Usefulness/limitations of online diamond pictures

[warheadwl]

Hi,

I've been shopping around James Allen for a ~1.7ct stone and I'm wondering how the experts use the diamond pictures that they provide.

Under 20x magnification, many inclusions look scary, and I know that it doesn't necessarily translate to whether the final diamond is eye-clean (have to keep in mind how small the diamond really is compared to the picture). I'd like to buy an AGS/GIA SI clarity stone and put the savings into size or cut quality.

I'm primarily concerned about table-facing inclusions, and not so much so about the side inclusions, as I'll be getting a 6-prong setting.

My questions are:

1) Are there any rules of thumb that you guys use to figure out whether an inclusion will not be eye clean? Location, color, size, type, etc.?

2) Are there types of inclusions that are invisible or minor-looking on the picture but will end up affecting eye-clean or transparency? Are there inclusions that can only be seen from an angle?

3) Are there viewing techniques for the picture that you recommend? Shrinking down the picture isn't a good idea (i.e. low monitor resolution), how about standing away from the monitor?

Thanks!

 

[yssie]

Hi,

I've been shopping around James Allen for a ~1.7ct stone and I'm wondering how the experts use the diamond pictures that they provide.
For three reasons - gives you some idea of optical symmetry, girdle treatments, and light return (it's only an idea unless they're really clear pics and the vendor is consistent about how they take pics so you have something to judge by - method of photography and lighting can have *drastic* effects on appearance and "apparent" performance!

Under 20x magnification, many inclusions look scary, and I know that it doesn't necessarily translate to whether the final diamond is eye-clean (have to keep in mind how small the diamond really is compared to the picture). I'd like to buy an AGS/GIA SI clarity stone and put the savings into size or cut quality.

I'm primarily concerned about table-facing inclusions, and not so much so about the side inclusions, as I'll be getting a 6-prong setting.

My questions are:

1) Are there any rules of thumb that you guys use to figure out whether an inclusion will not be eye clean? Location, color, size, type, etc.?
The labs grade using all of those - location, colour, size, type, and "relief" - black on black is less visible than white on black or black on white. Grading is done face-up through a 10x loupe.

2) Are there types of inclusions that are invisible or minor-looking on the picture but will end up affecting eye-clean or transparency? Are there inclusions that can only be seen from an angle?
There can be, but there's really no way to tell from the photo. I avoid SI stones with the notation "clarity grade based on X not shown" - I've seen X be clouds, pinpoints, and wisps.
Location obviously plays a big part in A) how visible an inclusion is from any given angle, and B) how much effect it has on light return, a crystal in the middle of the table can be low-relief if it's sitting on top of a pavilion main that darkens when you lean over it face-up but may be more visible from an angle... Some inclusions might be very visible in photos but placed such that IRL the 3D faceting and sparkle mask them surprisingly well.
There's also the fact that dirty stones often show inclusions more clearly (less distracting sparkle!), and in day to day wear the stone will never be as clean as it is freshly scrubbed, so that's something to consider.

Your best bet is always to have the loose stone shipped out to look at yourself. At the very least have your vendor look at the stone and evaluate it to your specifications for eyeclean

3) Are there viewing techniques for the picture that you recommend? Shrinking down the picture isn't a good idea (i.e. low monitor resolution), how about standing away from the monitor?
No.

Thanks!

 

[TC1987]

The larger the diamond, the more likely that an SI 1 will not be totally eye-cleam. A VS2 might not even be. 1ct to 1.25, not so much of an issue.

There has been "grade creep" over the past 5-8 years. It you look though the oldest SMTR (now called SMTB) eyecandy e-ring thread, and follow up by reading the related threads for individual rings, you'll see rather a lot of eyeclean SI2s. Forget about that now. You can just about bet that if it's eyeclean, it's SI1 or higher clarity and any SI2-graded inclusion will be seen.

Some inclusions are prongable, but consider the orientation of the arrows vs. location of the prongs, and you might find that the chices of mounting / head are very limited or may need to be custom, in order to both orient the arrows N-E-S-W and cover the inclusion with a prong.

Inclusions in the table area really have to be evaluated in person. Sometimes they are not seen without loupe / magnification, and sometimes they jump right out when you tilt the stone a certain way. Seeing an inclusion 5% to 2% of the time may or may not be acceptable.

Certain lighting may make an inclusion really stand out. Be sure to look at the diamond in many different types if lighting, especially office lighting (what's that called -- hemisphere??) I have an SI2 and the inclusion in under the table, and it's garnet colored. If you look just so, in office lighting, you can see the reddish-brown speck clearly at 24" if you have good eyes. It's a very small speck, and it doesn't bother me at all. Lots of people would be turned off, though.

Inclusions that show through the kite/bezel/upper girdle facets seem to hid a lot better than inclusions in the table area. There's a lot of scintillation and reflections and movement in those areas, and even a black blob can be there and not be real obvious. Inclusions in that peripheral area hide well, but may cause durability problems or may pose special issues/problems to consider when choosing the setting and mounting the diamond.

Just my $.02, hehe. Clarity is something I can easily compromise on.