Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Twinning Wisp

J

jyeh74

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
112
I saw a GIA xxx today. However, it had this twinning wisp, but was barely visible. Are these bad?
The specs were a 3ct,H color,S1 clarity. About $45k
 
In general twining wisps can be some of the best inclusions to have because they are so difficult to see. =) Since it's an SI I would ask that the stone be evaluated for eye cleanliness and also for any durability issues, which I think would be unlikely in an SI1, but it's best to ask now. Can you link the report?
 
Are slightly wisps bad for the diamond? It almost seems like a faint crack. So I was worried that in the future, it might crack.

In general, I can save a ton of money going from a VS2 to a S1. But on a 3ct, I am hesitant. Sometimes, you can find a VS2 with black inclusions right in the middle, that is worse off than a SI1, that has inclusions on the side. But then again, I was not sure why this diamond was rated SI1 by GIA, since it was nicer than most VS2s I have seen.
 
Twinning wisps result from crystal distortion during growth. It's unlikely that it would be a durability issue at all. Something to remember though is that labs allow for larger inclusions in larger diamonds, so where an SI1 diamond may be considered eye clean at 1ct it's possible that it will not be in a 3ct. Have you seen this stone in person?

I'm not completely sure but I believe that labs grade clarity based on the size and location of the inclusions, so in the VS2 that you saw, there may have been one small black included crystal, but in this particular SI1 there may be many twinning wisps that cover a large surface area of the stone, but because of the nature of the inclusions one is more eye clean than the other. Stones that have durability issues, such as feathers that reach the girdle or the surface of the diamond are often given lower clarity grades because of the risk to the stone.
 
I wanted to make sure that I was giving you accurate information about the way GIA grades clarity, so I went to their website and thought I'd post this for you. =)


The GIA Clarity Scale contains 11 grades, with most diamonds falling into the VS (very slightly included) or SI (slightly included) categories. In determining a clarity grade, the GIA system considers the size, nature, position, color or relief, and quantity of clarity characteristics visible under 10× magnification.
 
 
Twinning wisps really need to be carefully evaluated by an expert.
They can be invisible to the eye and still cause performance issues in some lighting.
The can also be a sign of strain which makes the diamond more susceptible to damage.
All of that needs to be checked.
 
There is no reason to not consider an SI1, and it's very possible to still find an eye clean one even at this ct weight. Have you had a chance to run any of the stone you just posted through the HCA? HCA is a tool to help you narrow your choices to a short list by eliminating stones that are likely to have poor light performance. You want potential candidates to score below a 2, discard stones that score over two. Next you should ask your vendor for Ideal Scope images of the stones on your short list, this will further determine the stones light performance. White Flash will also be able to have their gemologist evaluate the diamonds for you and give you an opinion on eye cleanliness and if there are any durability risks.
 
Barely visible - how barely? This-is-my-forever-stone-and-I-love-it-more-every-day barely?
In what types of lights? Did you find that it was more visible in some lights than others (this is normal w/ inclusions)?
Was it barely visible when the stone was clean and dirty? Remember that IRL after wearing the ring for a bit the stone won't be spotless, and of course it's how it looks when she's wearing it that matters!

It is a recent report and numbers are fine, no red flags besides visibility and effects of the inclusions.
 
I looked under scope after it was cleaned. This is under the store lighting.

I plugged in these numbers on the HCA tool. can someone check my numbers since I'm new at this?
http://idealbrilliant.com/diamond/product/certificate?lot=P512

I wasn't sure on the depth....I think it is 62.4%

62.4% depth, 56% table, 35° crown angle, 41° pavilion angle


It gives me a 2.3 based on those numbers.......over the suggested 2.
 
jyeh74|1337830002|3202304 said:
I looked under scope after it was cleaned. This is under the store lighting.

I plugged in these numbers on the HCA tool. can someone check my numbers since I'm new at this?
http://idealbrilliant.com/diamond/product/certificate?lot=P512

I wasn't sure on the depth....I think it is 62.4%

62.4% depth, 56% table, 35° crown angle, 41° pavilion angle


It gives me a 2.3 based on those numbers.......over the suggested 2.
Click to expand...


Those are the right numbers, but they are fine - the HCA is a weeding tool that tells you that stones with scores under 2 may be worth further investigation. It's not saying that stones that score above 2 are not worth considering, nor is it saying that stones with scores under 2 are automatically winners. The numbers on this one are fine, I promise ::)

That said there are some issues since GIA averages those measurements around 8 sections of stone, then rounds, then prints the rounded averages on the report, so we don't know anything about what ranges there might be in the measurements around the stone. We also can't tell you anything about optical symmetry (the symmetry of patterning you see in the stone), the symmetry grade on the report is for physical facet-meet symmetry only and the two don't necessarily walk hand in hand. To give you info on these sorts of details we'd need more info - either a full scan, or some pics.

I strongly recommend that you go back in and look at the stone in a variety of lighting types (spotlights under the counter, the diffuse lighting in the back office, "mixed" type of light like in the corridors or in the middle of the room... make sure you like what you see through a variety of light types) and inspect it both clean and greasy (just rub your fingers over it).
 
I tried plugging in these numbers for another stone I found

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/certificate.aspx?idno=2793558&file_name=1 price is $44,119

62.5% depth, 54% table, 35.5° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle

Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Very Good
Total of 1.4

But if you look at the report, you can see some inclusions in the middle. But this gives a better number (1.4) compared to the original one at 2.3 with the twining wisp.
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/certificate.aspx?idno=2750031&file_name=1 price is $43,714

62.4% depth, 56% table, 35° crown angle, 41° pavilion angle

Light Return Very Good
Fire Very Good
Scintillation Very Good
Spread
or diameter for weight Very Good
Total of 2.3

Now this is the most expensive one out of the three, but it gives the worst HCA number
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/certificate.aspx?idno=2781273&file_name=1 price is $48,329

61.2% depth, 60% table, 34° crown angle, 41.4° pavilion angle

Light Return Good
Fire Fair
Scintillation Fair
Spread
or diameter for weight Very Good
Total of 5.3

I don't understand why the most expensive one rates the WORST number = 5.3. Other than the fact that its about 1 tenth of a carat bigger (if even that). All three stones are GIA xxx. Polish is excellent, symemetry is excellent and cut is excellent.
 
Edited*

HCA takes only four inputs (that are already averaged then rounded if using a GIA report) - it doesn't consider the other proportions or optical symmetry, both of which will nuance look and light return. HCA is merciless on steeper pav angles, if you change by 0.1deg you can see that it'll make a big difference in score. Either of the first two are worth further investigation IMO, the third is not (presumably you would have to have WF call these in? If so you'll be responsible for shipping on stones you don't want)

An article on the range of GIA EX cut grade https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn%E2%80%99t_show
 
Yssie|1337834489|3202347 said:
Edited*

HCA takes only four inputs (that are already averaged then rounded if using a GIA report) - it doesn't consider the other proportions or optical symmetry, both of which will nuance look and light return. HCA is merciless on steeper pav angles, if you change by 0.1deg you can see that it'll make a big difference in score. Either of the first two are worth further investigation IMO, the third is not (presumably you would have to have WF call these in? If so you'll be responsible for shipping on stones you don't want)

An article on the range of GIA EX cut grade https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn%E2%80%99t_show
Click to expand...
+1 x 10000000000

I think you should spend a few hours (or weeks like I did) really reading up on the articles like the one Yssie posted and on goodoldgold.com . They will help you better understand what to look for, what to avoid, and to understand diamond cut quality in general. :wavey: It'll definitely explain why the most expensive one you found has the worst score for sure!
 
jyeh74|1337829036|3202291 said:
Christina,

http://idealbrilliant.com/diamond/product/certificate?lot=P512
Click to expand...

If this is eye clean to your standard, then I think the numbers look good. Yssie gave you really good input as to why some stones will come back scoring above a 2 and could still be a potentially beautiful diamond. In fact I believe that gorgeous diamonds often get passed along because of HCA scores all time. I should mention while you are searching, that if you find a diamond graded by AGS and the cut is ideal (AGS0) then there is no need to enter the angles into the HCA. AGS already grades for light performance so it doesn't matter what the HCA says about the stone. An AGS light performance grading will always trump the HCA.
 
Yes. The HCA helped you narrow your choices to this point, and now the Ideal Scope images will help you make a selection. If the IS images come back very similar then, eye cleanliness, price, color, size or some some other factor will help to make a final decision. Without seeing pics of the actual diamonds, I think I'm leaning toward the 3.05 H SI1. The clarity plot looks cleaner and the only additional comments are pinpoints not shown, the 3.02 has some clouds and additional twinning whisps that aren't listed on the clarity plot. This may not be a big deal, or it might be, without seeing the stones you can't tell, but having clouds and even the twinning wisps can affect it's performance, as Karl mentioned.

I'd ask WF to pull both diamonds for you and have them evaluated and photographed. They can do the ideal scope and ASET images, and their gemologist will evaluate the stones and give you an opinion on which he/she feels is the better choice. I think you've done a great job narrowing your search and finding two great contenders! :appl: The pricing looks good for diamonds of this size and quality too.
 
Wait, is the one that you saw in person the same as the WF 3.02 ct? The report numbers are the same...
 
stargurl/christina,

this is the one I saw in person, sorry posted the wrong one. The other two are WF, that havent looked in person. They want to charge for shipping ($150 each) So I didnt do that

For the one I saw in person, here is the HCA report
59% depth, 59.8% table, 33° crown angle, 41° pavilion angle
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Very Good
Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.1 - Excellent

But the GIA cert shows a ton of twinning wisps and feathers.
 

Attachments

I still like the proportions on this one better.
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/certificate.aspx?idno=2793558&file_name=1 price is $44,119
score of 1.4 HCA

The stone that you saw in person is a 60/60 diamond. It will have a different visual appearance than the one linked above. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, just that they are different. Personally I like a small table and high crown, because I really like all the colored light, but that's a personal preference and not one that everyone shares.


If you didn't want to go through the expense of having the WF stone called in, you could ask your local jeweler to show you another stone with similar proportion to it (it wouldn't need to be the same ct wieght) and compare it to the stone you are already considering. This will give you a better idea of the visual differences between the two stones and if it would be worth the additional expense of bringing the WF stone in. It may be worth asking if WF would be willing to have the stone shipped to an independent appraiser in your area as well, this way you would be able to see the stone for yourself before actually buying the stone. If your local jeweler would agree to do the same thing, then you would be able to view them both side by side and make a decision that way.

EDIT: it looks like this stone has lots of potential. Can your jeweler do Ideal scope images?
 
Post ASET if you can. People here are helpful.
 
I know red is good and black is bad.

What does green mean as there is a ton of green?

I wonder if green is caused by all the twining wisps?

Christina, you said 60/60 is not a good proportion. What is a good proportion? I just know that table % should be between 54-57% and depth I am not so sure.

Idealscope 3 ct.jpg
 
No, I don't mean that 60/60 isn't a good proportion, it's just not one that I prefer, but many do. I personally like a small table and high crown, for me the profile is more appealing than a stone with a shallow crown height and I also like the facet patterning that results from having a smaller table. It's very much a personal preference. There have been threads here on 60/60's. I'll see if I can find a good one for you.

Here's a link that will help you read your ASET. This is the image for the local diamond?
 
Here's a cheat sheet that has been posted around here. Keep in mind it's just a narrow guide and there can be beautiful stones that fall outside this narrow list.

Table 54-58
depth 60-62.3
crown 34-35 (I'd say 35.5)
pavilion 40.6-41

girdle thin-slightly thick

polish ex-very good
symmetry ex-very good

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-grading-chart-round
 
Yes that is the local one. So much green.

Whats green?
You are right, HCA gave it a score of 1.1 but idealscope looks like this with all the green. Definitely not well performing.
I guess this is all subjective. Some like 60/60 and others dont. It doesnt really do anything if the table is closet to 60 or between 54-57%, which is the "desired" table range. Its all preference. But in this situation, we have a 60/60 diamond, whose HCA score of 1.1 ranked well BUT had a not so good idealscope with all this green. I will search to see what green means. Im guessing its due to the twining wisps.
 
Jyeh - That's not the greatest ASET, everything seems pretty erratic. And the green just means it's not as bright in those areas vs. areas of alot of red - which is the best: brightest. I'm not sure if it's the picture quality but nothing seems "crisp" and defined in that stone. I think you can find a better one than this. Are you looking in the diamond district in LA?
 
Titan, this is from liberty diamonds in tustin. They told me this is a great si1 3 ct on the market! Then i asked them to send me the idealscope.

Is idealscope different fron ASET?
 
I see. They are the same concept, to put it simply. They are little tools that measure light performance (obviously you know that by now being on this forum) using reflector technology. ASET is used more commonly for fancy cut stones, but also for rounds too. I think you can use them for either or, but they help you determine the same thing..
 
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