Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The story of my ring's grading issue

TreeScientist said:
Not necessarily. Or at least not entirely. I've seen those marks on the surface of a few diamonds. I would guess that it's either surface graining that may not have been prevalent enough to be noted, or polish marks that were not noticeable enough to knock the polish grade down to 1.
Click to expand...
Does GIA mention graining more frequently than AGS? I didn't see a lot of AGS reports with graining, it happens but not very often.
 
Stephan said:
The performance of this I-VS2 is really nice.
Now honestly, I'm not fan of the clarity because I can see something that is not on the plot and reflects in multiple places.
Take this with a pinch of salt because VS1 is the lowest I would go for a 1.5+ ct, and a lot of people here will disagree with that and happily advice you to buy SI1 or even SI2.
Here is a collage to show what I mean.
clarity.png
Click to expand...
My previous diamond from WF had these 'streaks' in the original video that was not on the plot. I louped the stone carefully and didn't find anything that would cause this nor did I see such streaks in person. After I returned the stone a year later for an upgrade, the new video that WF took of the stone no longer exhibited this. So I wonder if it is something external, due the way WF cleans or handles the stones?
But I did used to own a AGS stone that my appraiser told me had tiny surface graining lines that were not on the plot. I never found them with a loupe myself though.
 
Last edited:
The I you picked looks beautiful.
 
I think the I is stunning and very sparkly!
 
Julyisjuly said:
IMG_3218.jpg IMG_3209.JPG

Hi, I think I am the later case. before I sent the 1.904 G stone to Appraiser, I didn't think about the color or pay attention to the color at all and I was very happy with its sparkle. However, when I was told the G is not really like a G, i felt I wasted money. In the show room yesterday, I can only see very subtle differences,and my fiancée(husband to be) can't see anything different. I went to pick a I.
See attached. G-I-Tiffany.
Click to expand...
Gosh I really don’t like that G, with such distinct brown hue. My stones never look like that.
Your new I definitely looks whiter, and given the two I would’ve also chosen the I.
 
TreeScientist said:
Not necessarily. Or at least not entirely. I've seen those marks on the surface of a few diamonds. I would guess that it's either surface graining that may not have been prevalent enough to be noted, or polish marks that were not noticeable enough to knock the polish grade down to 1.​
Click to expand...
I have found that internal grain lines are often not reported by the labs since they are transparent and often can only be seen from very discrete angles. Photo/video often picks them up because of the high magnification and hard directional lighting.
 
I had a wonderful ACA 2.123 I-SI1 with those lines in one of the pavilion facets but they didn't reflect in other facets. It was only visible with a loupe and the diamond was gorgeous.
 
Texas Leaguer said:
I have found that internal grain lines are often not reported by the labs since they are transparent and often can only be seen from very discrete angles. Photo/video often picks them up because of the high magnification and hard directional lighting.
Click to expand...
Back when I was prowling shops an oldtimer told me I would never think of ex/id polish and IF diamonds the same ever again after seeing them at 50x and 100x, he was right.
 
Stephan said:
Does GIA mention graining more frequently than AGS? I didn't see a lot of AGS reports with graining, it happens but not very often.
Click to expand...

I have no clue, and I don't know how one would even prove that, but I don't think so. I've seen these marks on a few GIA diamonds that had no mention of graining in the comments and received Ex for polish, so GIA is similar in that regard. As @Texas Leaguer said, if the graining is minimal, it might not even be noticed during the clarity grading process, or it might not be noted even if it is noticed. In the same vein, diamonds can receive the Ex polish grade while possessing "minor details of polish", which are not noted unless it's to differentiate IF from FL.
 
Julyisjuly said:
The I has a bigger table and lower crown height ( the 14.7 crown height bugs me a bit when I looked at the proportion)
The reason I picked it out: It looked slightly slightly whiter in person compared to other I.
I think I too focused on choosing a best-value color when I was in the show room yesterday......
since I have known that the G has perfect cut and potentially I was biased in my mind.
I told the sales lady, I can see a bit difference in terms of fire.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068031.htm
.
Click to expand...
The one on the ring finger is the 1.94G and the one on the middle finger is the 2.14 I.
 
LLJsmom said:
I have seen that in diamonds before and that bugs me too. I would not select a diamond that exhibits that. But that is just me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out, I never knew this before. I don't know whether I can see it in person, I don't have the I stone in my hand now. I left it at WF yesterday.
 
Karl_K said:
Back when I was prowling shops an oldtimer told me I would never think of ex/id polish and IF diamonds the same ever again after seeing them at 50x and 100x, he was right.
Click to expand...

That is so true. I bought a 60X loupe with LED light. It certainly gives you a different view of your diamond or gemstone.
 
Texas Leaguer said:
@Dmndsr4evr11 ,
Very important observation you make here, and it is particularly relevant for diamond enthusiasts and collectors here. You might call it 'color creep' :D

As you look at more and more diamonds, and even as you look at your own diamond repeatedly over time and in different lighting environments, you can develop increasingly more sensitivity to color. A diamond that would look perfectly white to a novice, starts to reveal subtle shades to the more refined eye.

Just because you develop a more discerning eye does not necessarily mean that you are going to prefer whiter, but often it does. I know it did in my case. Early in my career I was solidly in the H-I camp. I did not think it made sense to pay the premium for any high color- they looked plenty white to me. Over time and seeing thousands of diamonds, I have come to really appreciate colorless stones. Provided they are precision cut of course!

Another thing to factor into the value of a diamond purchase with a good trade-up policy.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Texas Leaguer. I guess I must have developed color sensitivity as I have more and more experience with diamonds. I seriously didn’t pay attention much when I got my original e-ring that was an I SI1 that’s a non-certified diamond and a much smaller one. I definitely was color- blind then hahaha.
 
@Julyisjuly does it bother YOU? Thats all that matters. And does it bother you because you know now or because you don't like the look? Personally, it wouldn't bother me at all.
 
Matilda said:
@Julyisjuly does it bother YOU? Thats all that matters. And does it bother you because you know now or because you don't like the look? Personally, it wouldn't bother me at all.
Click to expand...
The only thing bothers me a bit is that I felt the "I" is less lively in terms of fire. Splitting hair.
 
Maybe it's an idea to take a day to have a diamond break to clear your head . The answer will come to you once you are more relaxed I think right now your mind is getting overwhelmed by diamond information! WAY TOO MUCH ANALYSIS! I think a rest period is needed.
 
Matilda said:
Maybe it's an idea to take a day to have a diamond break to clear your head . The answer will come to you once you are more relaxed I think right now your mind is getting overwhelmed by diamond information! WAY TOO MUCH ANALYSIS! I think a rest period is needed.
Click to expand...
Definitely appreciate all these inputs. I am so lucky that I learned tremendously here before our first purchase! :dance::dance::dance:
 
I never had a diamond that didn’t have something I would change. LOL
I think sometimes we forget that they are natural things that come out of the earth, and the indivudual characteristics are part of their charm.
 
Julyisjuly said:
I am so sorry, I didn't really keep track of pictures. Now I looked back in my phone, I can't even tell which is which. All I can remember, The bigger size ones are H and I, the smaller ones are the 1.941G and another G they have in house.
I also saw a GIA G, but can't recall which is it in the picture.....
I think at the end, the color look all very similar to me, I can tell a very subtle difference when I look in person while my fiancé can't tell any difference between these G to I.

IMG_3198.JPG IMG_3211.JPG IMG_3212.JPG IMG_3197.JPG IMG_3193.JPG IMG_3196.JPG
Click to expand...

I haven't read all the posts (this one and the next), but I am very confused. Which is which?

I prefer the one on the far left, in both posts. Can you tell me which one that is?
 
Phoenix said:
I haven't read all the posts (this one and the next), but I am very confused. Which is which?

I prefer the one on the far left, in both posts. Can you tell me which one that is?
Click to expand...
Sorry. I totally didn't track, I looked at several diamonds in the show room. Now looking at pictures, I can't remember which is which neither.
 
Julyisjuly said:
The only thing bothers me a bit is that I felt the "I" is less lively in terms of fire. Splitting hair.
Click to expand...

I went back and put the original 1.941 G and proposed 2.14 I into a comparative screen on WF so you can see the values side by side.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=4068031,4049800

You mentioned the I didn't have as much fire and here are my thoughts on why:
  • G has a smaller 55.8 table vs the larger 56.6 table of the I. As you may already be aware, a smaller table means larger upper facets which is where rainbow light (fire/sparkle) is reflected and made visible to our eyes. So a smaller table will exhibit a little more fire, whereas a larger table will exhibit a little more white light balance.
  • G has a steeper 34.5 crown with 15.2% crown height vs the I that has a more shallow 34.1 crown with 14.7% crown height. Keeping it simple, a shallower crown will produce a little more white return whereas a larger crown will produce a little more fire.
  • While both crowns vary on each stone, the pavilions of both stones remain static at 40.8 degrees. Many times the pavilion will be steeper to offset a shallower crown. Here this works, as evidenced by the clean ASET and idealscope images as NO light is leaking on either stone.
  • G has an overall depth of 61.5 and I has a depth of 60.8. Effectively all the proportions play a role in the way light enters, bounces around and then leaves the diamond. Below are some generic diagrams that show how a deeper stone with more steep crown (called a FIC) varies from a shallower stone with shallow crown (called a BIC) vary but take similar paths to exit the diamond. This illustrates how the crown, pavilion and depths play together.
  • Ultimately neither is better or worse. As we can see by looking at all the images, both stones fall within ideal categories but because of slight variances in several proportions you are getting a slightly different personality with each stone. Effectively the G has a little more fire and less white return, whereas the I has a little more white light return and less fire.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-crown-and-pavilion

bic_fic.gif


crn_pav.gif


Since you don't appear to be color sensitive, I am wondering if your eyes actually prefer a little more white light return at the expense of a little fire. Did you happen to look at any other stones that had near identical proportions to the 1.941 G? It'd be interesting to compare the new I stone you picked lined up to a few varying stones with near identical proportions to the G to see if these thoughts are correct.

It would be easy enough to find near identical proportions of the G stone that is the same or better color than the I stone you picked in the store. My concern is if you do prefer a little more white light return (and just don't know it) then you risk being unhappy a second time if WF takes this approach & swaps the stone without you being able to compare the stones side by side & confirm the decision first. IMO, you either need to visually see and confirm any changes in-person or you need to have a potential replacement along with the I stone shipped to your house or an appraiser/jeweler in your area that is WF approved so you can compare using your eyes. Otherwise I'm concerned the emotional side of this purchase may get the best of you and we all want you to be thrilled as WF stones are seriously some of the best available and WF takes a personal dedication to ensuring customer happiness and satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
nm misread something.
 
34.1 and 34.5 are both well matched to the 40.8 pavilion.
The difference in fire potential between the 2 is very minimal.
Small difference are being over blown here lately.
The key is lighting even on the same finger the lighting they see are different.
One can be picking up a led light and the other missing it.
One could be sending fire over your head and the other to your eye because of the differences in angle.
There are a lot of other factors that can come into play also.

The real test is the test of time in your environment and your lighting that is what counts. Which is why a return policy is a great thing to have.
 
I actually think @sledge provided a good explanation of why the OP may have noticed more fire from the G stone vs. the shallower spready I stone with a shallower crown that looks brighter. After all, these tiny differences do matter and people pay a premium whether they could appreciate the difference naked eye or nor.

However, @Karl_K is correct to point out that lighting and the view angles do matter greatly. When you think you notice a difference between two stones with pretty close specs, try switching places (fingers, left/right, etc) or go to another room with different lighting to see if you still notice the same.
 
blueMA said:
I actually think @sledge provided a good explanation of why the OP may have noticed more fire from the G stone vs. the shallower spready I stone with a shallower crown that looks brighter. After all, these tiny differences do matter and people pay a premium whether they could appreciate the difference naked eye or nor.
Click to expand...
Except that it is factually questionable.
Using hca speak a BIC and a FIC will both have a lot of fire in lighting highly conductive to fire.
The difference is across a wide range of lighting the FIC is more likely to show fire more often.
Small differences don't change it enough to be significant unless it crosses one of the cliffs where a large change happens with small changes in proportions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top