twinning wisp. how exactly does it affect brilliance?

[n00bdiamond]

I read almost all threads about twinning wisps. I see a lot of statements regarding how it can affect brilliance. How exactly does it affect the brilliance? I have limited knowledge but im guessing that it can affect the refractive properties of light if the twinning wisp is in its path. How exactly would that be shown?perhaps lack of brilliance at certain angles? Ive seen claims how the lack of brilliance gets worse if you dont keep your diamond cleaned frequently. As a non expertthis does not make sense tome. Also what is a good objective measure of measuring the reduced brilliance? Based on my readings aset nor ideal scope images help. Please correct me if im wrong. Thanks.

 

[Karl_K]

They can in some cases scatter the light like a snow globe when you shake it interfering with the light return or even in severe cases making the diamond look milky.
The effect is called scatter because the light is scattered.
clouds can have the same effect.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If the stone is say SI2 and above 1ct and TW is the only inclusion mentioned on the list that I would expect a dulling of light to be happening.
If an SI stone had say a:
crystal
feather
twinning wisp

In that order
Then it would not be an issue.

A VS with twinning wisps is unlikely to present any problem.
Twinning wisps are usually marked so badly that dealers have trouble selling them.
But here is a thread where I show a bad e.g. with reduced brilliance https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/

 

[Amour_Et_Diamants]

If the stone is say SI2 and above 1ct and TW is the only inclusion mentioned on the list that I would expect a dulling of light to be happening.
If an SI stone had say a:
crystal
feather
twinning wisp

In that order
Then it would not be an issue.

A VS with twinning wisps is unlikely to present any problem.
Twinning wisps are usually marked so badly that dealers have trouble selling them.
But here is a thread where I show a bad e.g. with reduced brilliance https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/

This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

[treasurehunter]

I have an SI2 with twinning wisps and I cant notice any dampening of light performance next to a VS1 stone of the same cut.

 

[princessfeedme]

Hi Gary , thanks for the informative link. While you're here, can I pick your brain really quick? What about SI1 listed in order of appearance: twinning wisp, crystal and feather? What are your experiences with this kind?





Sorry for the thread jack!

 

[Mark2014]

Also what is a good objective measure of measuring the reduced brilliance? Based on my readings aset nor ideal scope images help. Please correct me if im wrong. Thanks.

Is there an expert answer to OP's question I quoted? I am actually in the same boat as OP. I selected a 3ct AGS0000, H, SI2 with lots of twinning wisps (I have my own thread going on PS). This reduced light performance thing got me (re)thinking if I should keep it. But if we can't go by the AGS light performance map, nor by ASET, nor IS images, what else is there we can make a choice on?

 

[n00bdiamond]

Gary ty for the pic and reference. The thing i'm uncertain about is this. Did the reduced brilliance in that pic occur because of of lighting conditions the magnification or something else? Not to contest you because i know you are and expert but im asking because i just dont know. If what you say holds then i should see the dullness in all si2 super ideal cut pictures of diamonds with twinning wisps. That doesnt seem to be the case when i see these pics on whiteflash brian gavin etc. Are they then not taking the pictures properly or taking it in a way that masks the dullness you mention. I'm wondering then why it doesnt show up in some form on paper then. If you could explain i would really appre iate it .

 

[TC1987]

Diamonds are three dimensional. If you orient the diamond one way relative to the camera lens, or to your eyes, an inclusion may be invisible or nearly so. But if you change the tilt, or the position of the diamond relative to camera or eye, then the inclusions "may" be clearly visible. That is partly what gets a diamond into SI2 vs. SI1.

Loss of brilliance occurs due to inclusions scattering light, just what Karl said above. Diamonds are in motion when worn as a ring. You have to evaluate inclusions "in motion," especially for larger diamonds and lower clarity grades. Some stones may make a great pendant or earrings but not ring, if the wearer wants an eyeclean stone.

On that particular stone, the size of it alone is going to make finding an eye-clean SI2 very rare. But on the other hand, those wisps are out there in the star/bezel/upper girdle facets. If the table area is clean, loss of brilliance in that outer area may not bother you. But since those inclusions intrude into the table, then probably you'll see them rather easily.

That's just my opinion. I don't need an eyeclean stone, btw. Some people don't.

 

[n00bdiamond]

So let me ask this then. There are many SI1, SI2 stones sold by all the reputable dealers on this website like Brian Gavin, WF, good old gold. For some of the SI2 diamonds, they claim that the twinning wisps do not reduce brilliance?

Here I'm seeing two conflicting statements from two sides who are well recognized experts on this forum. So let me ask this and let's be honest. I see two sides of the camp on this issue with one side like WF, Brian Gavin claiming that there are SI2 diamonds within the 1-2 carat range that does not lose brilliance despite having twinning wisps.

I see some statements floating around that state that ALL SI2 diamonds lose brilliance. Clearly there is a very very big difference in expert opinion here. WF, BG, good old gold claims that some of the SI1 and SI2s they sell do not lose brilliance. So what is it that the critics see that WF and BG and good old gold experts are not seeing? Let's open up the discussion this way b/c most people here are going to undergo a selection process of getting the cleanest SI1 and SI2 containing twinning wisps from reputable dealers with a keen eye.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My daughter has an SI1 with twining wisps, and I can't see any reduced brilliance. Maybe it has to do with placement.

Mark, you are going to have to really sacrifice something to get a 3 ct stone with your budget, I think you already know. I already told you on your thread that you could get a terrific 2.5 ct stone. But since she apparently wants a large stone and doesn't care about the specs, you are going to either have low color or low clarity or poor cut. I wouldn't do the poor cut, and most people will say that color will show more than clarity. I have seen Garry say here before that SI2 is not good in a 3 ct stone. I think if you'd continue looking, though, you might be able to find something better maybe in I-J color with better clarity.

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

My experience with twinning wisps as the grade setting inclusions as follows;

When comparing like clarities with different grade setting inclusions I prefer a twinning wisp SI2 over one based on clouds, or crystals or feathers. The reason I say this is that twinning wisps are an alignment of inclusions caught up in a dendrite like pattern. They often may look more like an SI1 to the naked eye, but receive an SI2 because when louping the stone there are usually reflections of the twinning wisps and the stone looks very busy. I call this a louping SI2. For me, I can see with the naked eye almost all other SI2 types of inclusions because they are usually bigger in size or black- crystals, large feather, cloud throughout milkyness. As Gary had stated the problem with this twinning wisp plot is that the GIA has always used a line representing the direction of the flow of wisps with cross hatches. In later years the lab was told to plot only three of the to create an identifiable pattern with the most prominent wisps and then put the comment; Additional twinning wisps are not shown.

Twinning wisps at higher clarities are no different then similar stones with other grade setting inclusions.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So let me ask this then. There are many SI1, SI2 stones sold by all the reputable dealers on this website like Brian Gavin, WF, good old gold. For some of the SI2 diamonds, they claim that the twinning wisps do not reduce brilliance?

Here I'm seeing two conflicting statements from two sides who are well recognized experts on this forum. So let me ask this and let's be honest. I see two sides of the camp on this issue with one side like WF, Brian Gavin claiming that there are SI2 diamonds within the 1-2 carat range that does not lose brilliance despite having twinning wisps.

I see some statements floating around that state that ALL SI2 diamonds lose brilliance. Clearly there is a very very big difference in expert opinion here. WF, BG, good old gold claims that some of the SI1 and SI2s they sell do not lose brilliance. So what is it that the critics see that WF and BG and good old gold experts are not seeing? Let's open up the discussion this way b/c most people here are going to undergo a selection process of getting the cleanest SI1 and SI2 containing twinning wisps from reputable dealers with a keen eye.

Vendors who do their own light performance testing, which I think all of the above vendors do, usually would not buy stones for their inventory that had significantly reduced light performance due to twining wisps or other inclusions. I don't think any of them put stones that have reduced brilliance in their signature lines. Good Old Gold shows the stones' performance by video if someone asks. This is precisely why I DO buy from the vendors above, because buying SI stones from a drop shipper is too risky to me. (Of course, I buy VS and up anyway to totally avoid the potential problem!)

 

[TC1987]

David of Diamonds by Lauren / Rock Diamond has a saying: "Diamonds have to be seen." That's going to be the definitive answer with the twinning wisps. They are not all the same size, same density. Look at GOG's article and the pictures. http://www.goodoldgold.com/classic.php?page=gallery_of_inclusions.htm Twinning wisps are probably affecting the brilliance all the time, especially with an SI2 rating, but perhaps not enough that most people will notice with the unaided eye. The diamond in question here is an SI2. As with any inclusion, it may be seen, but whether or not it bothers you or makes you feel that the diamond is not clean enough depends on your personal preference. But you have to keep in mind that when you scale up the diamond size, that also allows scaling up the size of inclusions that can still be called SI2. One thing I learned when looking for larger diamonds was I needed to go up in both color grade and clarity, unfortunately. (So, I just quit upgrading instead. )

I used to scrutinize those animated Brilliancescope movies on Good Old Gold when I was looking for diamonds. I'd watch for dead spots or odd reflections or other undesirable effects when I watched the light play over the stone. But they don't seem to post those reports very often now.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/twinning-wisp.26447/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/twinning-wisp.26447/[/URL]

by Pyramid » 16 Mar 2005 05:10
Just read in Gary Roskin''s book, twinning wisps are the twisting together of pinpoints, fractures, clouds within a twinning plane. Usually surface graining can be seen also.

twisting together of pinpoints, fractures, clouds -- Behaves kind of like a mass of less-than-transparent material in the stone.

 

[Mark2014]

I hope that the OP doesn't mind if I participate in this thread. I think my experience can be meaningful for OP as well.

@ diamondseeker2006: yes, you are entirely correct and your help has been great. I am making a conscious choice in picking a 3 ct SI2.

HOWEVER.... my choice for SI2 was based on my "learning" that clarity gradings are determined how easily you can see inclusions (let's call them "imperfections") and if you care if they are there. So, especially if the stones are eye-clean (so the imperfections cannot be seen by naked eye), I think that is entirely ok. What I did NOT know, was that these imperfections can significantly (?!) affect the light performance. And yet, getting the best light performance was my primary reason to purchase a AGS0000 stone in the first place! So now my big dilemma (which I think the OP shares with me), how can we trust/determine the light performance of the stones presented to us online? With AGS you get the performance map. With GIA you do not. If twinning wisps do affect the light performance, is what we see on the AGS light performance map already taken into account?? If not, as expressed by the OP before, is it written somewhere else? Or only after doing yet another analysis?

Just for the sake of information to others, I will copy different pictures of the stone I have in my possession (3 ct, AGS000, H, SI2). These "real" picture were taken by the vendor prior to my purchase. Now that I have the stone in possession, all I can say is that the stone looks MUCH prettier. I tried taking pictures/video myself using my iPhone 5 but it has been challenging. I took a video but can't seem to upload it...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mark, the plots do not necessarily show all the wisps, so you really can't tell from that. For example, when I wanted a virtual stone that had strong blue fluorescence, I had Good Old Gold call in the stone for me so they could evaluate it in various lighting and tell me if it had any negative effects from the SBF. Thankfully it did not. But I would not have taken the risk without having an expert look at it for me. That is what you need in this case. You can send the stone to an independent appraiser such as Neil Beatty or David Atlas, etc. and have them evaluate it if you cannot access that from your stone seller.

 

[n00bdiamond]

So basically from the convo of this thread, it seems that I can come to this conclusion.

As a non-expert, it's extremely difficult to determine whether a twinning wisp is reducing brilliance. If we buy from a reputable dealer from PS who can evaluate on a case-by-case basis, we can expect negligible decrease in brilliance at worst if they say that brilliance isn't affected by SI1 or SI2 twinning wisps in THAT particular diamond.

Is this a fair statement?

 

[Karl_K]

If you want to test it for yourself here is how.
In bright lighting view the diamond up close at the distance that it is most in focus for you generally around 8" tilt the diamond back and forth slowly and look for scatter. Do the same looking through the crown facets rotating the diamond so you view it from each side.
Now do the same with a loupe. If you see it in the loop repeat the eye test at the same angle. It is often subtle and I would expect someone without experience to catch only the worse cases.

There are no definitive answers of at what grade it becomes an issue.
They each have to be evaluated on their own.

 

[Karl_K]

When you get down to it all inclusions affect brilliance if you have a sensitive enough tool to measure them even the ones only visible only at 1000x.
In early high power laser research they used diamond for prisms and mirrors and they kept on exploding even the cleanest material in nature or that man can make.
The cause, inclusions absorbing light and heating up the stone causing it to explode due to unequal expansion.

Unless it is eye visible it is not considered enough to matter for jewelery but it is there.

 

[WinkHPD]

Gary ty for the pic and reference. The thing i'm uncertain about is this. Did the reduced brilliance in that pic occur because of of lighting conditions the magnification or something else? Not to contest you because i know you are and expert but im asking because i just dont know. If what you say holds then i should see the dullness in all si2 super ideal cut pictures of diamonds with twinning wisps. That doesnt seem to be the case when i see these pics on whiteflash brian gavin etc. Are they then not taking the pictures properly or taking it in a way that masks the dullness you mention. I'm wondering then why it doesnt show up in some form on paper then. If you could explain i would really appre iate it .

I would like to jump in here, although I am not Garry.

It is VERY rare that I see twinning wisps that actually have a visual affect on diamond that is SI2 or above. It is one of the reasons that I love them. They will often allow me to deliver a completely eye clean SI2, even when viewed from the side and bottom of the stone, which is, to the trade, cheating.

Most of the time they bring the cost of the diamond down with no apparent visual change in the diamond. Yes, I expect that had I some fantastic machine that could measure every ray of light that entered and then left the diamond that I would see some diminishing of the brilliance, scintillation and dispersion, but if my eyes can not perceive it, then I love the lower price and larger size that I can deliver to a client who is on a budget.

I do not remember if it was this thread or another where someone expressed confusion about a dirty stone showing more effect than twinning wisps, but that is completely true. When you allow grease and detritus to build up on your stone, you in effect increase the angle at which light will escape the diamond and thus allow much of the light that would reflect back to the eye to depart through the bottom of the diamond, thus destroying any chance of seeing the sparkle from that light since our fingers completely lack optic sensors. The critical angle (The angle above which light is reflected in the diamond and below which it escapes) of a clean diamond is 12.5 degrees. That angle is determined by the difference in the speed of light in air and the speed of light within the optically dense medium. The difference between diamond and grease is much less than that between diamond and air so the critical angle is much larger. Put the diamond in water and the diamond almost disappears.

So, in my opinion, keeping the diamond clean while it is being worn is MUCH more important than if it has visually invisible twinning wisps, the effect of which can be discerned only with disciplined effort, if at all.

Wink

 

[n00bdiamond]

THANK YOU Wink. I can't possibly express my gratitude for that answer (or was it the answer I wanted to hear lol).

 

[WinkHPD]

THANK YOU Wink. I can't possibly express my gratitude for that answer (or was it the answer I wanted to hear lol).

LOL! I am glad at least one Pricescoper is going to like that answer.

Please remember though, each diamond needs to be seen by YOUR eyes, to know if YOU like it. We can give you some guidelines, but we can not see through YOUR eyes.

Wink

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

Wink and myself must of come from the same secret society at one time!

 

[Mark2014]

I really like Wink's answer as well as it makes me feel good about my current purchase but I do think if one objectively could truly assess the light performance prior to buying that would be even better. My NYC jeweler (who has a good name on PS), wrote me this: "We felt the idealscope images talk for themselves and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there's no light leakage. It's 100% eye clean and a real sparkler". The independent appraiser I asked to look at the stone confirmed it was eye-clean but she would have rated the stone I1.
To me, the art of buying online remains an art. Even with Karl's instructions I am not sure if I could tell if there would be light performance loss...

 

[n00bdiamond]

This is going to irk a lot of experts here but I'm going to say it. The 5-8k I save on the stone can be put to better use elsewhere. I have furniture to buy, home to buy etc. I'm not so certain that the extra money spent on the stone is a good value proposition if I view things from the larger picture. That being said, I noticed that a lot of PSers have a monster budget and won't necessarily have my view. I'm squirming with a 1.484 F SI2 purchase on a victor canera setting that totals 18kish. I routinely see people here having 3-4 carats and doing a custom setting and having budgets as high as 100k and many in the 30-40k range. That's definitely not me lol.

 

[WinkHPD]

Mark,

If this diamond you speak of had a GIA or AGS report, I would tend to discount the independent appraisers opinion. There are many out there who feel they have to grade tougher than the lab to "earn their keep."

In my opinion, the goal of the independent appraiser should be to grade consistently with the grade of the GIA, since it is the GIA's grading system.

Back when I had a B&M store and I had people bring their diamonds to me I always made a point of clarity grading the diamond before any thing was said to me about the AGS or GIA grade. One, it always impressed my clients when I was spot on, or occasionally one grade off and two, it kept me on my toes. If I was stricter by one grade, or looser, I made a point of really studying that diamond to see what the labs were doing. I believe it is my job to understand what the top tier labs are doing, not try to prove that I am tougher than they are.

Wink

 

[Mark2014]

@ n00bdiamond: Even while I am working with a 30k budget, I fully understand where you are coming from. For me it is about understanding the process of how to chose your diamond. Several members have been extremely helpful to me but let's say it was just the basics. Now that I am weeks into my research I understand one needs to start with the basics but little by little one learn about the nuances and all choices seem a trade-off of some kind. Initially I was hoping that the PS community could present a couple of good stones for me to pick from. In hindsight, those choices presented were all premium-priced "safe bets". Yet, as I soon realized that these safe bets were exceeding my budget I also realized I needed to take a calculated risk. I had a stone shipped to me , knowing I have a 30 day return window, and paid for the appraisal (which, by the way, is not a real appraisal in insurance terms -- those appraisals must be done on stones already set in the ring). I do feel I have now all the information so my final decision will be an informed one.

@wink: Thanks. Yes, she did say "who am I to judge AGS...". So, I think she was realistic as well. My main goal to see the appriaser was to assess if it was eye-clean and if the included feathers could be a durability risk. She also gave me some pointers on insurance. She wanted to charge me only for a 15 minute advice but I asked her to charge me 30 min as she was so helpful otherwise.

 

[baby monster]

I would like to jump in here, although I am not Garry.

It is VERY rare that I see twinning wisps that actually have a visual affect on diamond that is SI2 or above. It is one of the reasons that I love them. They will often allow me to deliver a completely eye clean SI2, even when viewed from the side and bottom of the stone, which is, to the trade, cheating.

Most of the time they bring the cost of the diamond down with no apparent visual change in the diamond. Yes, I expect that had I some fantastic machine that could measure every ray of light that entered and then left the diamond that I would see some diminishing of the brilliance, scintillation and dispersion, but if my eyes can not perceive it, then I love the lower price and larger size that I can deliver to a client who is on a budget.

I do not remember if it was this thread or another where someone expressed confusion about a dirty stone showing more effect than twinning wisps, but that is completely true. When you allow grease and detritus to build up on your stone, you in effect increase the angle at which light will escape the diamond and thus allow much of the light that would reflect back to the eye to depart through the bottom of the diamond, thus destroying any chance of seeing the sparkle from that light since our fingers completely lack optic sensors. The critical angle (The angle above which light is reflected in the diamond and below which it escapes) of a clean diamond is 12.5 degrees. That angle is determined by the difference in the speed of light in air and the speed of light within the optically dense medium. The difference between diamond and grease is much less than that between diamond and air so the critical angle is much larger. Put the diamond in water and the diamond almost disappears.

So, in my opinion, keeping the diamond clean while it is being worn is MUCH more important than if it has visually invisible twinning wisps, the effect of which can be discerned only with disciplined effort, if at all.

Wink

I'd also like to thank Wink for that explanation, esp the bold part. There is a lot of splitting hairs or twinning wisps but, at the end of the day, my SI2 diamond with twinning wisps spends a lot of time being dirty even though I clean it a lot, just like any good PSer. The everyday dirt affects the brilliance so much more.

 

[baby monster]

This is going to irk a lot of experts here but I'm going to say it. The 5-8k I save on the stone can be put to better use elsewhere. I have furniture to buy, home to buy etc. I'm not so certain that the extra money spent on the stone is a good value proposition if I view things from the larger picture. That being said, I noticed that a lot of PSers have a monster budget and won't necessarily have my view. I'm squirming with a 1.484 F SI2 purchase on a victor canera setting that totals 18kish. I routinely see people here having 3-4 carats and doing a custom setting and having budgets as high as 100k and many in the 30-40k range. That's definitely not me lol.

I don't think what you're saying is going to irk people here. Everyone has a budget and list of priorities when buying a stone. You could've dropped down the color to get you a larger stone or bought a stuller stock setting but you did not. It's all very individual. But you are asking a bunch of obsessive hobbyists for advice. Do you think someone really into diamonds would advise you to buy less than optically ideal stone? You have to weigh that against what is important to you and whether you can see the difference between the different Cs.

 

[WinkHPD]

@ n00bdiamond: Even while I am working with a 30k budget, I fully understand where you are coming from. For me it is about understanding the process of how to chose your diamond. Several members have been extremely helpful to me but let's say it was just the basics. Now that I am weeks into my research I understand one needs to start with the basics but little by little one learn about the nuances and all choices seem a trade-off of some kind. Initially I was hoping that the PS community could present a couple of good stones for me to pick from. In hindsight, those choices presented were all premium-priced "safe bets". Yet, as I soon realized that these safe bets were exceeding my budget I also realized I needed to take a calculated risk. I had a stone shipped to me , knowing I have a 30 day return window, and paid for the appraisal (which, by the way, is not a real appraisal in insurance terms -- those appraisals must be done on stones already set in the ring). I do feel I have now all the information so my final decision will be an informed one.

@wink: Thanks. Yes, she did say "who am I to judge AGS...". So, I think she was realistic as well. My main goal to see the appriaser was to assess if it was eye-clean and if the included feathers could be a durability risk. She also gave me some pointers on insurance. She wanted to charge me only for a 15 minute advice but I asked her to charge me 30 min as she was so helpful otherwise.

Excellent! I am glad she was so helpful, and it is good that you rewarded her for being so.

Wink