on-gia-cert.78836/ ) - so I didn''t take it as seriously as I probably should have. However, I''m guessing this is one of those rare instances, and most likely the cause of the "transparency issue".

Thanks, Gary.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you search clouds you should see me making frequent warnngs of SI diamonds where clouds are part of the grade making.
I am very wary of pople who try to by SI2 diamonds that they think look like VS or SI1''s.
Consumers who can out grade the graders get caught.

Are you still in a return window?

 

[Baxter]

Date: 8/23/2008 2:29:43 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
If you search clouds you should see me making frequent warnngs of SI diamonds where clouds are part of the grade making.

I am very wary of pople who try to by SI2 diamonds that they think look like VS or SI1''s.

Consumers who can out grade the graders get caught.


Are you still in a return window?

Yes, I can still return it for refund, and will. Lesson learned. Just out the cost of shipping. Thanks again for your insight. My understanding was that if the stone was "eyeclean", inclusions couldn''t be seen by the naked eye, except perhaps from extremely close up with very good vision. I didn''t understand that an overall cloudy or misty appearance could be apparent to the naked (and not so great visioned) eye. I do now.

 

[Cleo]

Sorry to hear your diamond wasn''t what you hoped.

If you''d like to post the specs of what your looking for, and an idea of your budget maybe we can help you find something that will knock your socks off.

x x x

 

[ButterBean]

Hi Baxter,

Glad to hear you can still return it. Did you specifically ask the vendor to look at this stone for you with his/her own eyes? If you did, I would find it a little troubling that the salesperson didn''t mention it to you prior to purchase. I know their job is to sell diamonds, but for the sake of referrals and good will on this forum (if for no other reason) it''s good business to be forthcoming, no? Maybe I''m missing something.
BB

 

[WinkHPD]

I am shocked that a diamond with a visible cloudiness would not be graded I1. I wonder if the graders were asleep at the wheel that day? It would be wonderful to be able to see the diamond, as this is indeed rare.

It is also further confimation that paper will help you narrow down the search, but the eye must always have the final word.

Wink

 

[Lynn B]

Interesting thread... can you capture what you are seeing in a photo for us?

Just FWIW, when I upgraded my 1.53 G/VS to my current 2.36 J/SI2 (both AGS-0), one of the things I immediately noticed when comparing the two stones was that the new stone (the SI2) definitely appeared *crisper* than the old stone (the VS2). I was (am!) very happy about that as I sometimes had the vague feeling that the old stone had just a wee bit of "misty-ness" inside it, although it was still a beautiful, lively stone. And only a VS2, and virtually nothing on the plot!

 

[Baxter]

Yes, as Wink said - this is a good lesson that numbers and reports may be very helpful, but can''t substitute for the eyes.

And BB - yes, I do wish the vendor had mentioned this when I asked if it was eyeclean. I know that many, many of you have had positive experiences with all of the PS vendors, so I don''t believe it was intentionally "overlooked". I guess this is the downside of online diamond buying - you get better prices, more data and info, etc., but you can''t just line up diamonds and look at them in real light situations. Fortunately, return policies make situations like this an inconvenience and minor disappointment versus a regrettable purchase.

In the meantime, I''m going to look at more settings today. Ironically, I thought the setting would be the part of the ring that I would be more confident purchasing locally, as pictures don''t seem to do many of them justice - particularly since I''m looking for something unique and with a vintage quality, if not truly vintage.

Thanks for the responses, all.

 

[jstarfireb]

Sorry to hear your stone didn''t turn out to be all that great. I may be misinterpreting things from your last post, but it sounds like you''re not really interested in buying online anymore. Please don''t let this discourage you from buying online again! You can still find a fantastic stone that won''t look milky. Usually PS vendors are great with that; for some reason your stone slipped through the cracks. As far as I know, this is not a common occurrence at all. Good luck!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/23/2008 12:29:38 PM
Author: Wink
I am shocked that a diamond with a visible cloudiness would not be graded I1. I wonder if the graders were asleep at the wheel that day? It would be wonderful to be able to see the diamond, as this is indeed rare.

It is also further confimation that paper will help you narrow down the search, but the eye must always have the final word.

Wink

Wink GIA said very clearly in their article on Fire, that clouds in SI (2? or 1 and2?) that are the primarty grade maker can cause a reduction in fire.
I have seen it many times, also from graining - and the grainng effect can even happen (rarely) I ''feel'' in higher clarities. I can not prove that (yet).

but after having just finished an article on Fluoro for the Australian Gemmologist journal, I can tell you Transparency is a minefield and a mess. I hope to make a contribution in this field. i have begun a collection of milky stones and looking for some way to ''measure'' the effect. not easy though.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/23/2008 8:09:43 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink GIA said very clearly in their article on Fire, that clouds in SI (2? or 1 and2?) that are the primarty grade maker can cause a reduction in fire.
I have seen it many times, also from graining - and the grainng effect can even happen (rarely) I ''feel'' in higher clarities. I can not prove that (yet).

but after having just finished an article on Fluoro for the Australian Gemmologist journal, I can tell you Transparency is a minefield and a mess. I hope to make a contribution in this field. i have begun a collection of milky stones and looking for some way to ''measure'' the effect. not easy though.

I think the OP might have one he''ll sell you...

Seriously though, this is really interesting Garry - I look forward to reading about your findings...

x x x

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/24/2008 4:35:33 AM
Author: Cleo

Date: 8/23/2008 8:09:43 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink GIA said very clearly in their article on Fire, that clouds in SI (2? or 1 and2?) that are the primarty grade maker can cause a reduction in fire.
I have seen it many times, also from graining - and the grainng effect can even happen (rarely) I ''feel'' in higher clarities. I can not prove that (yet).

but after having just finished an article on Fluoro for the Australian Gemmologist journal, I can tell you Transparency is a minefield and a mess. I hope to make a contribution in this field. i have begun a collection of milky stones and looking for some way to ''measure'' the effect. not easy though.

I think the OP might have one he''ll sell you...

Seriously though, this is really interesting Garry - I look forward to reading about your findings...

x x x

actually the reference I misquoted was the Foundation article
http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/cut_fall2004.pdf page 19

"Grade-determining clouds in the SI2 and I clarity grades diminish the appearance of fire. Fair or Poor polish causes both parent brightness and fire to diminish; and Fair or Poor symmetry negatively affects apparent brightness. Neither fluorescence nor girdle condition showed any effect on apparent brightness or fire."

 

[Lynn B]

Would this show up at all in a 40x mag face shot?

Baxter, do you have any images of the stone that we could see?

THANKS!

Lynn

 

[:)]

Baxter, real quick before you actually return the stone do me a favor - Please wash your hands first to get oil off them, then take a soft toothbrush and some dish detergent and give the stone a good scrub, esp on the pavillion side (make sure the sink drain is closed!!!) Then carefully dry it with a towel (lint free is great if avail but not necessary). It is an easy test worth a try.