Understanding SI2 clarity

[EncikG]

I was wondering if someone could help me understand clarity grading.
Here’s 2 SI2 clarity stones from a preferred vendor.
The first stone has comments such as additional twinning wisp and surface graining not shown while the second stone has no comments other than what is on the clarity plot.

No doubt the grading lab deemed these SI2 clarities but why does stone 2 look dramatically better, almost like a VS clarity plot?

I was told grading does not take into account severity, so a stone might look cleaner on a clarity plot but the inclusion could be ‘worse’?

Thanks

 

[princessandthepear]

Is the grade setting inclusion for stone 2 clouds? If numerous and dense, they might affect performance.

 

[Lovesparklesparle]

I’d say that crystal on stone 2 is eye visible ie quite severe and sets the clarity grade despite the rest of the stone appearing relatively clean. It being under the table doesn’t help.

Stone 1 looks like a mess but the inclusions would be smaller and harder to see.

I’d ask to see actual images of bothe stones. Both may be acceptable, both may be a disaster.

 

[kmoro]

I was wondering if someone could help me understand clarity grading.
Here’s 2 SI2 clarity stones from a preferred vendor.
The first stone has comments such as additional twinning wisp and surface graining not shown while the second stone has no comments other than what is on the clarity plot.

No doubt the grading lab deemed these SI2 clarities but why does stone 2 look dramatically better, almost like a VS clarity plot?

I was told grading does not take into account severity, so a stone might look cleaner on a clarity plot but the inclusion could be ‘worse’?

Thanks

This is a good question. I thought grading took severity into account ... would it not necessarily take severity into account????

 

[EncikG]

This is a good question. I thought grading took severity into account ... would it not necessarily take severity into account????

I have no idea thus was asking the question.

There are no grade setting inclusions under the comments

Both are CBI stones and vetted eye clean but I’m having problems understanding why both get SI2 clarity grades

 

[Bron357]

You can have crystal inclusions, clouds and pin pricks which are almost invisible to the eye and you can have 1 carbon speck in the wrong spot (multiplied via the facet pattern) making the diamond look awful.
Grading is done at x10 which is better than what the unaided eye can see but some types of inclusions and their position can mean the difference between “eye clean” and not.

 

[Karl_K]

A si2 graded diamond can have a lot of small things going on that are not dense and get an si2 grade and be totally eye clean and if they dont cause scatter(snow globe effect) can be good values.
On the other hand a si2 diamond could have one large inclusion or 1 denser cloud.
It is the density of the inclusions that make the difference.

 

[Karl_K]

What is listed under key to symbols on the second ones report?

 

[EncikG]

What is listed under key to symbols on the second ones report?

 

[Karl_K]

2nd stone is a grade setting si2 crystal.
It must be white and very carefully placed to be eye clean.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of si2 grade setting crystals are not eyeclean.

 

[lovedogs]

Agree with others saying that stone 1 has lots of small stuff, whereas stone 2 had one larger thing. In general, I would assume that one big thing making an SI2 wouldnt be eye clean, but since both are CBI and they guarantee eye clean, I trust that both are gorgeous.

 

[bmfang]

The twinning wisps on stone 1 look horrendous on the plot, however, they are one of my more “preferred” inclusion types at SI1 & SI2 clarity grades compared with crystals, clouds and pinpoints.

 

[Lykame]

I personally much prefer the second one. Yes that's a large crystal but you'll either see it or you won't. Sometimes once you've seen it you won't unsee it and that can be an issue. Also eye clean does mean that if you get closer than the definition the vendor uses, you may be able to see it. This can have further significance if it's not you that you're buying for. But I still prefer it.

In general, people frequently say that twinning wisps are the 'best' type of inclusion, and that's probably usually true. I think with CBI stones I would trust that, so even though the plot does look messy it may be really difficult or impossible to see - and that may very much so make it more favourable to you than stone 2. CBI specifically checks their stones for clarity issues, light performance issues etc so I would trust the first stone from CBI. From other places not so much. As a word of caution, I had an SI1 with twinning wisps and surface graining as the only thing. I could see it - it affected the way the light passed through the stone as the structure of the very crystal was different in that area. I am now much more suspicious of stones with that kind of clarity plot... But even considering that, would still be trusting of the stone as it comes from CBI and they are so careful with their vetting.

Another thing to remember is that the online plot will look terrible because all the lines are thick dense things. The paper copy will be much more representational.

Any chance you can see these stones? Or if you're working with Wink he's usually able to do videos for customers.

 

[AV_]

Reading plots means immagining the inclusions for what they are. There is no substantial documentation anywhere.

You need to see these stones at 1X - without magnification... I don't think anyone knows what this means on the screen.

 

[bmfang]

Reading plots means immagining the inclusions for what they are. There is no substantial documentation anywhere.

You need to see these stones at 1X - without magnification... I don't think anyone knows what this means on the screen.

This.

Nothing beats seeing the stone (in person or via a photo/video) so you can try to find those inclusions. If one can’t see them, then eye clean it is.

 

[AV_]

The OUTRAGEOUSLY magnified videos of diamonds do not seem fair to clarity - they exaggerate characteristics (and tint too... as all macro photography does, unless set up to not...). They remind me a good optical microscope I had - one with a inbuilt camera built in connected to a decent screen of 8in or so... SO much more comfortable watching the screen than using the perfect binoculars! And the HD videos are very much better than I'd get them through the microscope camera. Of course, it is a CHORE to shoot the same thing you are seeing - just because the optical characteristics of the camera & the visor are nothing like. SUM: videos are fiction of diamonds...


Fitting appearance & fact...

IHMO, the texture of crystals with pervasive, transparent whisps is mesmerizing - like running water that stands still nonetheless .) ... I wish some of these features were ever on large enough scale to appreciate - like the star & eye effect on some other stones; it takes beyond luck in terms of crystal growth.

 

[Karl_K]

I personally much prefer the second one. Yes that's a large crystal but you'll either see it or you won't. Sometimes once you've seen it you won't unsee it and that can be an issue. Also eye clean does mean that if you get closer than the definition the vendor uses, you may be able to see it. This can have further significance if it's not you that you're buying for. But I still prefer it.

In general, people frequently say that twinning wisps are the 'best' type of inclusion, and that's probably usually true. I think with CBI stones I would trust that, so even though the plot does look messy it may be really difficult or impossible to see - and that may very much so make it more favourable to you than stone 2. CBI specifically checks their stones for clarity issues, light performance issues etc so I would trust the first stone from CBI. From other places not so much. As a word of caution, I had an SI1 with twinning wisps and surface graining as the only thing. I could see it - it affected the way the light passed through the stone as the structure of the very crystal was different in that area. I am now much more suspicious of stones with that kind of clarity plot... But even considering that, would still be trusting of the stone as it comes from CBI and they are so careful with their vetting.

Another thing to remember is that the online plot will look terrible because all the lines are thick dense things. The paper copy will be much more representational.

Any chance you can see these stones? Or if you're working with Wink he's usually able to do videos for customers.

Yes , they need to be vetted because they are not always eyeclean or not have scatter but when they are eyeclean with no scatter they can be good values.

I didn't see they are cbi.
Arrange an appointment with Wink to discuss the stones while he is viewing them live.
Wink is a lot of fun to talk to.

 

[sledge]

There are no grade setting inclusions under the comments

FYI, grade setting inclusions are the inclusions that is listed first on the clarity plot.

That said, the first stone has a grade setting inclusion of twinning whisps, with the second worst being a feather and the third worst (least severe) being a crystal.

The second stone has a grade setting inclusion of crystal. The second worst being a feather. And the third worst (least severe) being a pinpoint.

It's actually a good thing that no grade setting inclusions are listed under the comments on either stone. One such example is the infamous, "clarity is based on clouds not shown" under the comments section. That is a particularly nasty note as plots normally look very clean but as the note states, there are clouds not shown that is defining the clarity grading, which normally results in a milky/cloudy looking diamond.

I'd echo others thoughts here to have a talk with Wink about both stones. He can inspect thoroughly and test under different light conditions, and probably even shoot some additional photos and video to provide you the warm fuzzies you need. If I were considering an SI2 stone, I think this is a perfect situation where you have a well respected super ideal vendor that is very trustworthy (even if it costs him the sell) to ensure you get a full accurate representation of the stone you are considering buying.

 

[AdaBeta27]

There are *many threads on here discussing twinning wisps. And many testimonials from owners of such stones who call them eyeclean. I do recall comments from pros that said twinning wisps can have an adverse effect on brilliance. In the end, diamonds have to be seen. This is particularly true with large diamonds because the larger the diamond, also the larger the inclusion can be and still get a VS or SI grade, which might mean that some buyers might need to also go up in clarity as they go up in size in order to meet their own expectations of "eye clean." I am one of those who dropped the requirement for "100% eye clean at all times, under all lighting conditions and viewing angles." Honestly, people get too wrapped up in that. Do you want a big rock on your hand that will make others envious, or do you demand 100% eyeclean but go down in size? My superideal SI2 has a dark garnet colored crystal * if * one knows exactly how to position the diamond to see it. But nobody else knows, and I don't volunteer information. Half the price of same specs except VS1.

 

[KristinTech]

My stone is an SI2 CBI. I’d be sure to ask for the videos/pics from normal viewing distance (e.g., 10 inches or whatever your personal requirements or preferences may be). Magnification is great if that’s what you need, but it’s not everyday viewing. Just my two cents! I love my SI2.

 

[CheeSauce]

I am waiting for my engagement ring from HPD but I also got a SI2.

The plot on the report initially looked pretty scary:



However, Wink made me a video to show that the diamond is eye clean:

Hopefully you can request additional videos or pictures too!

 

[bmfang]

I am waiting for my engagement ring from HPD but I also got a SI2.

The plot on the report initially looked pretty scary:



However, Wink made me a video to show that the diamond is eye clean:

Hopefully you can request additional videos or pictures too!

At this magnification level, I can make out the feathers in your stone, but at they are out near the girdle, you aren’t going to notice them (if you can’t already see them) once this stunner of a stone is set.

The small black crystals under the table look scary at the magnification level Wink was using to take the video, but I highly doubt that you’d see them at normal viewing distances (i.e. a foot from your eyes).

 

[gm89uk]

Similar point in another topic:

Just to note, 6 twinning twists on an SI1 isn't worse compared to x1 line in an SI1. In fact, they are usually better.

It usually means there are several smaller eyeclean inclusions that collectively add up to give an SI1 grade, rather than 1 large visible inclusion being the culprit.

Therefore perhaps counterintuitively, a busy plot can mean a cleaner diamond to the naked eye.

 

[Gussie]

I have an eyeclean SI1 ACA with a grade setting twinning wisp. The plot is so ugly on paper that I almost didn't even consider the stone. It is COMPLETELY eyeclean. And I am thrilled to have saved the $$$ that an S1 brings.

 

[CheeSauce]

At this magnification level, I can make out the feathers in your stone, but at they are out near the girdle, you aren’t going to notice them (if you can’t already see them) once this stunner of a stone is set.

The small black crystals under the table look scary at the magnification level Wink was using to take the video, but I highly doubt that you’d see them at normal viewing distances (i.e. a foot from your eyes).

I can definitely see some imperfections when he is zoomed into the stone but when he zooms out later in the video, I really can’t see anything. Maybe I will feel differently once I get the stone. However, I just see sparkles sparkles from the video when he zooms out and the savings for the si2 was significant!

 

[gm89uk]

I'm a big believer that high clarity is completely over rated, and the least bang for buck of the 4 C's, glorified by online zoomed in videos. Either you see it, or you don't.

 

[EncikG]

Thanks to everyone for your input on the topic. As the thread suggest, I was keen to understand abit more about clarity grading, especially how two SI2 plots could look so different on the grading report.

I was looking for grade setting inclusions under the comments section. But was also not aware that the inclusions are listed in descending order, or the fact that a single dense inclusion might be worse than many smaller ones...

I did not go down the path with CBI earlier and I’m in the process of finalising a trinity ring with stones from JannPaul and Brian Gavin. But the idea was always to look for another main stone in a solitaire setting.

I’m not ready to pull the trigger on either of those 2 stones but needless to say, CBI is on my radar for that main stone.

 

[kmoro]

The comment section is just saying that additional things are visible at 10x, but they are not significant enough to affect the clarity grade.