Why do you want clarity to be MIND clean?

[pyramid]

Due to seeing stuff in the stone under MAGNIFICATION

Due to fears of durability

Due to a diamond being more rare with less inclusions


For HIGHER clarity diamonds F/IF/VVS/VS. This is nothing to do with seeing inclusions with the naked eye, only for people who want MIND clean

 

[Shay37]

Pyramid, I have a VS1. I don't think it's what you had in mind for this poll, and it was just a fluke that I got it. Had I known about eyeclean at the time, you can bet your Aunt Fanny it would be an eyeclean SI of some sort or other.

My only reason to reply is to say that I think you missed a choice. It's kind of along the lines of the reason I picked one SC and one ACA when I chose diamonds for me. I just wanted to know that I had the tippy top bestest cut ever. I think that's the choice you're missing. That compulsion fits its own little niche. The choice would be:

Because I wanted to KNOW it was the best clarity. Make sense?

shay

 

[pyramid]

Yes Shay, I understand what you are saying, I never thought about that one, and I think that one would relate in a big way too for people choosing Flawless/Internally Flawless/VVS.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I wanted it "difficult to see with 10x loupe" so I got a VS2 but then was slightly disappointed to have gotten a high VS2 and can''t find anything with 10x. I was hoping for one tiny little something that could be the stone''s birthmark that only I knew where to find it. I''m just going to have to get a 20x to do so LOL I admit it''s been fun watching jewelers looking for them - for some reason it seems jewelers really rely on clarity to give their stamp of "wow great stone". The cut of my stone also would show more than a round brilliant so I''m glad I went VS2. I would *consider* SI1 for a round.

 

[tanalasta]

A diamond is symbolic.

So is an e-ring.

Sure, buying a VS is practical on both the wallet and the eye. It looks the same as an IF without a loupe.

A an IF is internally flawless. It is almost perfect and something to strive towards in a relationship. It took that little of effort to find. I don't really care about how it looks under a loupe or durability. It's all in the mind

 

[Stone Hunter]

I wanted to go lower in clarity than I did. There were only a few stones that met all my wants. One that I did look at that was an SI looked very scarry under magnification. I was concerned about it''s durability. The vendor was a B&M and couldn''t tell me whethor it had any feathers that broke the surface.

So I ended up with a VS1 that''s super clean borderline higher. But my choice was all about shape and cut and facet pattern. With a cushion the facet pattern varies and it was very important to me.

So I''m one of the few that picked durability in your poll.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks everyone for doing this Poll.

 

[kcoursolle]

I ended up purchasing a radiant with higher clarity (VVS2) mostly due to inventory reasons. There are very few well-cut radiants out there and I didn''t want to rule a stone out *because* of the clarity. I would have preferred, however, if the stone was lower clarity to save money.

 

[Gypsy]

I have an asscher, which requires VS... so mine is a VS1. This is just the nicest stone we could find. Would have been fine with an eyeclean VS2 too!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/14/2007 8:33:47 PM
Author: Gypsy
I have an asscher, which requires VS... so mine is a VS1. This is just the nicest stone we could find. Would have been fine with an eyeclean VS2 too!

Nonsense, I buy and sell heaps of totally eye clean SI''s.

Maybe I am not mind clean?
Maybe I have a dirty mind? That needs cleaning?

Pyramid have you gained any evidence of a diamond breaking because of inclusions yet?

I see several each and every year for 3 years that break where there are no inclusions - 99% on the girdle in the octahedral side where the girdle is thinnest and usually when there is a shallow crown angle and thin girdle at the same time.

But you maintain your mission

 

[pyramid]

No, Garry, I am starting to believe you. I have actually decided on the clarity of the diamond I will buy and I am going with VS2, and only because I am in the UK and the diamond would be from USA, if I did end up buying here which I would if I could get GIA or AGS certificate and a daimond with a very good cut then I would be happy with an eyeclean SI1.


Oh and despite what Garry says about seeing diamonds for 3 years, he has been in the diamond business longer than that

 

[ladykemma]

i want super myopic clean.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/15/2007 5:27:12 AM
Author: Pyramid
No, Garry, I am starting to believe you.

When will you be finished P?

Date: 2/15/2007 5:27:12 AM
Author: Pyramid

Oh and despite what Garry says about seeing diamonds for 3 years, he has been in the diamond business longer than that

oops - 30, not 3

 

[pyramid]

I will probably be finished, when Rockdoc and yourself come to an agreement about strain in diamonds

 

[tanalasta]

In relation to the relationship between durability and clarity -
One thing that we look at in 'studies' is whether there is a statistically significant difference in a result. For instance, a X% increased risk of breaking a diamond because it has Y clarity. So the questions are:
1. Is an IF stone less prone to breakage compared to one of a lesser grade?
2. Is this observation (if it's true) statistically significant and consistently reproducible or purely due to chance?
3. More importantly, does it matter? For instance some people may say Y is 50% more likely than X when the real figures show the real figures of X happening is 0.01% and Y is 0.015% (hence 50% increase!). So is an IF stone that less likely to break compared to a VVS2? Or how about VS2 / SI1? But would this difference influence our decisions and our setting choices in real life?

In medicine, there are multi-centre randomised controlled trials where large amounts of data are collated, variables and confounding factors identified and then inferences made based on the data results. Pity it wouldn't be practical to design such a study here ... and thus the durability question may never be fully answered. Until there is 'hard evidence', people will always stand by their own personal experiences and opinions. Makes for exciting heated discussions and debates

Although, just as controversial - the GIA attempted to design then implemented a 'large expensive' study in diamond cut/brilliance etc... that they now apply in their certificates.

I know people who have bought an IF stone. The reasons may be simply practical rather than the ones listed (A buyer may want a D-F coloured stone in a particular Ct weight and cut quality. The vendor only has that criteria with IF clarity 'in stock' and a lower clarity and cheaper stone wasn't and if one had the money and couldn't wait ... plus loved the stone on sight - then they simply paid the extra dollars)

On an aside, High clarity, colourless stones with excellent cut and performance are exceptionally hard to find. Do a search on PS for a D-F , <VVS (or even IF) that is ACA H&A and you'd be hard pressed to locate many stones at all. Most vendors stock what their market want to buy. In the US and Australia, I would assume that would be 'value for money stones' G-J ; VS - SI1.

On a side note, I also notice with interest there are not many AGS cert diamonds in Australia.

 

[Mara]

i don't care if i can see things under magnification.

i just don't want to see a big booger in it with my naked eye. that's mind clean for me.

i have had SI2's where the plots look SCARY but in person all the inclusions are tiny...my last SI2 had a small black thing in it under the table off to the side and i could see it when i moved the diamond up to my eye and stared very hard....but that's not 'normal wear' and no one but me ever saw it....and it got me a great deal on the stone and an exceptionally cut stone at that. so many people have crappily cut IF stones that they paid out the nose for! for me it's about the best bargain on the best quality item. and to specify on what quality means to me: quality = cut quality... not high color or clarity. but that's just me. i started out with a VS1 then got an SI1 and then an SI2 and now an SI1. i'd be fine with a fab SI2 again.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 2/15/2007 5:04:56 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/14/2007 8:33:47 PM
Author: Gypsy
I have an asscher, which requires VS... so mine is a VS1. This is just the nicest stone we could find. Would have been fine with an eyeclean VS2 too!

Nonsense, I buy and sell heaps of totally eye clean SI''s.

Gary, really? With asschers? I thought it was almost impossible to find an eye clean SI asscher? Good to know if that''s not true, though.

In anything but a step cut, BTW... I would be fine with an SI.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 2/15/2007 11:29:14 AM
Author: Mara
i don''t care if i can see things under magnification.

i just don''t want to see a big booger in it with my naked eye. that''s mind clean for me.

TDT! (Totally Ditto That!)

 

[swingirl]

I have a VVS1 because that was athe nicest stone I could find at the time. But would have been happier with a larger S1!!

 

[SuzyQZ]

When my husband bought my wedding ring, he thought clarity and squareness (princess cut) was more important than any thing else. He was steered so wrong by a jewelry designer. So at her advice he purchased a VVS2 (overkill) that was almost perfectly square (6.09 X 6.07) but suffered from bad cut.

Thanks to PS we are both more educated now and our sweet spot is an H/I/J VS2 or eye clean SI1 with cut now being king.

Mindclean to me is knowing I can''t see anything in my ring with my naked eye under very close scrutiny. Mindclean = eyeclean to me. I don''t care about magnification clean.

We lived and LEARNED!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It was hard for me to choose between those choices. I just wanted an overall high quality diamond with above average or better on all the 4 C's. I also didn't want to see ugly things with a loupe.

(ETA: my ring is VS1 and my earrings are VS2)

 

[FireGoddess]

I have a VS2, but I started with an SI1 and it wasn''t the clarity I had a problem with, it was the color.

For me, clarity wise, eyeclean is mindclean. BUT...for me, eyeclean is at a distance of a few inches from my eye, not 10-12 inches.