twinning wisp = lower class diamond?

[should i be here]

My RB has two or three small, short twinning wisps on the diagram, and it's classified SI1 because of those. When researching twinning wisps, I keep reading that usually twinned crystals were used for non-RBs (aka shapes that weren't thought of as highly as RBs). Even NiceIce has on its website:

We seldom see twinning wisps within the ideal cut diamonds that we sift through for our inventory because most of the cutters that we work with produce higher end goods and thus would remove the intergrowth from their production, however we have seen twinning wisps in lower quality goods which are produced by companies who's primary focus is larger, inexpensive diamonds in which case they work with less expensive, lower quality diamond rough to shape their production.

Are they that bad?? Of course it depends on the size and placement, but if there were a hierarchy of diamond inclusions, it makes it sound as though twinning wisps would be at the bottom. But it seems to me that all else being equal, they might be some of the hardest inclusions to spot with the naked eye. If so, wouldn't they be a "good" inclusion to have? FWIW, I passed up a stone of the exact same specs and super ideal cut of VS2 clarity just to save thousands of dollars. The clarity difference was just not worth it, or even visible to the naked eye.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I recall at least one person here who looked for an ideal cut stone (over 2 cts., maybe 3) with twining wisps because they are so hard to see. And when I helped my son-in-law look for a stone, the only way I was going to consider an SI1 was if the inclusions were invisible to the naked eye. So we found one with twining wisps and it is ideal cut. So I am going to say that, yes, there are ideal cut stones with twining wisps!

 

[Chris-at-ERD]

Twinning wisps are minute inclusions... they will have nothing to do with the CUT grade.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Chris, I think the OP was asking if rough with twining wisps was considered not good enough to be used for the best quality diamonds.

 

[should i be here]

Of course, I just meant as a clarity issue. Why are wisps so low on the totem pole?

 

[Chris-at-ERD]

Of course, I just meant as a clarity issue. Why are wisps so low on the totem pole?

I have seen many GIA triple X certs with twinning wisps ( which i think are better inclusions ) and I never thought they would be low on the totem pole...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Twining wisps, by their nature, should in no way be associated with "lower class goods"
I agree with Chis.

There's many misconceptions about clarity characteristics- this is a prime example.

Sometimes twining wisps can actually be very desirable as they may be incredibly hard to spot- even with a loupe- but a stone's clarity grade will impact the price- sometimes to the advantage to the consumer

 

[should i be here]

That's what I was thinking - it all depends on the specific wisp of course, but it seems like they're a pretty good inclusion to have. Which is why I was confused and worried about all the anti-TW stuff I was reading, like that description I had in the first post.

 

[diagem]

TW usually originate in mackles..., meaning they could be a horror to cut due to intertwining of two separate materials and opposite grain direction.
When it comes to achieving a super high polish grade..., this material makes it few-folds more complicated.

As far as its appearance in the polished state..., these inclusions can be real tricky and are dependent greatly on the cutters experience. Usually they are scattered on one level and when easy visible they could be easily visible throughout the stone..., especially when black. Reflecting this, when correctly positioned and clear in color they could be a great value.

 

[John P]

Yoram gave excellent insight into the upstream/cutter's view.

The reality, at the end of the day, depends on the specific diamond; each must be judged on its own merits. As explained, a twinning wisp is an intergrowth, or the twisting together of inclusions, pinpoints, fractures, crystals, feathers or clouds in a twinning plane. If the TW is the grade-setter it is often a series of clouds. I once saw a TW with such distortion that it looked like cotton candy suspended inside an entire half of the diamond. Beyond the normal consumer "eye-clean" question, there is also the minute possibility that the striations within the crystal structure could pose a durability risk to the longevity of the stone. While this is extremely rare - on the frequency-order of 'overblue' fluorescence - it's something a picky gemologist will inspect-for when a TW is involved.

Nothing about this characteristic is "lower class." It's just part of nature, like any other inclusion. But this is one of several types of inclusions that good gemologists will dedicate some extra attention-to.

 

[should i be here]

Yoram gave excellent insight into the upstream/cutter's view.

The reality, at the end of the day, depends on the specific diamond; each must be judged on its own merits. As explained, a twinning wisp is an intergrowth, or the twisting together of inclusions, pinpoints, fractures, crystals, feathers or clouds in a twinning plane. If the TW is the grade-setter it is often a series of clouds. I once saw a TW with such distortion that it looked like cotton candy suspended inside an entire half of the diamond. Beyond the normal consumer "eye-clean" question, there is also the minute possibility that the striations within the crystal structure could pose a durability risk to the longevity of the stone. While this is extremely rare - on the frequency-order of 'overblue' fluorescence - it's something a picky gemologist will inspect-for when a TW is involved.

Nothing about this characteristic is "lower class." It's just part of nature, like any other inclusion. But this is one of several types of inclusions that good gemologists will dedicate some extra attention-to.

Perfect response, thanks John. Very helpful. So as long as it's not huge, cloudy and otherwise visible, twinning wisps are no worse than any other inclusion with the same characteristics.

 

[John P]

That's right. Happy to help.