Got Diamond Questions?
Our community of diamond experts are here to provide answers
Sign in to follow this  
shaiko

IF rating with visible inclusions

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I bought an engagement ring set with a round diamond with a GIA clarity rating of IF.

If I look at the diamond sideways (even without magnification) - the top part is very nice and clean. But the lower half (near the culet) is rather opaque.

Can a diamond be rated IF and still have such noticeable inclusions ?? 

Edited by shaiko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is no, an IF should have absolutely no naked-eye visible inclusions, and no 10x visible inclusions observed through the table either.

I suppose it's academically possible that an inclusion deep in the diamond is not visible through the table, but the region around the culet is very easily visible through the table with a wide angle of observation, and you say that what you observe is in the lower part of the pavilion so I don't think that could be the case here.

Four things that could cause the phenomenon are, in decreasing order of likelihood:

1. You are seeing other facets being reflected in the pavilion and are mistaking them for inclusions; the girdle is the typical culprit especially if it's frosted or bruted rather than faceted, though I think a frosted or bruted girdle would not qualify for IF. Here is an image to illustrate what I mean: the diamond is clean, but it gives the impression that there is something "in there" at the bottom of the pavilion - what you are seeing is reflection of other facets, including the table reflecting light back (the "black thing" near the culet). 

Image result for girdle reflection in pavilion

2. There is some muck (technical term) attached to the pavilion; diamonds are grease magnets, and just handling (especially an otherwise very clean stone) can lead to visible deposits building up very quickly.

3. The diamond has been damaged while setting.

4. The diamond is not the diamond that the report refers to.

Clearly points 3 and 4 are significantly more serious, and would require an independent expert with some simple tools to see the item rather than "self diagnosing" on an internet forum.

Edited by davidelevi
added 2nd para
  • Like 2

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this