shelleydog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 172
Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
What does "destroy the beauty" and "appropriate" mean?Date: 5/16/2009 5:44:44 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
I think NOT! As Garry said, they could issue the report based on just a scan, but THEY DO NOT! The eyes are also involved.
If the wisps were such that they destroyed the beauty of the diamond, the diamond would be graded appropriately.
I do disagree with Garry about twinning wisps. Some of the best values I have ever seen in a diamond were colorless wisps bringing the clarity down to an SI1 or SI2 while leaving the stone absolutely eye clean and dazzling from the top. (Unlike some, I only grade the diamond from the top when assigning a grade. I have no quarrel with those who want diamonds clean from all angles, but they are rarely able to buy a stone below VS1 (or sometimes a VS2) that meets their requirements, thus loosing out on many diamonds that many of my clients love love love!)
My personal recommendation is that our OP bring the diamond in to look at and return it if it does not make both the eyes and the heart happy. It is only by seeing the diamond in person that the OP can learn what pleases or does not please.
Just the thoughts of Wink on a Sunny Saturday afternoon. I am going to go play with my grand kids now...
A good vendor, or if you do not trust the vendor, a good appraiser, is vital.Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
No. AGS says which stones are AGS 0 and which stones are not. As vendors or graders we can say whether or not we agree with the grade but we can not arbitrarily change it. We can also have honest differences in opinions. Garry has already stated that he does not like twinning wisps. I have already stated that they can be a tremenous value, although I have not seen many of them in rounds, I see them much more often in cuts like trillions that make use of the rough that is more often cut into such shapes rather than rounds.Date: 5/16/2009 7:16:12 PM
Author: whatmeworry
What does ''destroy the beauty'' and ''appropriate'' mean?Date: 5/16/2009 5:44:44 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
I think NOT! As Garry said, they could issue the report based on just a scan, but THEY DO NOT! The eyes are also involved.
If the wisps were such that they destroyed the beauty of the diamond, the diamond would be graded appropriately.
I do disagree with Garry about twinning wisps. Some of the best values I have ever seen in a diamond were colorless wisps bringing the clarity down to an SI1 or SI2 while leaving the stone absolutely eye clean and dazzling from the top. (Unlike some, I only grade the diamond from the top when assigning a grade. I have no quarrel with those who want diamonds clean from all angles, but they are rarely able to buy a stone below VS1 (or sometimes a VS2) that meets their requirements, thus loosing out on many diamonds that many of my clients love love love!)
My personal recommendation is that our OP bring the diamond in to look at and return it if it does not make both the eyes and the heart happy. It is only by seeing the diamond in person that the OP can learn what pleases or does not please.
Just the thoughts of Wink on a Sunny Saturday afternoon. I am going to go play with my grand kids now...
Suppose a diamond was sent to AGSL and got an AGS0 based on ray tracing. It then goes to grader Garry and he says ''not beautiful'' this is an AGS2. And how does grader Garry come up with 2 instead of 1 or 3? But the same diamond could also go to grader Wink and he says ''This is beautiful'' this is an AGS0. Is this what happens?
WMW - its all about rules.Date: 5/16/2009 7:16:12 PM
Author: whatmeworry
What does ''destroy the beauty'' and ''appropriate'' mean?Date: 5/16/2009 5:44:44 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
I think NOT! As Garry said, they could issue the report based on just a scan, but THEY DO NOT! The eyes are also involved.
If the wisps were such that they destroyed the beauty of the diamond, the diamond would be graded appropriately.
I do disagree with Garry about twinning wisps. Some of the best values I have ever seen in a diamond were colorless wisps bringing the clarity down to an SI1 or SI2 while leaving the stone absolutely eye clean and dazzling from the top. (Unlike some, I only grade the diamond from the top when assigning a grade. I have no quarrel with those who want diamonds clean from all angles, but they are rarely able to buy a stone below VS1 (or sometimes a VS2) that meets their requirements, thus loosing out on many diamonds that many of my clients love love love!)
My personal recommendation is that our OP bring the diamond in to look at and return it if it does not make both the eyes and the heart happy. It is only by seeing the diamond in person that the OP can learn what pleases or does not please.
Just the thoughts of Wink on a Sunny Saturday afternoon. I am going to go play with my grand kids now...
Suppose a diamond was sent to AGSL and got an AGS0 based on ray tracing. It then goes to grader Garry and he says ''not beautiful'' this is an AGS2. And how does grader Garry come up with 2 instead of 1 or 3? But the same diamond could also go to grader Wink and he says ''This is beautiful'' this is an AGS0. Is this what happens?
Yes you will friend! It will be nice to have our "discussions" over a glass of (fill in your favorite beverage this year) and also to get deeply immersed in gemology and jewelry with you, Paul, John, and so many others. One of these years you will have to drag Sergey with you so that we can meet in person and carry our conversations to the same deep and personal levels that we have all come to treasure so much.Date: 5/17/2009 12:39:17 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
WMW - its all about rules.Date: 5/16/2009 7:16:12 PM
Author: whatmeworry
What does ''destroy the beauty'' and ''appropriate'' mean?Date: 5/16/2009 5:44:44 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 5/16/2009 5:17:07 PM
Author: shelleydog
Well, that''s scary! I guess I have been making the wrong assumptions about AGS000.
I think NOT! As Garry said, they could issue the report based on just a scan, but THEY DO NOT! The eyes are also involved.
If the wisps were such that they destroyed the beauty of the diamond, the diamond would be graded appropriately.
I do disagree with Garry about twinning wisps. Some of the best values I have ever seen in a diamond were colorless wisps bringing the clarity down to an SI1 or SI2 while leaving the stone absolutely eye clean and dazzling from the top. (Unlike some, I only grade the diamond from the top when assigning a grade. I have no quarrel with those who want diamonds clean from all angles, but they are rarely able to buy a stone below VS1 (or sometimes a VS2) that meets their requirements, thus loosing out on many diamonds that many of my clients love love love!)
My personal recommendation is that our OP bring the diamond in to look at and return it if it does not make both the eyes and the heart happy. It is only by seeing the diamond in person that the OP can learn what pleases or does not please.
Just the thoughts of Wink on a Sunny Saturday afternoon. I am going to go play with my grand kids now...
Suppose a diamond was sent to AGSL and got an AGS0 based on ray tracing. It then goes to grader Garry and he says ''not beautiful'' this is an AGS2. And how does grader Garry come up with 2 instead of 1 or 3? But the same diamond could also go to grader Wink and he says ''This is beautiful'' this is an AGS0. Is this what happens?
Wink perhaps we need some nice people to post images of SI2 stones with wisps and we can give our opinions.
One of my main beefs with wisps is they tend to be reflected more. I think there can be a big difference between education type - in uSA you tend to have a microscope clarity grading bias - back lit with a shallower depth of feild - and you may not see the reflections as when diamonds are lit more face up the way I was edjukatuud to grade with a loupe.
One of the great conundrums in grading is how much weight is placed on reflections - 1st, 2nd and third. I palce a lot of weight on them because I believe they really do reduce brilliance. Of course the better the cut the less the impact.
BTW Mate, c u in Vegas - 10 days!!!!
where did that year go?
Date: 5/16/2009 4:46:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
...(of course they would not give it the report, but to my knowledge AGS do not treat transperency any differently than GIA - it is graded via a clarity downgrade - I have seen a cloudy GIA SI1 stone recently that made me feel sad for its eventual owner)
sorry Imdanny, what would you not buy?Date: 5/17/2009 2:11:46 AM
Author: Imdanny
Date: 5/16/2009 4:46:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
...(of course they would not give it the report, but to my knowledge AGS do not treat transperency any differently than GIA - it is graded via a clarity downgrade - I have seen a cloudy GIA SI1 stone recently that made me feel sad for its eventual owner)
Which is why I personally would not buy one. Yes, I could have one ''evaluated by the experts,'' but I''ll pass.
kewl more for me in roundsDate: 5/17/2009 2:20:56 AM
Author: Imdanny
Gary, an SI1- just my personal decision.
I just read this, and while it is a threadjack, I cannot let this pass by without a reaction.Date: 5/15/2009 9:46:28 PM
Author: Gypsy
It really was. Garry, is it just me or do you have some sort of vendetta against Brian and towards Paul from Infinity too (something I''ve noticed from your recent posts). Both of whom are the only ''real'' diamond cutters who post on here. Do you not like cutters or is it something personal? I''d really like to know.![]()
Date: 5/17/2009 6:19:58 AM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 5/17/2009 2:20:56 AM
Author: Imdanny
Gary, an SI1- just my personal decision.
kewl more for me in rounds
The more people that think that way the more I save because of lack of demand.
ssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh people might find out they are kewl and the price will go up!!!!Date: 5/17/2009 7:29:50 AM
Author: Imdanny
Date: 5/17/2009 6:19:58 AM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 5/17/2009 2:20:56 AM
Author: Imdanny
Gary, an SI1- just my personal decision.
kewl more for me in rounds
The more people that think that way the more I save because of lack of demand.
Well, I like K, L, M, N, and O.![]()
I don''t know, I just like what I like, and think everyone else should do the same.
The realists always want to shoot down the dreamersDate: 5/17/2009 7:23:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Date: 5/15/2009 9:46:28 PM
Author: Gypsy
It really was. Garry, is it just me or do you have some sort of vendetta against Brian and towards Paul from Infinity too (something I''ve noticed from your recent posts). Both of whom are the only ''real'' diamond cutters who post on here. Do you not like cutters or is it something personal? I''d really like to know.![]()
I just read this, and while it is a threadjack, I cannot let this pass by without a reaction.
When it comes down to disagreements, I generally feel that I am the one attacking Garry''s points-of-view, while I do not feel that he is really attacking mine. As such, from my point-of-view, there is definitely no vendetta of Garry versus myself. I must say that I sometimes feel sorry when I disagree with Garry again, since it sometimes seems to be very regular and repetitive, and I fear that some will interpret it as a vendetta of myself against Garry.
The truth is that we have very high respect for eachother, while having a lot of agreements in general and a lot of disagreements in detail. Part of this is because of different goals. Garry has often stated that his basic goal is to improve the general average quality of cut being produced and marketed. My goal is totally different, it is to cut for the highest cut-quality possible, and I do not care in any way about the average quality available.
This difference in goals creates regular disagreements. What Garry states, having in mind the average cut-quality, might not be true, having in mind the top-quality.
Also, there is the different point-of-view of a cutter compared to a retailer. When it concerns durability-issues for instance, a retailer has much more experience in this than a cutter. And for some aspects, we simply have a different vocabulary. All this also leads to regular disagreements.
Finally, some disagreement also comes from different experiences. Garry''s experience is huge, but I think that it is geared somewhat too much towards above-average quality. At the absolute top-level, my experience however trumps his. for instance, I think that Garry has seen two Infinity-princess-cuts in his lifetime. Not having this experience has an effect on his opinions, and is a cause for our regular disagreement.
All this disagreement however does not mean that we do not respect eachother. The mutual respect is huge, and as Garry said, we regularly continue our discussions in private, where we both learn. And I am already looking forward to JCK in Vegas again (10 days from now) where we will probably discuss until the early hours.
Live long,
That sounded better in my head than it did in print, let me explain...Date: 5/17/2009 7:52:21 AM
Author: strmrdr
The realists always want to shoot down the dreamers
How true Storm......Date: 5/17/2009 8:20:42 AM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 5/17/2009 7:52:21 AM
Author: strmrdr
The realists always want to shoot down the dreamers
The problem is..., the lab''s plots dont accurately tell the story...Date: 5/17/2009 5:30:40 PM
Author: ILoveDiamondsToo
I''m a lurker, but since you asked, here''s the twinning wisps from the AGS report of a 1.6 carat I SI2:
I would agree that si is where you start making compromises for the money you save.Date: 5/17/2009 6:19:00 PM
Author: elle_chris
After reading this site for the last few years and trying to learn as much as i possibly can about stones, all I want to add is this- When you get down to an SI2 clarity there''s always going to be something, or someone, that''s going to say it MAY effect the brilliance in negative way.
1. Clouds can cause loss of brilliance, 2. Feathers can have durability issues, 3. Black inclusions will be eye visable. 4 Clouds and graining a big no no, and now 5. Twining wisps can reduce light performance.
It''s an SI2. There will be inclusions and chances are they will have at least some of the above.
I have never, ever seen a professional come here and say it''s a safe choice. My opinion is either buy from a trusted vendor, or/and have it appraised by a trusted appraiser. That''s really the only way you''ll be able to set your mind at ease.
Btw, the pic is obviously an H&A stone so I''m thinking it''s in house from one of these vendors. If they''re saying there aren''t any problems, I''d trust them and have it shipped to appraiser of my choice.
Date: 5/17/2009 6:19:00 PM
Author: elle_chris
After reading this site for the last few years and trying to learn as much as i possibly can about stones, all I want to add is this- When you get down to an SI2 clarity there''s always going to be something, or someone, that''s going to say it MAY effect the brilliance in negative way.
1. Clouds can cause loss of brilliance, 2. Feathers can have durability issues, 3. Black inclusions will be eye visable. 4 Clouds and graining a big no no, and now 5. Twining wisps can reduce light performance.
It''s an SI2. There will be inclusions and chances are they will have at least some of the above.
I have never, ever seen a professional come here and say it''s a safe choice. My opinion is either buy from a trusted vendor, or/and have it appraised by a trusted appraiser. That''s really the only way you''ll be able to set your mind at ease.
Btw, the pic is obviously an H&A stone so I''m thinking it''s in house from one of these vendors. If they''re saying there aren''t any problems, I''d trust them and have it shipped to appraiser of my choice.
David GIA acknowledges SI1 and down has potential reduction in light performance. They have published this.
Well written DiaGemDate: 5/17/2009 6:38:34 PM
Author: DiaGem
The problem is..., the lab''s plots dont accurately tell the story...Date: 5/17/2009 5:30:40 PM
Author: ILoveDiamondsToo
I''m a lurker, but since you asked, here''s the twinning wisps from the AGS report of a 1.6 carat I SI2:
We can never realy be certain we know based on the plot if the wisps are fine light colored (white/ish) or dark...
They can sometimes seem white and at a certain tilt position turn dark.
These types of inclusions should be judged on a stone per stone basis as the wisp usually scattered over a significant area of the face appearance.
Next it depends on many factors which can affect the visual. One important factor is the depth of these wisps..., in nature wisps are scattered on one level of depth within the Diamond..., but once polished, the cutter make the rules of position.
Obviously..., the closer to the culet area..., the more reflections it will show.
As far a durability..., I personally believe the knot (wisp) area is one of the most durable area''s in the Diamond substance as far as inclusion types.
I hope I sound clear and not too confusing...![]()
Date: 5/17/2009 7:51:00 PM
Author: elle_chris
Danny- I tried doing a search for graining and clouds but of course now I can''t find anything. From what I remember, it ''can'' cause transparency issues in SI stones.