I received two OEC's to test drive today

[Rfisher]

One had a great vendor picture, and better lab report and good stats.
The other, a so so vendor picture, and not as strict lab, and not so great stats.
I'm really surprised to be liking the one I initially thought I wouldn't, much better.
I like it so much that I'm actually considering keeping it with somewhat worrisome inclusions.
In another thread, Rockdiamond recently mentioned a small percentage of diamonds that are commercially available
have inclusions that are a stability concern.
While it's ideal to wait for the complete package to come along,
I think I'm going to gamble on this, and accept something I never thought I would.
Has anyone else? How do you feel about it now?

 

[Karl_K]

Which one do you like better?

 

[sledge]

Ummm....I need some bling for my wedding band. Not sure how to cram an OEC into a man's ring, but where there is a will, there is a way.

I will take your "loser". Need my shipping address?

Seriously, totally envious. Love those OEC's.

 

[Rfisher]

Which one do you like better?

The first picture. It's all about the facet pattern.

 

[sledge]

In another thread, Rockdiamond recently mentioned a small percentage of diamonds that are commercially available
have inclusions that are a stability concern.

Please don't misconstrue -- not trying to scare you.

I was in that thread, and @Rockdiamond's statement is very generic. You need to carefully analyze the stone now that you have it in front of you and ensure there is no structural concerns. I'm sure it's fine, but make sure you do your due diligence to confirm.

Remember, GIA says 99%+ stones with fluor don't have clarity issues. Yet some still look milky/hazy. That's why I recommend people still check.

 

[Rfisher]

Please don't misconstrue -- not trying to scare you.

I was in that thread, and @Rockdiamond's statement is very generic. You need to carefully analyze the stone now that you have it in front of you and ensure there is no structural concerns. I'm sure it's fine, but make sure you do your due diligence to confirm.

Remember, GIA says 99%+ stones with fluor don't have clarity issues. Yet some still look milky/hazy. That's why I recommend people still check.

True, but what's my opinion of structure concern worth?
I think it is so for this one ( I already passed on) that I took pictures of

Because the vendor first said there were no surface reaching inclusions, then said cutters and benches deemed this surface reaching feather to have no stability issues.

 

[Karl_K]

True, but what's my opinion of structure concern worth?
I think it is so for this one ( I already passed on) that I took pictures of

Because the vendor first said there were no surface reaching inclusions, then said cutters and benches deemed this surface reaching feather to have no stability issues.

That one would concern me because there is a chip at the front of a feather and it looks like it was caused by impact.

 

[Karl_K]

The first picture. It's all about the facet pattern.

Me too.
What are the inclusions that worry you?

 

[Karl_K]

For a freshly cut diamonds there are very few inclusions that will survive the wheel and be an issue afterwards.
Some Knots and a cavity at the front of a large feather are a couple.
With old diamonds that have been knocked around for who knows how many years there are more chances of impact related inclusions that could be issues.

 

[Rfisher]

Me too.
What are the inclusions that worry you?

Two sizeable feathers, but they don't break the surface nearly as much as the other returned one did.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi all!
1) personally, I would hope sellers are responsible when they describe a diamond in regard to inclusions reaching the surface. It's important.
2) I still don't feel it's a durability issue- but it certainly is a price issue.
I'd have to really love a stone, and it would have to be one that was not easily replaced to choose one with an open imperfection that looked like the one in the Rfisher pics. My concerns would be about selling such a stone- so if I really loved it, and felt others would at a price, and it was really cheap...maybe.
In discussions of durability, I always stress that any diamond can be damaged with the correct impact.
I can't remember a single instance of inclusion related damage- and there've been many cases of clients' stones suffering damage over the years.

sledge
it is never my intention to have created bad feelings from a post I make- I'm sorry if that might have happened.
It's a cool, and unusual position to be involved in a forum like this, for me.
I see a lot of things posted that are simply incorrect- and in pretty much every case, the person making the post has only the best of intentions. The act of disputing what someone has written is difficult to do, without causing conflict. Yet I feel compelled to correct misconceptions I see.
Peace

 

[Karl_K]

Two sizeable feathers, but they don't break the surface nearly as much as the other returned one did.

I'm not worried about the big feather on the right at all from a durability stand point.
Any hit hard enough to make it an issue is going to cause damage feather or no feather.
The other one isn't as clear to see but im thinking the same thing.
As far as being eye visible that is up to you.

 

[MamaBee]

One had a great vendor picture, and better lab report and good stats.
The other, a so so vendor picture, and not as strict lab, and not so great stats.
I'm really surprised to be liking the one I initially thought I wouldn't, much better.
I like it so much that I'm actually considering keeping it with somewhat worrisome inclusions.
In another thread, Rockdiamond recently mentioned a small percentage of diamonds that are commercially available
have inclusions that are a stability concern.
While it's ideal to wait for the complete package to come along,
I think I'm going to gamble on this, and accept something I never thought I would.
Has anyone else? How do you feel about it now?

Give me a few months..haha..I’m in the same shoes..I’m absolutely terrible about cut, inclusions, and color..I loupe everything..and won’t go below a vs clarity.....BUT I just purchased an SI2 with feathers! I NEVER buy a diamond with feathers. l’m taking a huge leap of faith..but your heart wants what your heart wants. If the love dart hits you have to give in..

 

[sledge]

Hi all!
1) personally, I would hope sellers are responsible when they describe a diamond in regard to inclusions reaching the surface. It's important.
2) I still don't feel it's a durability issue- but it certainly is a price issue.
I'd have to really love a stone, and it would have to be one that was not easily replaced to choose one with an open imperfection that looked like the one in the Rfisher pics. My concerns would be about selling such a stone- so if I really loved it, and felt others would at a price, and it was really cheap...maybe.
In discussions of durability, I always stress that any diamond can be damaged with the correct impact.
I can't remember a single instance of inclusion related damage- and there've been many cases of clients' stones suffering damage over the years.

sledge
it is never my intention to have created bad feelings from a post I make- I'm sorry if that might have happened.
It's a cool, and unusual position to be involved in a forum like this, for me.
I see a lot of things posted that are simply incorrect- and in pretty much every case, the person making the post has only the best of intentions. The act of disputing what someone has written is difficult to do, without causing conflict. Yet I feel compelled to correct misconceptions I see.
Peace

No worries, we are good. Yesterday's mishap wasn't about your comments at all. I was rather irritated at someone else that had said a few things over a series of various posts on numerous occasions and their comments just rubbed me the wrong way. I typed before I thought. I got my panties out of a wad and I'm in a better mood today.

I would agree with you that in all cases a vendor should be honest with their buyers. Misinformation like that has no place in my life and I'd reject the stone for that reason alone personally. Truth and transparency are big deals to me.

Also, I'd agree it's a great negotiating point. I'm going to avoid using the term risk, but inclusions like that is likely to be considered undesirable to the bulk of buyers. As you pointed out, to move undesirable items you adjust the price to where someone can't refuse. So in some ways finding a stone like that can be great as you have a great leverage point to negotiate a great deal for yourself. Also, buying low is protection for yourself as you may need to dump the stone and will have to sell at a discount to overcome the "ugly" of the stone. However, if you are paying normal price and the seller won't budge then it's time to pass on the deal.

Now @Rfisher, I too would have passed on that first stone. The vendor wasn't 100% truthful and the feather with that chip looked gnarly and not something I would want to own as it would drive me nuts.

Speaking of that perspective, while neither feather may be structural concerns the one on the right drives me bonkers every time I see the stone now. I thought it was a reflection before. So structural or not I'd be fighting "mind clean" issues as I can no longer look at the stone and NOT see that damn feather, lol.

 

[Rockdiamond]

By the way- there’ve been many cases of a ring saving a persons finger when it was slammed in a door. I literally just had such an email. Ring absorbed the impact protecting the finger, and is bent, The diamond survived without damage.

Moreover - when damage has occurred its always a freak thing which a specifically correct impact. There have been a few cases of diamonds which shattered- but far more common are small chips and or abrasions. Such damage is generally easily repaired by a skilled cutter with minimal weight loss. I’ve seen decent size chip polished out loosing .01ct and you would have to really look hard to tell the stone had been repaired.