Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, thoughts?

[Tigrrlily04]

I have a ring and I recently noticed a small chip in the girdle of the stone next to one of the prongs. I have had the ring for 8 months and just recently noticed the chip. It isn't huge, but big enough to see easily and I can feel it with my fingernail. We put in an insurance claim for it and I just brought it to the jeweler that works with the insurance company to look at it. The jeweler said that the chip that I am seeing is not actually a chip, but is a characteristic of the stone (indented natural), and it must have been hidden under a prong and the stone rotated so now I can see it. The stone is a VS2 stone, so it was my understanding that I shouldn't be able to see anything in it. Can you provide any advice? Should there be an indented natural large enough to easily see and feel on a stone which has been graded VS2 by GIA?

 

[ame]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

One of my old stones had one right at the girdle that was very well prong-covered at first, but I actually thought it was neat, so it was rotated to be right next to a prong. It was something that helped me identify it. However I don't think I could "catch" it with my nail. Maybe get an appraiser not affiliated with a jewelry store to chime in before you accept that response. But I would think that yes it's likely to be visible, vs2 or otherwise due to the location probably. That's probably WHY it might be a VS2 even.

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

Outside of Flawless-Internally Flawless naturals have zero affect on the clarity grade. They are still plotted on grading reports/appraisals though. Was there a natural indicated on the GIA report that graded your stone VS2 originally?

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

Who are they?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

That definitely should be noted on your grading report. Have you looked at it?

 

[Diamond*Dana]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

My diamond is a VS2 and the only flaw it has is a feather right on the girdle. I can see it with a loupe, but not really without. I can feel it with my fingernail. It is also plotted on the GIA report.

 

[oldminer]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

Please look at the clarity plot on the original lab report. If the diamond had an indented natural or nick in the girdle, it would be plotted on such a report. If it was a diamond without a clarity plot, then you may never know. It may well have been hidden under a prong and came into view when the stone rotated a bit. That is not at all uncommon to hide small inclusions, blemishes, naturals, nicks etc with a prong tip. You should have been made aware of anything breaking the outline of the diamond when you bought the stone, but if you purchased the diamond already mounted it may have not been mentioned to you. Maybe the best thing is to have the diamond re-rotated to conceal the little nick and go back to being okay with the stone.

If there was a clarity plot where such a fingernail felt nick did not previously exist, then you will know that somehow a tiny bit of chipping has happened. Likely, it can be fixed with very minor repair.

 

[ame]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

Who are they?

GIA.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

Who are they?

GIA.

GIA does not use the term "eye clean"

 

[ame]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

Who are they?

GIA.

GIA does not use the term "eye clean"

I am VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. My issue is that they qualify sometihng with a black inclusion as a VS, and that's not my idea of acceptable bec thats not eye clean. Their definition of VS2 indicates that inclusions should not be eye visible without 10x magnification. Therefore, a VS2, in theory, should be eye clean.

Are you done talking down to me now?

Also, the former stone of mine that had it at the girdle got the grade it got because of that indented natural. It was the grademaker.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

Please look at the clarity plot on the original lab report. If the diamond had an indented natural or nick in the girdle, it would be plotted on such a report.

I was just going to say that. Old Timer's advice is great here.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I am VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. My issue is that they qualify sometihng with a black inclusion as a VS, and that's not my idea of acceptable bec thats not eye clean. Their definition of VS2 indicates that inclusions should not be eye visible without 10x magnification. Therefore, a VS2, in theory, should be eye clean.

Are you done talking down to me now?

Also, the former stone of mine that had it at the girdle got the grade it got because of that indented natural. It was the grademaker.

I am certainly not going to talk down to you. But I will say that John Pollard recently had an interesting post about eyeclean. The AGS was considering adding this to their clarity grading criteria but the issue with it was, and is, "whose eyes"... it's considered too subjective based on an individual's eyes to include in the grading criteria. I can understand that perspective.

 

[ame]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I am VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. My issue is that they qualify sometihng with a black inclusion as a VS, and that's not my idea of acceptable bec thats not eye clean. Their definition of VS2 indicates that inclusions should not be eye visible without 10x magnification. Therefore, a VS2, in theory, should be eye clean.

Are you done talking down to me now?

Also, the former stone of mine that had it at the girdle got the grade it got because of that indented natural. It was the grademaker.

I am certainly not going to talk down to you. But I will say that John Pollard recently had an interesting post about eyeclean. The AGS was considering adding this to their clarity grading criteria but the issue with it was, and is, "whose eyes"... it's considered too subjective based on an individual's eyes to include in the grading criteria. I can understand that perspective.

Oh I agree, that it's hard to put a criteria on that. But that's why I said "that's not my idea of acceptable because it's not eye clean". That's my definition, and as we all know, I have a pretty clear definition of what I think is eye clean. If it's eye visible without a loupe, it's not eye clean. But others don't agree and even among graders there's subjectivity, and IIRC it takes at least two graders at GIA to give it the final grade.

I would be a super-harsh grader for GIA I think, if I worked there.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Re: Thought it was a chip, gemologist says inclusion, though

I have seen a LOT of VS2s that are not what I would consider eye clean, if it's got a black inclusion, it's not eye clean to me, ever. And they don't agree apparently.

Who are they?

GIA.

GIA does not use the term "eye clean"

I am VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. My issue is that they qualify sometihng with a black inclusion as a VS, and that's not my idea of acceptable bec thats not eye clean. Their definition of VS2 indicates that inclusions should not be eye visible without 10x magnification. Therefore, a VS2, in theory, should be eye clean.

Are you done talking down to me now?

From the GIA website: http://www.gia.edu/lab-reports-services/about-the-4cs/index.html
Very Slightly Included (VS1 and VS2) - Inclusions are clearly visible under 10× magnification but can be characterized as minor

Nowhere that I could find does it mention the inclusion(s) not being visible without 10x magnification.

It's a dangerous "theory" to propel and I wanted to express my concern, not talk down to you. I'm sorry if you felt that way.