What do you think of this inclusion?

[LudwigBayer]

I've been looking for a 2.6+ Carat round, XXX range (ok VG is fine for one of these also), I or J color with SI1 or 2.

This diamond has caught my eye, since it's hitting most of what I'd like to get for my future wife, but I'm worried about that one large inclusion.

GIA 2141589462 (http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=2141589462)

The price is fair, provided that this really isn't visible to the eye. So my question is first what you think of the inclusions, and second, what the chances are that this kind of inclusion would be rates SI1 from GIA and actually be visible to the eye?

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

Your input is greatly appreciated!

 

[RockyRacoon]

I'll leave the thorough assessment of that stone for others, as I am not an expert on inclusions at this size. I will say that I'm not sure how eye-clean the stone will be, with the crystal in the center of the table on the inclusion plot, with this size of stone. I believe you would need to see the stone in person, to verify.

Check this stone out as a comp, as it is the same size (actually slightly larger than the originally linked stone), with better color and clarity:

2.58ct, I, VS1
http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=view-id-diamond-infinity-new&id=1200

If the stone you're looking at is anywhere close to the price of the stone I've linked, you have an easy decision here, as the HPD stone is a better color and clarity, with a proven top-of-the-line cut. If you can get the HPD stone for the same price as the other one, go for the HPD stone!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I've been looking for a 2.6+ Carat round, XXX range (ok VG is fine for one of these also), I or J color with SI1 or 2.

This diamond has caught my eye, since it's hitting most of what I'd like to get for my future wife, but I'm worried about that one large inclusion.

GIA 2141589462 (http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=2141589462)

The price is fair, provided that this really isn't visible to the eye. So my question is first what you think of the inclusions, and second, what the chances are that this kind of inclusion would be rates SI1 from GIA and actually be visible to the eye?

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

Your input is greatly appreciated!

Because of the large size of the stone, the fact that the crystal is the grade setting inclusion (listed first in keys), and because the plot of the crystal indicates that it is pretty large, it is likely that a person with healthy vision will be able to see it with the naked eye. Having said that, it may not be at all obvious to the casual observer and it may not detract from the overall beauty of the diamond. So you will really have to assess it for yourself to determine if it meets your particular desires.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think you have to have a magnified image of the stone. There is no possible way to choose an SI diamond without seeing it. Of course, I wouldn't buy anything that costs thousands of dollars without at least a picture! I'd also want it to be eyeclean from the side if the setting will have open sides.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

GIA describes the Si category as containing inclusions that are "noticeable" to an experienced grader under 10X.

 

[LudwigBayer]

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

GIA describes the Si category as containing inclusions that are "noticeable" to an experienced grader under 10X.

Yea, specifically a skilled grader. Shouldn't this mean it is not easy to see for a layman under 10x?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

GIA describes the Si category as containing inclusions that are "noticeable" to an experienced grader under 10X.

Yea, specifically a skilled grader. Shouldn't this mean it is not easy to see for a layman under 10x?

I don't think that necessarily follows. Sometimes beginners can pick up a loupe and see inclusions pretty well. Often they struggle. That is why the definition assumes that the person has some skill.

Another thing that I did not point out initially is that the crystal is located under the table. That will make it a little easier to see with the naked eye, as opposed to if it were located under the "busier" crown facets.

 

[LudwigBayer]

Thank you, yes it being under the table is the problem. I wouldn't have many qualms about buying this if it was in a more faceted area.

The problem, of course, is that this is from an online retailer where I can't seem to get actual pictures from. Not sure what my recourse is other than "not buy", without having more information.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you, yes it being under the table is the problem. I wouldn't have many qualms about buying this if it was in a more faceted area.

The problem, of course, is that this is from an online retailer where I can't seem to get actual pictures from. Not sure what my recourse is other than "not buy", without having more information.

If you are comfortable with the company and they have a reasonable return policy, you could always buy it and return if it wasn't what you are looking for. But if you have a critical eye and don't want to see anything at all, this is a stone you will probably end up returning.

 

[RandG]

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

GIA describes the Si category as containing inclusions that are "noticeable" to an experienced grader under 10X.

Yea, specifically a skilled grader. Shouldn't this mean it is not easy to see for a layman under 10x?

You are correct. There are many SI1 stones where you would never see the inclusion. I have several SI1 stones, where inclusions are not visible at all, and even difficult to see under a loupe. Also, GIA often takes the most conservative approach when grading a stone. Your SI1 may be closer to VS that it is to SI2.

I would love to see am image of your stone, if its possible to share.

Good luck in your search!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The direct definitions from GIA on SI1 would tell me that you'd not easily be able to see this with 10x magnification, but what's depicted here is seemingly so large that it's kind of confusing me.

GIA describes the Si category as containing inclusions that are "noticeable" to an experienced grader under 10X.

Yea, specifically a skilled grader. Shouldn't this mean it is not easy to see for a layman under 10x?

You are correct. There are many SI1 stones where you would never see the inclusion. I have several SI1 stones, where inclusions are not visible at all, and even difficult to see under a loupe. Also, GIA often takes the most conservative approach when grading a stone. Your SI1 may be closer to VS that it is to SI2.

I would love to see am image of your stone, if its possible to share.

Good luck in your search!

RandG is absolutely right. The Si category is broad and depending on the type of inclusions that the grade is based upon, you may or may not see anything with the naked eye, and it may or may not be difficult for a novice to see with magnification. Certain inclusions such as clouds and twinning wisps are sort of amorphous or transparent by nature. Crystals are more easily resolved in most cases. Many people prefer the difficult to see inclusions, however they may contribute more to scattering of light than crystals. This is why clarity grading is not specifically based upon whether a stone is "eye-clean". Also, again, it depends on the size of the stone. The grading call is relative to some degree. That is, if you magically put the inclusion in this 2.69 into a .50 ct, the grade would not be Si1 - it would be Si2 or worse. Conversely, if you put a crystal making the Si1 grade of a .50 into a 2.69, it would most likely get a grade of VS.

 

[LudwigBayer]

Thanks, everyone, for your replies.
I've asked the supplier to check on the diamond and they made it clear that it is not eye clean.

So I'm looking on. What do you guys think of this one?
GIA 1162171788
( http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=1162171788 )

It only has Twinning Wisps, which, as I understand are rarely visible to the naked eye in normal lighting. The only thing that concerns me on this is that they are fairly long, and two of them stretch almost through the diameter of the stone - can this affect the durability significantly?

 

[LudwigBayer]

This one as well: 6172259399
( http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=6172259399)

At first glance this looks like a real winner, but then the notes... Why would they not show the clouds that affected the clarity grade??

 

[TC1987]

"clouds not shown" as grade setting inclusion usually means there are lots of clouds, or the diamond has overall haze. The clouds are too numerous to plot.

 

[LudwigBayer]

"clouds not shown" as grade setting inclusion usually means there are lots of clouds, or the diamond has overall haze. The clouds are too numerous to plot.

Ouch, that's not good then.
How about the TWisps?