Clarity standards vary with Weight / Size

[strmrdr]

RockDoc,
You hit on one issue with the 4c they don''t represent what people see very well.

color - is body color or chip color not face up color
clarity - eyeclean - yes/no? cant tell?
ct - that''s kewl but how big is it?
cut - the new cut grades do better here and some better than others. But even with AGS can someone say for certain that someone will like an AGS0 over a AGS1?

Are more real world grading standards practical and needed is the million dollar question.
I don''t think there is any question that if price is based on them they need to be more consistent and above reproach than they are now.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/6/2006 7:35:36 PM
Author: strmrdr
From:
http://www.gia.edu/mothersday2004/26695/clarity.cfm

Dare I say the fr--- word?

Okay, I give up, what is this horrible FR word???

Naive in Idaho

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/7/2006 12:48:53 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/6/2006 7:35:36 PM

Author: strmrdr

From:

http://www.gia.edu/mothersday2004/26695/clarity.cfm


Dare I say the fr--- word?

Okay, I give up, what is this horrible FR word???


Naive in Idaho

hehehehe
fraud or more properly and legaly in my state known as "deceptive practice" under these conditions.

 

[oldminer]

Rich: I agree that the system "works" and this thread is not out to trash it. I think that is pretty obvious. What I believe is an amazing number of people, some "experts" included who really don''t know or were never told how the system really works in actual practice versus how it is taught to budding gemologists. Many believe the way it was taught is absolute and all there is. It just isn''t so.

Its good for everyone to see how complex the issues are. How much expertise is required to do the job right and the intelligence necessary to arrive at fairly accurate conclusions. Its why we get the "big bucks"!!!!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/7/2006 12:15:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
cut - the new cut grades do better here and some better than others. But even with AGS can someone say for certain that someone will like an AGS0 over a AGS1?

ABSOLUTELY NOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many Many AGS1 stones are AGS 0 light performance with minor symmetry or polish faults that are totally invisible to the unaided eye. These stones will be just as beautiful as an AGS 0 and it is not totally unusual to see an AGS1 that looks better than an AGS0 for reasons of how the human eye interacts with variances in contrast etc. Paul cut a princess cut that graded out an AGS1 in light return (with tweaking since its inception it is possible that today it would grade an AGS0, but I do not know this for sure although Paul thinks it might) and both he, I and several other people who looked at the stone thought it to be more beautiful than the fantastic AGS 0''s that came back from the AGS with it.

My local client took one look at the stone and grabbed it up for his fiance'' and she loves it too, although she has never compared it to any of the AGS 0''s that I have. With the grading at AGS being in my opinion the best available, it is still up to the eye of the buyer to say whether or not it is what is wanted.

So, while I am a big fan of AGS 0 cut grade stones, I still say, BUY THE DIAMOND, NOT THE PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that is heresy to some. But it is fact that some diamonds are more beautiful than their paper, and some are not so beautiful as their paper, ie the steep deep GIA Excellents.

Oh, and as for the main topic of this discussion, Storm, GIA has been teaching their "variable" size inclusion standard for many years. I attended an advanced grading class at Tucson back in the 80''s when I saw it the first time. It was being taught by Jim Luce, now deceased and sorely missed, he was a great instructor. Made sense to me then and it still makes sense to me now. It is not as eggregious as examples given above where "But to take a huge eye visible feather in a 20ct and call it vs2 is wrong" is quoted as a fact. A huge eye visible feather is a huge eye visible feather and will not qualify as a VS2, but a small eye visible crystal might, as I have seen them, especially in emerald cuts where small inclusions are often visible to the eye.

Just my opinion of course, but I think it is also wrong to take a small inclusion that would be a VS2-SI1 decision maker in a quarter carat and have it as the only inclusion in a 4ct stone and also call that stone a VS2-SI1. Doesn''t equate to me.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

The thing is as far as im concerned they can grade them anyway they want as long as they are upfront about it.
That's what I love about pricescope is all the vendors and experts who are upfront about stuff like this.
I wish the rest of the industry was as upfront.
If there is one lesson that I wish everyone in the trade would learn its be upfront with consumers and get rid of the consumers don't need to know attitude that is so strong in some places.
The PS trade members prove it works and that consumers do care and do want to know.

Thanks Dave for starting this thread and thank you for those that answered my questions even if I disagree with ya its all kewl :}

 

[realistdreamer]

Thanks. I just discovered when looking at 1.3ctw+ SI1 stones. I''m also now being told that fancy shapes might find it harder to be eyeclean because of light return and side views.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/7/2006 5:39:23 PM
Author: strmrdr

That''s what I love about pricescope is all the vendors and experts who are upfront about stuff like this.

I wish the rest of the industry was as upfront.

If there id on lesson that I wish everyone in the trade would learn its be upfront with consumers and get rid of the consumers don''t need to know attitude that is so strong in some places.

The PS trade members prove it works and that consumers do care and do want to know.

:}

On this we ARE in total agreement. No matter what your opinion, share it with your clients and give them the ability and the information needed to make an informed choice.

Well said!

Wink

 

[koko]

Date: 4/7/2006 7:21:35 PM
Author: realistdreamer
Thanks. I just discovered when looking at 1.3ctw+ SI1 stones. I''m also now being told that fancy shapes might find it harder to be eyeclean because of light return and side views.

My 1.15c (E) emerald cut has obvious inclusions visible under the table, and it is a GIA SI1. The cert. states "Feather" and "Natural". The feather is very obvious, and there appears to be another inclusion visible across from it that I don''t see on the certificate. I was surprised, thinking an SI1 was supposed to be "eyeclean" until I read that emerald cuts show inclusions more easily because they''re not faceted. (The natural is not visible, it''s near the girdle). For this reason, if I ever trade up, I''d want a VS EC stone. Thanks to all for the helpful info.!

 

[Diam100]

style="WIDTH: 80.42%; HEIGHT: 136px">Date: 4/7/2006 4:47:31 PM
Author: Wink
"With the grading at AGS being in my opinion the best available, it is still up to the eye of the buyer to say whether or not it is what is wanted.

So, while I am a big fan of AGS 0 cut grade stones, I still say, BUY THE DIAMOND, NOT THE PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that is heresy to some. But it is fact that some diamonds are more beautiful than their paper, and some are not so beautiful as their paper, ie the steep deep GIA Excellents."

Ok I just read through this entire read & I have to say that Winks response hits the nail on the head! While I have found myself embracing the internet for all the advantages it has to offer I still feel it''s up to the purchasers eyes.

I mean as a consumer searching for six darn months & looking mostly at Ideals it really started to irk me that on paper every Ideal diamond with the right specs was a winner but some mystical cosmos must have been at work because some were not as pleasing to my eyes as others.

That''s why while embracing the internet for the elusive round Ideal upgrade I''ve come to agree with Wink here that along with an appraiser - the ultimate guide is your eyes. I mean how many diamond dealers are buying diamonds blindly solely on paper.. Me thinks not many but maybe I''m completely wrong.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/6/2006 10:34:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Great topic Dave.

If we are going to look at fundementals - then surely the biggest mistake of the previous century is to grade diamond clarity with back lighting?

In the real world we see inclusions with light that comes from above the girdle!

No one else agree''s?
I am a fruit loop?
I always thought this was the dumbest thing in the industry.

Often you see IS and VS diamonds that appear to be graded too soft with the naked eye, and others that are harshly graded - and if you stop and think about it the back lightvs front light is the ey difference.

This is the same debate as grading face up vs thru the side profile.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/9/2006 1:58:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/6/2006 10:34:29 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Great topic Dave.


If we are going to look at fundementals - then surely the biggest mistake of the previous century is to grade diamond clarity with back lighting?


In the real world we see inclusions with light that comes from above the girdle!

No one else agree''s?

I am a fruit loop?

I always thought this was the dumbest thing in the industry.


Often you see IS and VS diamonds that appear to be graded too soft with the naked eye, and others that are harshly graded - and if you stop and think about it the back lightvs front light is the ey difference.



This is the same debate as grading face up vs thru the side profile.

Makes sence to me Gary but considering that clarity was based on using a loop how would you do front lighting?
Also lighting would be more critical.
Im not 100% sure its practical where from the top color grading is because its done on every other gemstone out there.

 

[diamondlil]

Date: 4/7/2006 4:47:31 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/7/2006 12:15:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
cut - the new cut grades do better here and some better than others. But even with AGS can someone say for certain that someone will like an AGS0 over a AGS1?

ABSOLUTELY NOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many Many AGS1 stones are AGS 0 light performance with minor symmetry or polish faults that are totally invisible to the unaided eye. These stones will be just as beautiful as an AGS 0 and it is not totally unusual to see an AGS1 that looks better than an AGS0 for reasons of how the human eye interacts with variances in contrast etc. Paul cut a princess cut that graded out an AGS1 in light return (with tweaking since its inception it is possible that today it would grade an AGS0, but I do not know this for sure although Paul thinks it might) and both he, I and several other people who looked at the stone thought it to be more beautiful than the fantastic AGS 0''s that came back from the AGS with it.

My local client took one look at the stone and grabbed it up for his fiance'' and she loves it too, although she has never compared it to any of the AGS 0''s that I have. With the grading at AGS being in my opinion the best available, it is still up to the eye of the buyer to say whether or not it is what is wanted.

So, while I am a big fan of AGS 0 cut grade stones, I still say, BUY THE DIAMOND, NOT THE PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that is heresy to some. But it is fact that some diamonds are more beautiful than their paper, and some are not so beautiful as their paper, ie the steep deep GIA Excellents.

Oh, and as for the main topic of this discussion, Storm, GIA has been teaching their ''variable'' size inclusion standard for many years. I attended an advanced grading class at Tucson back in the 80''s when I saw it the first time. It was being taught by Jim Luce, now deceased and sorely missed, he was a great instructor. Made sense to me then and it still makes sense to me now. It is not as eggregious as examples given above where ''But to take a huge eye visible feather in a 20ct and call it vs2 is wrong'' is quoted as a fact. A huge eye visible feather is a huge eye visible feather and will not qualify as a VS2, but a small eye visible crystal might, as I have seen them, especially in emerald cuts where small inclusions are often visible to the eye.

Just my opinion of course, but I think it is also wrong to take a small inclusion that would be a VS2-SI1 decision maker in a quarter carat and have it as the only inclusion in a 4ct stone and also call that stone a VS2-SI1. Doesn''t equate to me.

Wink

Well said, Wink!!!

Thank you, David, for yet another captivating thread.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/9/2006 7:29:08 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/9/2006 1:58:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/6/2006 10:34:29 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

If we are going to look at fundementals - then surely the biggest mistake of the previous century is to grade diamond clarity with back lighting?


In the real world we see inclusions with light that comes from above the girdle!

I always thought this was the dumbest thing in the industry.


Often you see IS and VS diamonds that appear to be graded too soft with the naked eye, and others that are harshly graded - and if you stop and think about it the back lightvs front light is the ey difference.

Makes sence to me Gary but considering that clarity was based on using a loop how would you do front lighting?
Also lighting would be more critical.
Im not 100% sure its practical where from the top color grading is because its done on every other gemstone out there.

so Storm this is one for the record books

You think something that would be good for consumers might not be practical

Oh my.... dont tell me you are loosing your acid sharp objectivity

.

I raise this as an issue because it seems to make sense and as we know many industries evolve to processes because of eveolution rather than what is best.

So how would we grade diamonds so that you could expct to get a grade that indicated what you could see in a stone?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thebowlstore.com/catalog/custom/light.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebowlstore.com/catalog/info_pages.php%3Fpages_id%3D26&h=169&w=206&sz=13&tbnid=aGdtV41VwX9KGM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=100&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Breader%2Bwith%2Blight%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en this is a link to an illuminated map reader. The better type has a ring light around the lens - but I could not find an image of one.

Of course there might be other needs for consumer based clarity grading too - e.g. - how durabale will this diamond be?

Think about it - in the type of diamonds we know that are most popular among Pricescope and many other buyers - they range mainly from VS to SI - the most important issue is "will I ever be able to see the inclusion with my naked eye?"

 

[strmrdr]

lol Garry,
I actualy like the plotting of inclusions on certs and that is easier done with back lighting.
I think it helps to keep switching down to a min. level.
I could live happily ever after with a 2 grade clarity scale.
Eyeclean: yes/no
That suits the way most PSers shop.
But Id also want the plots for diamond ID and other reasons.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/10/2006 9:00:55 AM
Author: strmrdr
lol Garry,
I actualy like the plotting of inclusions on certs and that is easier done with back lighting.
I think it helps to keep switching down to a min. level.
I could live happily ever after with a 2 grade clarity scale.
Eyeclean: yes/no
That suits the way most PSers shop.
But Id also want the plots for diamond ID and other reasons.

They could also be done in many instances with an advanced Helium scanner.
Sergey already has a rough scanner with clarity plotting - and Dave and Imagem are working hard on it.

Helium''s Oxygen program has the advantage of plotting what you see face up as well as where the inclusions actually are in space. That is more identifyable because you can just rescann the stone for a dead cert finger print

 

[pricescope]

Date: 4/10/2006 9:00:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

I could live happily ever after with a 2 grade clarity scale.
Eyeclean: yes/no

I''d add a couple of sub-grades:

0 tolerance: Not Eye-clean from 40" (1m) - inclusion(s) visible to the owner''s friends and bystanders - total embarrassment.
1st tolerance: Not Eye-clean from 10" (25cm) - inclusion(s) visible to the owner and bugs the owner only - nobody else cares.
2nd tolerance: Not Eye-clean from 10" (25cm) - inclusion(s) visible to the owner only and she/he doesn''t care.
3rd tolerance: Eye-clean from 10" (25cm) - inclusions are invisible to anybody with unaided eye.