twinning wisp. how exactly does it affect brilliance?

[Rockdiamond]

Diamonds are three dimensional. If you orient the diamond one way relative to the camera lens, or to your eyes, an inclusion may be invisible or nearly so. But if you change the tilt, or the position of the diamond relative to camera or eye, then the inclusions "may" be clearly visible. That is partly what gets a diamond into SI2 vs. SI1.

Loss of brilliance occurs due to inclusions scattering light, just what Karl said above. Diamonds are in motion when worn as a ring. You have to evaluate inclusions "in motion," especially for larger diamonds and lower clarity grades. Some stones may make a great pendant or earrings but not ring, if the wearer wants an eyeclean stone.

On that particular stone, the size of it alone is going to make finding an eye-clean SI2 very rare. But on the other hand, those wisps are out there in the star/bezel/upper girdle facets. If the table area is clean, loss of brilliance in that outer area may not bother you. But since those inclusions intrude into the table, then probably you'll see them rather easily.

That's just my opinion. I don't need an eyeclean stone, btw. Some people don't.

What a great post!!!
"Light Return"- how do we measure it?
TC's points will apply here as well.
Let's say I agree with Garry- an SI2 graded by GIA based on twining wisps will show a loss of light return.
How much?
Here's an analogy that will likely cover a large percentage of GIA graded SI2 twining wisp stones.
Say a bathtub was filled with 100 gallons of water, and you took an eye dropper to remove a few ounces.
Like that much.
There IS less water, but you'd never know it.

Any measurement purported to be "objective" needs fixed parameters- such as controlling the light, and it's relation to the diamond.
But in the real world, once a diamond is set and worn ALL of that goes out the window.
So an RBC with the best light return won't sparkle as much as an OMB in candlelight.

I'm in agreement with Dan and Wink- many SI2 twining wisp stones show no perceptible loss of brilliance due to the imperfection.
Of course there are some that do as well.....but by no means a majority.

 

[Rhino]

Excellent subject and glad it came up.

The bottom line is they have to be seen. As Garry points out there are times when it does in fact impact optics and transparency.

It is also important to note that no matter how good the ASET or IdealScope image looks ... those tools cannot communicate haze or transparency issues inherent in the gem material of a diamond.

This applies not only to twinning wisps but clouds (even in VS clarities btw), graining levels, and or either of the two combined with fluorescence.

So a vendor pointing to ASET or IdealScope to "prove" these issues is moot. They are ineffective. It is a phenomena that can only be visually confirmed and then the jeweler or gemologist must know the appropriate lighting in which to inspect it under to either confirm or deny.

Having said that however I must chime in with Wink and the others that when they are not an issue, are among our favorite types of inclusions and WHY I do not like plots on lab reports because when you look at a lab report with twinning wisps it makes the diamond appear as if it will be a complete mess. In fact as we are hunting for our clients and see diamonds with twinning wisps they will be among the diamonds we'll call in for inspection. When we locate a winner, it's a good one.

Rhino

 

[Dancing Fire]

This is going to irk a lot of experts here but I'm going to say it. The 5-8k I save on the stone can be put to better use elsewhere. I have furniture to buy, home to buy etc. I'm not so certain that the extra money spent on the stone is a good value proposition if I view things from the larger picture. That being said, I noticed that a lot of PSers have a monster budget and won't necessarily have my view. I'm squirming with a 1.484 F SI2 purchase on a victor canera setting that totals 18kish. I routinely see people here having 3-4 carats and doing a custom setting and having budgets as high as 100k and many in the 30-40k range. That's definitely not me lol.

On the other hand many PSer wouldn't spend big bucks on a setting.

 

[princessfeedme]

Thank you everyone for your invaluable input. What all of you have said makes perfect sense and reassuring, but my anxiety will not go away until the diamond is actually in my hands, to be scrutinized by my near-sighted eyes

Mark2014 and n00bdiamond are absolutely right that it's a careful balancing act of the 5C's in perspective to every buyer's financial life goals. So as a cautious buyer, one should buy from a vendor who can look at the diamond and evaluate it for you...but...pay VERY CAREFUL attention to the exact words they say. In my case, a highly PS-trusted vendor said that my SI1 stone was "perfectly" eye clean. This sounded rather odd to me because I remember other stones from this vendor is usually described as "completely" eye clean. So with further prodding, their response was that it's eye clean from the face up position, but " if the diamond is face down, you might be able to see a trace of its twinning wisp if you know where to look and are examining very closely." I had to ask more follow up questions for the vendor to tell me the exact location of this visible twinning wisp.

Had I just glided over the word "perfectly," I would be very upset when I receive the stone and think negatively of the vendor. So I'm glad I trusted my guts and asked for further clarifications. So moral of the story: buy from a trusted vendor with a great return policy and read their analysis carefully and pick up on nuances in their wordings!

 

[John P]

Garry, I've been in China with increasing frequency and have a question on this topic.

Over the years you've seen a fair share of GIA-graded SI clouds and twinning wisps that have some impact on performance. This is not just you; it has been a topic of conversation with my Chinese and Indian clients. This goes hand in hand with similar dialogues I trust you know RE brownish tint (and sometimes dubious zw green).

I am vigilant for this in every assessment I make but rarely if ever encounter it with existing GIA reports in the USA. The exception is incoming recut candidates where I declare the stone pique...and the submitter is surprised because they (or whatever lab) judged it SI.

The question: Do you think there's a greater concentration of such specimens in IN, CN (and resultantly AU) because the industry's difficult rough makeables are often sent to the more recent cut centers in the Asia-Pacific? When I was in Surat I saw solutions for crystals that might be considered impossible (or impractical) in Antwerp/NY.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Excellent subject and glad it came up.

The bottom line is they have to be seen. As Garry points out there are times when it does in fact impact optics and transparency.

It is also important to note that no matter how good the ASET or IdealScope image looks ... those tools cannot communicate haze or transparency issues inherent in the gem material of a diamond.

This applies not only to twinning wisps but clouds (even in VS clarities btw), graining levels, and or either of the two combined with fluorescence.

So a vendor pointing to ASET or IdealScope to "prove" these issues is moot. They are ineffective. It is a phenomena that can only be visually confirmed and then the jeweler or gemologist must know the appropriate lighting in which to inspect it under to either confirm or deny.

Having said that however I must chime in with Wink and the others that when they are not an issue, are among our favorite types of inclusions and WHY I do not like plots on lab reports because when you look at a lab report with twinning wisps it makes the diamond appear as if it will be a complete mess. In fact as we are hunting for our clients and see diamonds with twinning wisps they will be among the diamonds we'll call in for inspection. When we locate a winner, it's a good one.

Rhino

I agree that this is a very worthwhile discussion on a number of levels. I think the issue of trying to derive info out of reflector images that they are not designed to do is an important point as Rhino points out.

I understand the sense of frustration coming out in some of the posts about there not being a quantifiable way to communicate to what extent clarity features diminish light performance. The main takeaway is that the lower down the clarity scale you go, the broader the category. So if you are considering Si2 there is a much greater need for careful attention. Reading the cert correctly in terms of the main grade setting features helps, but it is important for the consumer to inspect the diamond themselves, and if possible get a consultation from a professional with a trained eye.

I agree that twinning wisps can in some ways be a good type of inclusion to look for, as both Wink and Rhino have stated. We rarely see visible performance issues with them, but then we do not work with that many Si2s. It's more of an issue with cloud based Si grades, specifically Si stones with the comment on the cert "clarity based upon clouds not shown". That is usually an indication of a large cloud area and sometimes it will have a negative performance impact, even though the feature cannot be seen with the naked eye.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So let me ask this then. There are many SI1, SI2 stones sold by all the reputable dealers on this website like Brian Gavin, WF, good old gold. For some of the SI2 diamonds, they claim that the twinning wisps do not reduce brilliance?

Here I'm seeing two conflicting statements from two sides who are well recognized experts on this forum. So let me ask this and let's be honest. I see two sides of the camp on this issue with one side like WF, Brian Gavin claiming that there are SI2 diamonds within the 1-2 carat range that does not lose brilliance despite having twinning wisps.

I see some statements floating around that state that ALL SI2 diamonds lose brilliance. Clearly there is a very very big difference in expert opinion here. WF, BG, good old gold claims that some of the SI1 and SI2s they sell do not lose brilliance. So what is it that the critics see that WF and BG and good old gold experts are not seeing? Let's open up the discussion this way b/c most people here are going to undergo a selection process of getting the cleanest SI1 and SI2 containing twinning wisps from reputable dealers with a keen eye.

I too have bought and sold many SI2 stones with shocking twinning wisp GIA plots.
I guess the answer to yours and many other questions above is that you need to see the diamond, and I know thats not much help if your buying from pictures and online info.
The AGS stone posted above also has some biggish crystal inclusions, so the twinning is not the sole grade maker. The keen eyed dealer (who values reputation over quick sale) or appraiser in their familiar surroundings is an important factor.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Excellent subject and glad it came up.


It is also important to note that no matter how good the ASET or IdealScope image looks ... those tools cannot communicate haze or transparency issues inherent in the gem material of a diamond.

This applies not only to twinning wisps but clouds (even in VS clarities btw), graining levels, and or either of the two combined with fluorescence.

So a vendor pointing to ASET or IdealScope to "prove" these issues is moot. They are ineffective. It is a phenomena that can only be visually confirmed and then the jeweler or gemologist must know the appropriate lighting in which to inspect it under to either confirm or deny.

Rhino

Hi Rhino,
I agree re ideal-scope photo's, however when I am buying huge numbers of small stones and checking 3-5 a minute with my ideal-scope (which I really do) it I can actually pick hazy stones.
If I looked at one stone every 10 minutes I might not be so well attuned.
Over blue stones also stand out.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, I've been in China with increasing frequency and have a question on this topic.

Over the years you've seen a fair share of GIA-graded SI clouds and twinning wisps that have some impact on performance. This is not just you; it has been a topic of conversation with my Chinese and Indian clients. This goes hand in hand with similar dialogues I trust you know RE brownish tint (and sometimes dubious zw green).

I am vigilant for this in every assessment I make but rarely if ever encounter it with existing GIA reports in the USA. The exception is incoming recut candidates where I declare the stone pique...and the submitter is surprised because they (or whatever lab) judged it SI.

The question: Do you think there's a greater concentration of such specimens in IN, CN (and resultantly AU) because the industry's difficult rough makeables are often sent to the more recent cut centers in the Asia-Pacific? When I was in Surat I saw solutions for crystals that might be considered impossible (or impractical) in Antwerp/NY.

Hi John,
I don't think it is any more prevalent in one market or another, and I am not aware of one rough source being worse than others (although Argyle brownish material is very grainy).

I think it is possible GIA has become more stringent with their marking - it would be interesting to ask some old timers if that may be so?
And another very apparent factor is that much of the basis of lab grading is back lit under a microscope. Twinning that looks worse in that environment has a better than 50:50 chance of looking better face up with light from above. This holds for many 'lucky find' grades.
Infact when i am viewing large numbers of stones and find a 'missgraded' stone - it can almost always be put down to backlight grading.

 

[John P]

Hi John, I don't think it is any more prevalent in one market or another, and I am not aware of one rough source being worse than others (although Argyle brownish material is very grainy).

Not source Garry. Destination.

"Projects" like this one seem destined to be solved in Ch/In.



Surat: Well-suited for complex solutions.

I think it is possible GIA has become more stringent with their marking - it would be interesting to ask some old timers if that may be so? And another very apparent factor is that much of the basis of lab grading is back lit under a microscope. Twinning that looks worse in that environment has a better than 50:50 chance of looking better face up with light from above. This holds for many 'lucky find' grades.
Infact when i am viewing large numbers of stones and find a 'missgraded' stone - it can almost always be put down to backlight grading

Hmm. I was always taught to use all in assessment. In fact how can one isolate inclusions (and their depth) from blemish/finish features without swapping darkfield/reflected/etc. Isn't this standard practice? - Or maybe you are talking about IS backlighting?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi John, I don't think it is any more prevalent in one market or another, and I am not aware of one rough source being worse than others (although Argyle brownish material is very grainy).

Not source Garry. Destination.

"Projects" like this one seem destined to be solved in Ch/In.



Surat: Well-suited for complex solutions.

I think it is possible GIA has become more stringent with their marking - it would be interesting to ask some old timers if that may be so? And another very apparent factor is that much of the basis of lab grading is back lit under a microscope. Twinning that looks worse in that environment has a better than 50:50 chance of looking better face up with light from above. This holds for many 'lucky find' grades.
Infact when i am viewing large numbers of stones and find a 'missgraded' stone - it can almost always be put down to backlight grading

Hmm. I was always taught to use all in assessment. In fact how can one isolate inclusions (and their depth) from blemish/finish features without swapping darkfield/reflected/etc. Isn't this standard practice? - Or maybe you are talking about IS backlighting?

Hi John,
Great photos!

I do not think back lighting should be used AT ALL, like EVER, for grades below VVS.

 

[diagem]

I read a lot of questions regarding the visual effects of twinning wisps. Twinning wisps can be fairly fine and not realy affect the LR but at the same time I have witnessed plenty of wider wisps (e.g. kind of three dimensional in thickness and form).
Those types are more visible especially when the Diamond is tilted or in movement. Some of them turn dark when in the tilted positions because they are actualy blocking the light path. (just like transparent feathers turn dark when crossing light paths.)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think it is possible GIA has become more stringent with their marking - it would be interesting to ask some old timers if that may be so? And another very apparent factor is that much of the basis of lab grading is back lit under a microscope. Twinning that looks worse in that environment has a better than 50:50 chance of looking better face up with light from above. This holds for many 'lucky find' grades.
Infact when i am viewing large numbers of stones and find a 'missgraded' stone - it can almost always be put down to backlight grading

Hmm. I was always taught to use all in assessment. In fact how can one isolate inclusions (and their depth) from blemish/finish features without swapping darkfield/reflected/etc. Isn't this standard practice? - Or maybe you are talking about IS backlighting?

Yes, using high power magnification, darkfield and reflected light, as well as naked eye assessment is all part of standard clarity grading practice. The idea is for the grader to understand the stone as completely as possible, but the clarity grade will assigned on the basis of what is visible under 10x.

 

[John P]

Bryan, sure. I'm talking about wedging and plotting above.

First perception at 10X is best when assigning. Which is why I don't mind to explore any stone; I called its grade in the first moments...now I'm just going to have fun inside of it.

Curious, when you went through GIA was clarity impression1/buzzword arrived-at using a loupe, or bino-microscope?
Same question for Bob H.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan, sure. I'm talking about wedging and plotting above.

First perception at 10X is best when assigning. Which is why I don't mind to explore any stone; I called its grade in the first moments...now I'm just going to have fun inside of it.

Curious, when you went through GIA was clarity impression1/buzzword arrived-at using a loupe, or bino-microscope?
Same question for Bob H.

It's hard to remember what the guidance was when I first started! There was definitely attention given to real world, trade oriented sorts of practices, but I would say most of the training and testing was focused on using the microscope.

I must say that I have a lot of respect for lab graders. There is an awful lot involved in doing a proper report. It takes a special kind of patience, persistence and attention to detail- and a whole lotta practice.

John, the pic of you and that wild and crazy rock together with the screen shot of the digital cutting analysis is just awesome.

Diamond cutters have my deep respect as well. Especially ones that would take on that beast!

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

Diamond graders are taught to clean the stone thoroughly then take a look in the microscope to get an idea if the stone is VS2 and above or SI1 or below, so as to get a quick idea as to how to go about plotting. A fast plotting grader can do stone fully in about 12 minutes, one that would be considered slow would be 20 minutes. Not until plotting is done, does a grader then loupe the stone face up for clarity, unless it is for a VVS1 call. All clarites are supposed to be decided with a loupe. The graders were instructed to loupe stones with back lighting and in 4 rotations of 90 degrees, so as to give the stone a chance, since louping a grade setting inclusion in the 6:00 position is its brightest spot. The microscope basically is a tool for plotting and not all graders are as skilled with the loupe as they should be and so will use the microscope look as a crutch.

 

[WhoaNelly]

The graders were instructed to loupe stones with back lighting and in 4 rotations of 90 degrees, so as to give the stone a chance, since louping a grade setting inclusion in the 6:00 position is its brightest spot. The microscope basically is a tool for plotting and not all graders are as skilled with the loupe as they should be and so will use the microscope look as a crutch.

Hello all. 30years: would you explain the bolded statement above? I'm curious because I have an SI1 stone with an inclusion just under the girdle and I had the stone set such that I wear it with the inclusion at the 6 pm setting. I call the inclusion a beauty mark This has been a fascinating read---thank you for the education.

 

[WinkHPD]

Diamond graders are taught to clean the stone thoroughly then take a look in the microscope to get an idea if the stone is VS2 and above or SI1 or below, so as to get a quick idea as to how to go about plotting. A fast plotting grader can do stone fully in about 12 minutes, one that would be considered slow would be 20 minutes. Not until plotting is done, does a grader then loupe the stone face up for clarity, unless it is for a VVS1 call. All clarites are supposed to be decided with a loupe. The graders were instructed to loupe stones with back lighting and in 4 rotations of 90 degrees, so as to give the stone a chance, since louping a grade setting inclusion in the 6:00 position is its brightest spot. The microscope basically is a tool for plotting and not all graders are as skilled with the loupe as they should be and so will use the microscope look as a crutch.

When I took my GG in residence, graduating in November of 1975 we graded all of the diamonds in our class with a scope. I do not remember any specific attention given to using a loupe and asked an instructor why were were told to grade at 10X when the lowest our scopes would go was actually 10.5 x.

I was told not to worry about it. (He did not actually pat me on the head and say, "like a good little boy," but that is certainly the way that I felt.)

When I went to Belgium the first two or three times were quite the adventure as no one had a scope I could use and all of my purchases were made with a loupe.

I only missed one clarity grade by being a grade too high, a borderline SI1 that I had graded a borderline VS2 but I paid the right price for it, so that was okay.

I did mess up on my colors though, I graded almost everything a grade too low, which made for a happy day when my papers came back, but explained some of the pained expressions I got when I made offers to some of the vendors.

Today my eyes are not what they were and I would not even try to buy with only a loupe. Fortunately in today's market I do not have to, as the diamonds I want are all papered because of my cut requirements.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Bryan, sure. I'm talking about wedging and plotting above.

First perception at 10X is best when assigning. Which is why I don't mind to explore any stone; I called its grade in the first moments...now I'm just going to have fun inside of it.

Curious, when you went through GIA was clarity impression1/buzzword arrived-at using a loupe, or bino-microscope?
Same question for Bob H.

When I was going through class I recall the instructor advising through the loupe first then the scope but that seems like many moons ago.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Excellent subject and glad it came up.


It is also important to note that no matter how good the ASET or IdealScope image looks ... those tools cannot communicate haze or transparency issues inherent in the gem material of a diamond.

This applies not only to twinning wisps but clouds (even in VS clarities btw), graining levels, and or either of the two combined with fluorescence.

So a vendor pointing to ASET or IdealScope to "prove" these issues is moot. They are ineffective. It is a phenomena that can only be visually confirmed and then the jeweler or gemologist must know the appropriate lighting in which to inspect it under to either confirm or deny.

Rhino

Hi Rhino,
I agree re ideal-scope photo's, however when I am buying huge numbers of small stones and checking 3-5 a minute with my ideal-scope (which I really do) it I can actually pick hazy stones.
If I looked at one stone every 10 minutes I might not be so well attuned.
Over blue stones also stand out.

Garry,
I have no doubt that your trained eye can pick up things like that. But you are able to control your conditions and have a highly practiced understanding of your instrument. I think it is important for consumers to be advised NOT to try to read too much into images of IS, ASET, magnified images or even videos. There are so many variables in the equipment, capture techniques, lighting,editing and compression of digital images, etc.

For example, in this thread is an IS and magnified image that look quite hazy to me. But to attribute that to the twinning wisps is presumptive. It could easily be that the image was captured out of focus and or that the digital image got too pixelated by compression. You CAN assess cutting aspects in that the stone is performing well from the standpoint of leakage and contrast. But you cannot know for sure from that image if the stone is sleepy.

I see many consumers trying to do too much with any one type of image. It's much better to use a collection of images in a "holistic" way together with the lab report and other forms of consultation.

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

WhoaNelly, not to worry. I was talking about loose stones held in tweezers under a light at 12:00 backlighting the stone in the lab. In your ring you are fine.

 

[WhoaNelly]

Hi there 30 years. Actually, I'm not worried. I didn't understand the bolded statement---not sure I do now even with the reference to the lab . . . Thanks!

 

[John P]

...an IS and magnified image that look quite hazy to me. But to attribute that to the twinning wisps is presumptive. It could easily be that the image was captured out of focus and or that the digital image got too pixelated by compression. You CAN assess cutting aspects in that the stone is performing well from the standpoint of leakage and contrast. But you cannot know for sure from that image if the stone is sleepy.

Absolutely right. I'd add that the non-standardized nature of reflector-setups adds to this.

I see many consumers trying to do too much with any one type of image. It's much better to use a collection of images in a "holistic" way together with the lab report and other forms of consultation.

+1

 

[John P]

Diamond graders are taught to clean the stone thoroughly then take a look in the microscope to get an idea if the stone is VS2 and above or SI1 or below, so as to get a quick idea as to how to go about plotting. A fast plotting grader can do stone fully in about 12 minutes, one that would be considered slow would be 20 minutes. Not until plotting is done, does a grader then loupe the stone face up for clarity, unless it is for a VVS1 call. All clarites are supposed to be decided with a loupe. The graders were instucted to loupe stones with back lighting and in 4 rotations of 90 degrees, so as to give the stone a chance, since louping a grade setting inclusion in the 6:00 position is its brightest spot. The microscope basically is a tool for plotting and not all graders are as skilled with the loupe as they should be and so will use the microscope look as a crutch.

I'm glad to hear someone say this. It's how Brian Gavin first instructed me, and that training has been reinforced and heightened by Lieve Peeters in Antwerp.

Old schoolers in Antwerp and NYC use a loupe like normal people use a pencil or pen. They always have one, and it's out constantly. Lieve sees more with a 10X triplet loupe than most gemologists detect with microscope, darkfield and magic 8-ball. She has a million-dollar state-of-art gemological microscope in our offices, but I see her use it 1% of the time, for the most in-depth assessments.

"Relax your eye. See through the stone. Really look at it..." Developing high level loupe skills reminds me of Star Wars IV in the Millenium Falcon, where Obi-Wan is teaching Luke to use the force (apologies if my inner-nerd is showing).

In all seriousness, Wink is right: The majority of high-level grading among traders in cut-centers is loupe-based. As a result, I always loupe diamonds coming into my lab first-and-foremost. Only when I'm finished with the basic grading do I use 'scopes for plotting and verification.

 

[John P]

John, the pic of you and that wild and crazy rock together with the screen shot of the digital cutting analysis is just awesome. Diamond cutters have my deep respect as well. Especially ones that would take on that beast!

Right!

A diamond cutter might make the same sound for a pristine sawable Octa versus the beastly "ruff" rough ~

.
.
.

But it would involve different capitalization and punctuation...

 

[yssie]

John, the pic of you and that wild and crazy rock together with the screen shot of the digital cutting analysis is just awesome. Diamond cutters have my deep respect as well. Especially ones that would take on that beast!

Right!

A diamond cutter might make the same sound for a pristine sawable Octa versus the beastly "ruff" rough ~

.
.
.

But it would involve different capitalization and punctuation...

John, I am cackling like a loon in my cubicle, thank you

 

[WinkHPD]

In all seriousness, it is hard to believe that John entered this magnificent trade such a short span of years ago. It is inspiring to see his growth over the years from the young diamoneye apprentice to the master of the trade that he is today.

I have had the pleasure of sitting down with a client and letting John do the explanation about what the client is seeing twice over the many years that I have known him. Both times I have come away with still another new tool in my arsenal of knowledge, things I already knew wrapped up in a way that the "EveryMan" could easily understand without years of study.

It truly is of little use to know everything if you can not share it simply. It is also of little use to realize you do not know an answer if you do not know where to go find it. In this too John is a master who has a circle of contacts that know things that most of us retailers will never even think about. I do not think I have ever sent a question to John that he did not respond to me with an answer, along with credit to whom the answer came from.

I just want all you Pricescopers to know how lucky you are to have a resource like John available to you.

Wink

 

[Texas Leaguer]

In all seriousness, it is hard to believe that John entered this magnificent trade such a short span of years ago. It is inspiring to see his growth over the years from the young diamoneye apprentice to the master of the trade that he is today.

I have had the pleasure of sitting down with a client and letting John do the explanation about what the client is seeing twice over the many years that I have known him. Both times I have come away with still another new tool in my arsenal of knowledge, things I already knew wrapped up in a way that the "EveryMan" could easily understand without years of study.

It truly is of little use to know everything if you can not share it simply. It is also of little use to realize you do not know an answer if you do not know where to go find it. In this too John is a master who has a circle of contacts that know things that most of us retailers will never even think about. I do not think I have ever sent a question to John that he did not respond to me with an answer, along with credit to whom the answer came from.

I just want all you Pricescopers to know how lucky you are to have a resource like John available to you.

Wink

It should also be inspiring to the prosumers here that with a passionate interest in the field, a sincere desire to lift others up, and the innate ability to teach, the sky is the limit. John is one-of-kind and few will be able to duplicate his accomplishments, but he shines a bright light on what is possible.

 

[mwfp]

Garry, I never knew inclusion order mattered in the certs. The worse inclusions are always listed first?

If the stone is say SI2 and above 1ct and TW is the only inclusion mentioned on the list that I would expect a dulling of light to be happening.
If an SI stone had say a:
crystal
feather
twinning wisp

In that order
Then it would not be an issue.

A VS with twinning wisps is unlikely to present any problem.
Twinning wisps are usually marked so badly that dealers have trouble selling them.
But here is a thread where I show a bad e.g. with reduced brilliance https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/

 

[mwfp]

Garry, I never knew inclusion order mattered in the certs. The worse inclusions are always listed first?

If the stone is say SI2 and above 1ct and TW is the only inclusion mentioned on the list that I would expect a dulling of light to be happening.
If an SI stone had say a:
crystal
feather
twinning wisp

In that order
Then it would not be an issue.

A VS with twinning wisps is unlikely to present any problem.
Twinning wisps are usually marked so badly that dealers have trouble selling them.
But here is a thread where I show a bad e.g. with reduced brilliance https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-this-twinning-wisp-inclusion-pictures.192126/