Jump to content

Considering This Diamond With A Cloud Inclusion


Silento
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm considering purchasing a stone with a cloud inclusion. I have been told to stay away from stones that has cloud inperfections.

 

But the stone has a good hca.

1.09

F

VVS1

XXX

No Fluorescent

Price is 12.3k

 

Any reasons why this might not be a good purchase?

post-133897-0-32307800-1403081418_thumb.png

Edited by Silento
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep missing the vital clue: VVS... ANY INCLUSION ON A VVS IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN GIA NOT CALLING IT "Flawless".

 

There may be plenty of reasons for not purchasing it, but the cloud isn't one.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appearing in the pavilion, on a VVS1?  It's a problem only if you're a complete purist.  In which case you shouldn't be wasting time with a lowly VVS ... and an F color, at that!

 

:)

 

What is a cloud?  It's a series of very very small imperfections, none of which elevate to being an inclusion by themselves.  On a VVS stone, and a VVS1 at that, you won't see it.  With proper magnification and eye training, you might be able to find it after searching for a while.  (Or you might not. Probably not, if I can't even see VS1 inclusions.)

 

HOWEVER, for 12K, even an XXX stone, you have to see it in person.  The chart shows a not-overlarge table. and there are no apparent faceting errors.  You still might have a preference for something a little different ... GIA excellent can be provided for a variety of "looks" from cutting.  So it's possible you could really want a little flatter stone, or to downgrade some specs to get a larger stone, or something like that.

 

But within the constraints of the data you've presented, I don't think anyone's bothered by a small pavilion cloud.  They don't get much more perfect than that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, to the extent that there's a problem, is that it's $12k for a 1 carater.

 

That's offset by the fact that it meets or exceeds your exacting standards.  Given that we don't know what those standards are, it's hard to tell if it's the best fit.  There are literally thousands of 1 carat diamonds out there and it's a tricky problem to zero it down to this particular one without looking into the process and the objectives, not just a summary of a half a dozen data points. 

 

Is it going to be a beautiful stone.  Yes.

 

Will you be able to see ANYTHING about it, even with tools, that you might recognize as a 'defect'. No.

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already mentioned above, the cloud is not an issue with this stone.  It is a VVS1 and I think most of us professionals would probably have a hard time finding the cloud under 10x magnification.  That said, there may be better ways to spend $12.3K.  Dropping to a VS2 and staying with an F color will get you into the 1.3 to 1.4 carat range without giving up anything appreciable to the naked eye.  Some might even say that going to a G color would not affect the look either, but that will really depend on your sensitivity to color.  Doing this will increase the visual size of the diamond from about 6.6mm to 7.1mm, which will considerably impact the look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took the advice and went down to VS1, F color, no fluorescent, 1.27 but 13.5k.

 

It does contain cloud inclusions in the center of the stone. What impacts or I'll effect might it have with light reflection and reflection?

 

Again, thanks for all the responses.

post-133897-0-71630000-1403138392_thumb.png

Edited by Silento
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None whatsoever. This is true - by the way - for any VS graded inclusions, and for the SI ones too, with the possible exception of some SI2 clouds. When you reach I clarity grades then some caution is needed, but again most I1 are fine in the sense that the inclusions do NOT affect light reflection/refraction.

 

I honestly think you need to stop looking at your computer screen, go to a jeweller, and take a look at some diamonds. Then, and only then, go back to online shopping. You seem to be obsessed by clarity and type of inclusions, although these are absolutely minor (and frankly rather artificially created) factors in evaluating a stone's appearance.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... You seem to be obsessed by clarity and type of inclusions, although these are absolutely minor (and frankly rather artificially created) factors in evaluating a stone's appearance.

 

Hi Davide,

 

Can you expand on this a little?

 

I spent a lot of time trying to learn about different types of inclusions, because I wasn't looking at the best quality stones when I was researching for my earring set.  The first issue was making sure that a brittle stone didn't cleave if it got tapped wrong, and I'm now pretty confident about that.  But then there's the issue of inclusions which affect viewing, and since I was dipping into SI1s, I needed to know what was good and what wasn't.  (The only clarity-upgraded stone I eventually purchased was the Asscher, because the flat step facets would be more likely to show imperfections. I could just as well have bought a princess SI1, but simply wanted a different faceting since all the stones were supposed to be different from each other.)

 

I'm getting a sense that feathers and twinning wisps are the most problematic inclusions, at least potentially.  Crystals  in the table are also a nasty.  But above SI clarity, problems are extremely rare, and so the entire issue is cost differentiation.  And here is where the quality of the cut really stands out, because a precise job done here solves many clarity issues, as well as even some coloration ones.  Is this basically right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points to bear in mind:

 

1) Silento seems to be looking at high clarity stones (VS and above), where my remark holds rather unconditionally.

 

2) Even on SI or I clarity stones, the information on the report is not particularly useful, since it neglects any details on colour, transparency, actual (3D) position and size, and reflection through the stone.

 

FWIW, I disagree with you that feathers and twinning wisps are "most problematic". They are far from problematic in most cases (above I2 - but then the problem is I2, not "what causes it"); crystals are a bigger unknown, knots - even if relatively uncommon - can be nasty because they break the surface (by definition).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Even on SI or I clarity stones, the information on the report is not particularly useful, since it neglects any details on colour, transparency, actual (3D) position and size, and reflection through the stone.

 

Does this presage a suggestion that the standard GIA plotting report is due for a major revision in the not-too-distant future?  It makes a lot of sense; in fact, threads here talk about the internal memoranda retained at GIA after a grading report is issued.  I can think of resistance only from vendors with a large inventory of not-so-good stones.

 

 

FWIW, I disagree with you that feathers and twinning wisps are "most problematic". They are far from problematic in most cases (above I2 - but then the problem is I2, not "what causes it"); crystals are a bigger unknown, knots - even if relatively uncommon - can be nasty because they break the surface (by definition).

 

 

OK, maybe I should revise my comment to say the former are more a problem for people like me who haven't looked at a great many stones.  The wisps on my SI1 Marquise look like an extensive tree root system under 10X loupe, but are completely invisible at 1X.  Everything else was fine about the stone.

 

Crystals and knots, OTOH, would likely get more of a pass by an inexperienced viewer because we wouldn't understand the consequences of such inclusions.  It's like the difference between looking in a bowl of chicken noodle soup versus miso soup -- you can see plenty of noodles in the former, but in the latter the soup is "largely clear".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with the consequences on durability - that unless one goes chancy ("bad" I1 and below) is unaffected by crystals, knots and wisps, and pretty much all feathers too, but purely with the consequences on visibility - which are usually much worse for crystals and knots.

 

Sorry, but to me there are two choices: either the stone is eye clean at 1x (if required, corrected for visus), or it isn't. What you see under magnification is completely arbitrary: a normal loupe is 10x, but my microscope is (up to) 90x and I can assure you that there are scary and beautiful things in "IF" stones... at 90x or at 900x, particularly with the right lighting. The diamond industry has settled at 10x, but there is nothing special about "10".

 

Re: reformat of lab reports: I doubt it. At the end of the day, the purpose of the plot is to help identification, not to indicate visibility of inclusions. "Eye clean" is too dependent on observation conditions (lighting, background, angle, observer) to ever become a "lab graded attribute": can you imagine the amount of disputes it would generate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...