"Milky" Diamond

[MattSz]

Hi everyone!

I'm currently looking at this diamond https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD14702857 and have it on hold. However, the client rep informed me that it is considered milky. I've tried to find some info, but I'm seeing conflicting things. I was hoping someone could shed some light on what that means exactly and how badly it affects the sparkle etc of a diamond.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[tyty333]

"Clarity grade based on clouds not shown," on the GIA report under Comments. I would pass.

 

[lovedogs]

Generally speaking, avoid "clarity based on clouds that are not shown" in SI1 or lower. They can look 'hazy' , 'cloudy ' in real life

 

[Avatar345]

Probably related to this:

"Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown"

Which... on a plot with literally no other inclusions... let's you know the whole diamond is one giant cloud

Edit: Beat to the punch!

 

[MattSz]

Great thank you everyone! I appreciate it. The price seemed too good to be true!

 

[MattSz]

I was also recommended this diamond https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15106407?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails . The rep mentioned it was eye clean and not cloudy but I do see mentions of clouds in the GIA Report.

 

[lovedogs]

I was also recommended this diamond https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15106407?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails . The rep mentioned it was eye clean and not cloudy but I do see mentions of clouds in the GIA Report.

Clouds are fine. The issue is with the specific phrase "clarity grade based on clouds not shown" in SI1 or below clarity.

However, I'm not a huge fan of this one because it's deeper than we typically recommend (generally speaking, look for max depth of 62.4%), and the crown angle is steep (35.5 is often the max recommended). So without any advanced imaging I wouldn't buy this one.

 

[MattSz]

Clouds are fine. The issue is with the specific phrase "clarity grade based on clouds not shown" in SI1 or below clarity.

However, I'm not a huge fan of this one because it's deeper than we typically recommend (generally speaking, look for max depth of 62.4%), and the crown angle is steep (35.5 is often the max recommended). So without any advanced imaging I wouldn't buy this one.

Great thank you! I really appreciate all the info.

Im guessing something like this would also be undesirable https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD14546502 ? It meets the crown angle and depth criteria, but I'm assuming the 59% table compared to the 60.5% depth would make the diamond look a little off?

 

[lovedogs]

Great thank you! I really appreciate all the info.

Im guessing something like this would also be undesirable https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD14546502 ? It meets the crown angle and depth criteria, but I'm assuming the 59% table compared to the 60.5% depth would make the diamond look a little off?

Yeah, definitely not great. If you look at the middle of that one it doesn't have any defined "arrows", and overall just looks disorganized.

If you let us know your budget, desired size, color, etc, we can help!

 

[MattSz]

Yeah, definitely not great. If you look at the middle of that one it doesn't have any defined "arrows", and overall just looks disorganized.

If you let us know your budget, desired size, color, etc, we can help!

Wow thanks! I'm pricing diamonds in CAD at a max price of $12000, which is roughly $9600 USD.

As for diamond criteria, I'm looking for 1.3 carat, G+ color, Ideal cut and faint/none fluorescence. That being said I'd really appreciate your thoughts on fluorescence. There's a lot of conflicting opinions on that!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Aim at these ranges for GIA excellent cut stones and you'll have a better chance of choosing a good one.

table: 54-58

depth: 60-62.3

crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 may be ok with a 40.6 pavilion angle)

pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

 

[foxinsox]

Wow thanks! I'm pricing diamonds in CAD at a max price of $12000, which is roughly $9600 USD.

As for diamond criteria, I'm looking for 1.3 carat, G+ color, Ideal cut and faint/none fluorescence. That being said I'd really appreciate your thoughts on fluorescence. There's a lot of conflicting opinions on that!

No comment on anything else but I'd happily buy any fluoro up to and including Very Strong. There are a number of quite technical (and passionate) threads about it on here.
The overall consensus seems to be that the bias against fluoro is primarily a marketing thing, given they used to be considered desirable, and the possible negative effects from being overblue are actually very rare (and sought after by some people).
I think fluoro is cool and like a secret hidden power.

 

[sledge]

I know some others commented on this already. But I wanted to make clear a few things to prospective buyers that may find this thread later on:

1. Clouds themselves aren't necessarily bad. It really depends how many, how dense or sparse and their location.

2. The higher the clarity, the better the odds are they won't be a problem. The majority of the problems tend to be in SI1 and lower stones. However, I have seen some VS2 stones with issues. And in some very rare cases, some even higher than VS2. On the flip side of that, there are lots of SI1 stones with clouds that aren't a problem. Specifics matter. So just be alert and perform some due diligence for your own protection.

3. Inclusions are listed on the lab reports in order of worst to least bad. They can be displayed in vertical format and in that case the inclusion listed on the top will be the worst (or grade setting) inclusion. They can also be displayed in horizontal format in which case the first (furthest left) inclusion is the worst (grade setting) inclusion. Having clouds as the grade setting inclusion is more concerning than a 2nd or 3rd tier inclusion. And again, even if grade setting it doesn't mean the stone will be milky -- it just means you need to do some checking.

4. The only time you should see a clarity plot where no inclusions is plotted is on an internally flawless (IF) or flawless (FL) stone. Otherwise, something should be marked. If it's not, this should raise a red flag and you should read the notes on the cert to see what special conditions may exist to determine that stone's clarity. In this particular case, you will see the clarity plot is clean as a whistle. That is very unusual for an SI1 stone. Something should be on that plot. The absence of inclusions in lower clarity stones is a sign there could be issues.

5. Expanding on #4 above, if the plot is clean, you may see this nasty note/comment of "clarity grade is based on clouds not shown". This is almost always a problem and you need to proceed with extreme caution. There is a secondary comment very similar that says "clarity grade is partially based on clouds not shown". With this second comment, you may see a few inclusions but they may be minimal, which would help provide additional insight why a particular stone is so "clean" on the plot.

6. Based on #5, always pay attention to the comments! It may provide additional insight to a stone's clarity or possibly their color. Some examples of other comments may be "pinholes not shown" or "brown tint". It really depends on the stone. Many times no comments are provided. Again, it's part of performing your due diligence to read & analyze all this information to obtain all the information possible before buying.

7. Blue Nile did you a solid and stepped up and told you the stone was milky/cloudy. Good vendors will do this. However, because so many stones are bought virtually, not all vendors have the stones in their inventory to inspect or they may not be as forthcoming about notes, etc. Expect the best of your vendor, but scrutinize like they are the worst so you don't get any unexpected surprises.




Example of Cloudy Diamond:


Example of Clear Diamond:

Diamond Cloud Inclusions - Do they Impact Diamond Sparkle?

Diamond Cloud Inclusions do not necessarily make diamonds look cloudy or diminish diamond sparkle. Learn more in this diamond guide.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[Avatar345]

3. Inclusions are listed on the lab reports in order of worst to least bad. They can be displayed in vertical format and in that case the inclusion listed on the top will be the worst (or grade setting) inclusion. They can also be displayed in horizontal format in which case the first (furthest left) inclusion is the worst (grade setting) inclusion. Having clouds as the grade setting inclusion is more concerning than a 2nd or 3rd tier inclusion. And again, even if grade setting it doesn't mean the stone will be milky -- it just means you need to do some checking.

Ah ha I didn't realize that! New information

Hmmm maybe I'm less concerned about that knot now after all...

 

[Ceilimom]

No comment on anything else but I'd happily buy any fluoro up to and including Very Strong. There are a number of quite technical (and passionate) threads about it on here.
The overall consensus seems to be that the bias against fluoro is primarily a marketing thing, given they used to be considered desirable, and the possible negative effects from being overblue are actually very rare (and sought after by some people).
I think fluoro is cool and like a secret hidden power.

Oh I love Fluorescence in the right diamond as long as it doesn't negatively impact clarity.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Aim at these ranges for GIA excellent cut stones and you'll have a better chance of choosing a good one.

table: 54-58

depth: 60-62.3

crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 may be ok with a 40.6 pavilion angle)

pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

This is a broader range for specific purposes and tastes and can often save you a lot of money

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I rather prefer to see some decent sized inclusions in an SI1 diamond - that way the spectre of transparency will not raise it's ugly head!

 

[Karl_K]

I rather prefer to see some decent sized inclusions in an SI1 diamond - that way the spectre of transparency will not raise it's ugly head!

I rather prefer to see some decent sized inclusions in an SI1 diamond - that way the spectre of transparency will be much less likely to raise it's ugly head!
Fixed that for ya. *grin*

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This is a broader range for specific purposes and tastes and can often save you a lot of money

Garry, I like your chart because I have been here for years and understand it. But for newbies, I think it would be really confusing. For modern rounds, I still think the green is the safest buy for those shopping online (and interested in getting a nice diamond since they have posted on PS) since it really isn't practical for most people to be able to order and see a selection of diamonds with all these specs. In addition, many of the vendors aren't going to provide ASET, etc, so that's even more reason to stick with the safe zone. Even having the chart, I still buy in the green zone!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, I like your chart because I have been here for years and understand it. But for newbies, I think it would be really confusing. For modern rounds, I still think the green is the safest buy for those shopping online (and interested in getting a nice diamond since they have posted on PS) since it really isn't practical for most people to be able to order and see a selection of diamonds with all these specs. In addition, many of the vendors aren't going to provide ASET, etc, so that's even more reason to stick with the safe zone. Even having the chart, I still buy in the green zone!

I disagree DS because:
1. there are far fewer stone in the green
2. It gets gets picked over first.
3. there are far more stones available in the 2 light orange zones
4. Not everyone is buying for a ring - nearly half of diamonds end up in earrings pendants etc and that gets people bigger stones for way less $'s

 

[Karl_K]

I disagree DS because:
1. there are far fewer stone in the green
2. It gets gets picked over first.
3. there are far more stones available in the 2 light orange zones
4. Not everyone is buying for a ring - nearly half of diamonds end up in earrings pendants etc and that gets people bigger stones for way less $'s

I kinda go both ways on it, there is to much variation to be shown on a simple chart. The lower halves/girdle angle has a large impact on diamond performance.
On the other hand there have been a lot of well cut 35-35.5 crown and 40.6-40.8 55-57 table gia numbers that are really nice.
So I agree with Garry that staying inside the green zone is not optimal.
The other things is mains below 40.5 is what will determine if it will work well in a pendant or earring more than in a ring.
MRB is easy all mains over 40.5 with maybe just one slightly under will work in rings/pendant/earrings and anything below that is better used in just pendants and earrings.

 

[sledge]

4. Not everyone is buying for a ring - nearly half of diamonds end up in earrings pendants etc and that gets people bigger stones for way less $'s

Is this your experience from the standpoint of a jeweler who owns his business, or from the standpoint of a typical person that finds their way to this forum?

I’m not trade, and while I do see different reasons for buying a stone it seems most people I encounter here are seeking a stone for an e-ring or ring project of some sort. Perhaps my view is biased as I have limited time and gravitate towards what I enjoy most.

Either way I think it raises a valid point. What is the “typical” audience type of a PS member?

Variety is good as we know all buyers aren’t the same. I’m just not sure I agree it’s a 50/50 market as suggested. As a forum we need to help all buyers regardless.

 

[MattSz]

Thank you everyone for all the great replies! I'm going to keep my response in one post as to not create a massive wall of quotes.

It's great to know that the inclusions are listed in order of severity in the GIA report. That alleviates a lot of the concerns I had over some diamonds. I was worried that some of the inclusions listed may be far worse in person. If it's listed below a visible inclusion then it shouldn't be so bad.

I've decided to look at diamonds up to medium fluorescence and have noticed that you get far more for your money doing this! However, it's still a struggle to find a diamond that matches all of the recommended ranges. I'm assuming this is due to my price/carat ratio, as there aren't any Astor Ideal cuts in my budget.

I've found a couple that fall within the green/yellow columns of the chart that Garry posted. Usually Table/Pavillion fall within the ideal range, with crown angle falling slightly outside into the yellow. I've included a few below that seem to meet most of the criteria. Please let me know what you think and thank you again for all of the help!

1.31-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.31-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

 

[MattSz]

I went ahead and put this one on hold https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15421181 as it seems to have a good table %, decent crown angle, but it's a little deep, and the pavilion angle is bigger than recommended.

That being said the color is great, and besides the inclusion in the top left, it is otherwise clear. It'll be going into a 6 prong ring so I'm hoping one of the prongs can cover that.

I've been using the diamond screener cut estimator while searching but I just found the HCA cut estimator. The HCA tool scores this diamond at a 4.4 which seems to be pretty bad! I was hoping to get some advice on this diamond and if you all think this is a good purchase.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Is this your experience from the standpoint of a jeweler who owns his business, or from the standpoint of a typical person that finds their way to this forum?

I’m not trade, and while I do see different reasons for buying a stone it seems most people I encounter here are seeking a stone for an e-ring or ring project of some sort. Perhaps my view is biased as I have limited time and gravitate towards what I enjoy most.

Either way I think it raises a valid point. What is the “typical” audience type of a PS member?

Variety is good as we know all buyers aren’t the same. I’m just not sure I agree it’s a 50/50 market as suggested. As a forum we need to help all buyers regardless.

Definite experience running an upmarket 2 store diamond focused operation for 45 years Sledge.
Having been asked I just added it up:
Diamonds sold in rings 32.8% of my business
Diamonds sold in jewels not worn on fingers 27.1%
(all other sales are colored gems, pearls, gold jewelry etc)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I went ahead and put this one on hold https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15421181 as it seems to have a good table %, decent crown angle, but it's a little deep, and the pavilion angle is bigger than recommended.

That being said the color is great, and besides the inclusion in the top left, it is otherwise clear. It'll be going into a 6 prong ring so I'm hoping one of the prongs can cover that.

I've been using the diamond screener cut estimator while searching but I just found the HCA cut estimator. The HCA tool scores this diamond at a 4.4 which seems to be pretty bad! I was hoping to get some advice on this diamond and if you all think this is a good purchase.

use the search tool on Pricescope because it ranks all the diamonds withing your criteria buy HCA cut scores!

 

[Dancing Fire]

This is a broader range for specific purposes and tastes and can often save you a lot of money

Garry

It would be interesting to look at some stones with 54-55% table on the right side of the chart, but these proportions don't grow on trees? . How about the firey balanced stones?. Will these stones look good under the I-scope and ASET?

 

[MattSz]

use the search tool on Pricescope because it ranks all the diamonds withing your criteria buy HCA cut scores!

Thanks Garry,

I found another diamond and will likely be proceeding with the purchase. It checks all of our criteria and even scores a 1.3 on the HCA tool! I'll be sure to have it professionally inspected as well.

I wanted to thank everyone here for all of their help. There's a lot more to this than I initially anticipated! I think you all saved me from making a less than ideal purchase!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry

It would be interesting to look at some stones with 54-55% table on the right side of the chart, but these proportions don't grow on trees? . How about the firey balanced stones?. Will these stones look good under the I-scope and ASET?

Hi DF, All the stones with the proportions on that chart look good in Ideal-Scope and ASET.
The right side indicates 54-58%
But the vast majority on the right side have smallish tables and the left side larger tables. Not because of cutters desire for creating beuaty - but because of the nature of the rough that gets cut and polished those ways,

 

[sledge]

I went ahead and put this one on hold https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15421181 as it seems to have a good table %, decent crown angle, but it's a little deep, and the pavilion angle is bigger than recommended.

That being said the color is great, and besides the inclusion in the top left, it is otherwise clear. It'll be going into a 6 prong ring so I'm hoping one of the prongs can cover that.

I've been using the diamond screener cut estimator while searching but I just found the HCA cut estimator. The HCA tool scores this diamond at a 4.4 which seems to be pretty bad! I was hoping to get some advice on this diamond and if you all think this is a good purchase.

1.30 D VS2 w/ MBF
58t, 62.8d, 35.5c/41.2p & 80 LGF

From a cut perspective I think you can do much better. While this stone has elements of the more broad chart that Garry shared, it doesn't meet all the criteria.

One of the most important being an INVERSE relationship between the crown & pavilion angles. Referring to Garry's chart, you will notice the steep 41.2 pavilion angle is paired with a shallow 32-33 crown angle. Moving to the right on the chart, you will see the steep 35.5 crown angle is paired with a shallow 40.6 pavilion angle.

The reason you do this is because as light enters the diamond, we want it to reflect properly so that it bounces from pavilion to pavilion and ultimately returns back out through the top. These various angles determine the path which light bounces. When you start defying some basic geometry, light will not reflect properly and you end up with a stone that is less beautiful. Below is a graphical representation (stolen borrowed from Garry's website).

The stone in question has a steep crown paired with a steep pavilion. Consequently it has a steep depth. This is what we call a "steep & deep" stone. The stone will actually look smaller for it's carat weight than an ideal cut stone because it's hiding extra carat weight in it's depth, so it doesn't get the proper horizontal spread (diameter).

As I stated in the beginning, you can do better. I would recommend you pass on this stone.