Why doesn't AGS/GIA put a comment on their reports if the stone..

[Dancing Fire]

is brown tinted or hazy?

 

[Stephan]

I know GIA will in some occasion mention brown next to the color.
Hazy can happen without fluorescence, even in a white diamond and without cloud inclusions. That's just the crystal, and I don't think GIA or AGS will mention this.

 

[Stephan]

What happened to you?

 

[Dancing Fire]

What happened to you?

Nothing, I'm still alive. . S, your the one who had been MIA from PS. welcome back!

 

[Stephan]

Thank you! Your question is interesting, and I will watch the experts chime in.
The more you go lower in color, the more differences you can see between 2 stones with the same color grade; for this reason I love to browse JA website because I think it's fascinating and more visible on his website than on the others.
I really don't like brown or grey tinted I-Z diamonds, citron yellow is my favorite.
Some crystals simply look better than others. I remember an Indian diamond wholesaler who does grade transparency of each diamond, he also has more color grades, like H+ or G-.

 

[Stephan]

Do you have an example of a hazy or brown diamond?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Do you have an example of a hazy or brown diamond?

No I don't. I used too own this AGS VSB Octavia and it doesn't look hazy to me.

. some people are just so negative about fluor stones.

 

[Stephan]

Your Octavia is gorgeous. I think some of us are more fluorescence sensitive.
And traditionally, fluorescence in white diamonds comes with a discount, that's why people are suspicious, even if they can't notice it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Your Octavia is gorgeous. I think some of us are more fluorescence sensitive.
And traditionally, fluorescence in white diamonds comes with a discount, that's why people are suspicious, even if they can't notice it.

That is true, but I was told by BGD that the pricing gap on flour blue roughs vs none are narrowing these days.

 

[kmoro]

That is true, but I was told by BGD that the pricing gap on flour blue roughs vs none are narrowing these days.

Well yeah, since BGD has found a way to market strong blue fluorescents that might be otherwise considered less desirable due to strong fluorescence - BGD blue line.

 

[Stephan]

kmoro, I know Brian for a long time, I have the conviction he's sincere. He would not sell the blue line if they were not a good value in his eyes. They are also priced accordingly. If I had the chance to look at his inventory in real life, I would probably buy a BGD Blue. Every stone fluoresce in another way, and I really think it's a thing like color/clarity sensitive, I have to see it IRL.

 

[Stephan]

Of the fluorescent stones I owned / my friends owned, I never was a fan of fluorescence, when viewed in strong lighting I thought the fire was less potent than in diamonds without fluo.
But one of my friend owns a E-VVS with strong fluorescence, and this diamond is crystal clear, even under strong lighting, and with tons of fire. I'm very cautious when diamonds come with fluorescence, but it doesn't mean it's always bad. And if it's handpicked by someone you trust and cheaper than another diamond with the same characteristics, I could invest in it.

 

[AV_]

I believe they do to a degree:
- anything that is not yellow tint gets mentioned from M down (I could be wrong about the cutoff)
- and the comments announcing that the clarity grade is based on 'clouds not shown' can be read as a declaration of 'haze' (this is different that 'clouds not shown' in addition to shown inclusions, and the thresolds for mentioning clouds, and the tradeoff with shown inclusions toward the grade, arepoints to TBD...)

I find that SI2 and beyond, 'based on clouds' is 'fancy white' territory (this grade, I have NO idea how it is defined - some cuties look like marble with nail varnish on it!)

2c

SUM: I'd say that they do, but the message is too foggy ...

 

[yssie]

GIA:
https://www.gia.edu/doc/Coloring-Grading-D-to-Z-Diamonds-at-the-GIA-Laboratory.pdf

Today, a letter grade plus word descriptions of “Faint brown,” “Very Light brown,” and “Light brown” are used for the grade ranges of K–M, N–R, and S–Z, respectively.

Beginning at K, though, gray diamonds receive a word description only of “Faint,” “Very Light,” or “Light” gray for the same letter grade ranges as for brown diamonds

A former fancy colour grader at GIA answered some questions in an old thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...iamond-doesnt-have-a-yellow-undertone.168762/

AGS:
AGS has a new brown diamond report (announced earlier this year):
https://www.americangemsociety.org/news/401082/Get-to-Know-Your-Brown-Diamond.htm

Excellent explanation from Victor Canera:
https://www.victorcanera.com/blog/diamond-color-undertones

 

[Dancing Fire]

Can a PSer please post a lab report with the comment of "Brown or Gray undertones" ?

 

[yssie]

Can a PSer please post a lab report with the comment of "Brown or Gray undertones" ?

No one will be able to do this because GIA does not remark on colour in the comments section, they would note presence of brown or grey separately, and they don't call colours "undertones" on the report...
Did you look at that link I posted? It explains literally everything there is to know about GIA grading of D-Z stones...

What information are you looking for that's missing in those links?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Reading a lab report is a little like reading tea leaves. Actually maybe more like playing charades. You are given several pieces of information (clues) but it is left to you to complete the picture!

Actually it is a pretty clever approach. GIA always assumed the the diamond would be presented to the consumer by a GIA trained professional who could decipher the report for the client. In today's world many consumers are buying diamonds online with only the data printed on the report and sometimes without benefit of advice from someone who can read between the lines of the report.

Thank goodness for pricescope where that knowledge and advice is freely available.

As @AV_ suggests and @yssie elaborates, much of the info that @Dancing Fire inquires about is available to an extent. I would qualify that by saying that ,regarding brown, in the colorless/near colorless range it is both challenging to make a hue call, and somewhat pointless. In fact, some people including experts have a preference for brown, particularly in small stones. Therefore it can be considered a taste factor that the lab is probably wise to leave it to the eye of the beholder.

With regard to transparency (hazy,milky), I personally would like to see the labs develop direct reporting on this. It is particularly important for the consumer who is shopping for top levels of cut quality/light performance, which a growing segment of the market is obviously learning to do.

 

[WinkHPD]

As long as we are asking for things that we personally would like to see, I would like to see the online plots actually look like the real plots. Below are the online and the actual report. One makes the diamond look like a lucky cert with at least on one clarity grade upgrade, maybe even two. When the actual report came in, it was night and day.

We have had some plots on the actual report so light we could not capture them on our scanner, but the plot on the internet version was horrific.



Wink

 

[TreeScientist]

With regard to transparency (hazy,milky), I personally would like to see the labs develop direct reporting on this. It is particularly important for the consumer who is shopping for top levels of cut quality/light performance, which a growing segment of the market is obviously learning to do.

As @AV_ mentioned, the labs already do mention "hazy", it's just in their own code words. The clarity grade based on XXX not shown code words. Clarity grade based of clouds, twinning wisps, or internal graining not shown can pretty much all be read as "Hey, this diamond has a lot of internal defects which, while we can't distinguish them at 10X, result in reduced transparency of the stone." Because, when looking at dispersed clouds, you often can't really "see" the cloud at 10X. What you can distinguish is the reduced transparency.

But I agree with you 100%. I wish GIA and AGS would be more forthright about this. Because as uninformed consumers, most people don't automatically know that the "clarity grade based" comments mean haze, and they don't know that they should be weary of clouds, twinning wisps, and/or graining if they are the grade-setting inclusions at the SI and below levels. Hell, going back to my early days when I was a naïve young PriceScoper, I almost selected an SI1 diamond with clarity grade based on clouds not shown. I thought "Hey! It's an SI1 but I cannot see any inclusions even at the 40X level. What a deal!!!" Luckily, @gm89uk steered me right. But without PriceScope, I can see how many people could easily be clueless of the inclusions that can potentially result in reduced transparency.

However, if I, or any uninformed consumer, saw "Clarity grade based on haziness" I can almost guarantee you that they would steer far clear of that diamond. So perhaps that's why the labs have not yet resorted to such comments... Great for the consumer. Bad for the vendors trying to pawn off bad quality stones.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As @AV_ mentioned, the labs already do mention "hazy", it's just in their own code words. The clarity grade based on XXX not shown code words. Clarity grade based of clouds, twinning wisps, or internal graining not shown can pretty much all be read as "Hey, this diamond has a lot of internal defects which, while we can't distinguish them at 10X, result in reduced transparency of the stone." Because, when looking at dispersed clouds, you often can't really "see" the cloud at 10X. What you can distinguish is the reduced transparency.

But I agree with you 100%. I wish GIA and AGS would be more forthright about this. Because as uninformed consumers, most people don't automatically know that the "clarity grade based" comments mean haze, and they don't know that they should be weary of clouds, twinning wisps, and/or graining if they are the grade-setting inclusions at the SI and below levels. Hell, going back to my early days when I was a naïve young PriceScoper, I almost selected an SI1 diamond with clarity grade based on clouds not shown. I thought "Hey! It's an SI1 but I cannot see any inclusions even at the 40X level. What a deal!!!" Luckily, @gm89uk steered me right. But without PriceScope, I can see how many people could easily be clueless of the inclusions that can potentially result in reduced transparency.

However, if I, or any uninformed consumer, saw "Clarity grade based on haziness" I can almost guarantee you that they would steer far clear of that diamond. So perhaps that's why the labs have not yet resorted to such comments... Great for the consumer. Bad for the vendors trying to pawn off bad quality stones.

I agree with you Tree. But I think if they were able to quantify transparency, rather than use terms like haziness, it would not be so prejudicial. It would seem technically possible to get an objective transparency measurement. And I think it would provide consumers with important information that otherwise they may never be presented with at the time of their purchase.

One of the other flaws in the approach that presumes that lab cert will be coupled with the expert advice is the built in conflict of interest - the expert is often the sales person. So, when explaining the finer points of the lab report the expert might be tempted to leave out certain negatives. (Another good reason to seek an independent opinion from a qualified gemologist.)

Ironically, I believe providing a transparency metric would increase the sales of NON eye-clean stones! A single black crystal that might be technically visible to the naked eye might be an otherwise highly transparent stone that would permit optimal light performance. In my opinion, shoppers often make a mistake by avoiding all diamonds that are not eye-clean. Especially if they are not familiar with the ways that transparency can be subtly compromised by characteristics not visible to the naked eye.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Can a PSer please post a lab report with the comment of "Brown or Gray undertones" ?

DF- I'd do anything for you Old Buddy!!!!

 

[TreeScientist]

Ironically, I believe providing a transparency metric would increase the sales of NON eye-clean stones! A single black crystal that might be technically visible to the naked eye might be an otherwise highly transparent stone that would permit optimal light performance. In my opinion, shoppers often make a mistake by avoiding all diamonds that are not eye-clean. Especially if they are not familiar with the ways that transparency can be subtly compromised by characteristics not visible to the naked eye.

Yes, and more importantly, it would likely lessen the obsession among internet consumers with finding a stone that did not have any visible inclusions at 20X whatsoever. I think this obsession with "20X cleanliness" has come in recent years with the advent the online magnified diamond video technology. One the one hand, being able to see the stone at 20X or 40X is great for allowing you to identify potential problem areas in the stone. But at the same time, many consumers get way too caught up in that little teeny crystal or feather under the table that, while visible at 20X, would be completely invisible under normal viewing conditions. In years past, when people bought diamonds in person and judged eye-cleanliness with, who would've guessed it, their own eyes sans magnification, such small crystals and feathers would've gone completely unnoticed. But now, I imagine it's easier to sell a cloudy "eye-clean" SI2 diamond to am internet consumer than an otherwise crystal-clear SI2 diamond with a single black crystal: What @Garry H (Cut Nut) would refer to as an "Honest" SI2.

Personally, I love crystal inclusions. They're interesting to look at under 10X magnification, and they don't impact light performance if they're limited to a few crystals. Now that I know about diamonds, if I were buying in the SI range, I would much rather have an "honest" SI than a cloudy, milky stone that is eye-clean.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Yes, and more importantly, it would likely lessen the obsession among internet consumers with finding a stone that did not have any visible inclusions at 20X whatsoever. I think this obsession with "20X cleanliness" has come in recent years with the advent the online magnified diamond video technology. One the one hand, being able to see the stone at 20X or 40X is great for allowing you to identify potential problem areas in the stone. But at the same time, many consumers get way too caught up in that little teeny crystal or feather under the table that, while visible at 20X, would be completely invisible under normal viewing conditions. In years past, when people bought diamonds in person and judged eye-cleanliness with, who would've guessed it, their own eyes sans magnification, such small crystals and feathers would've gone completely unnoticed. But now, I imagine it's easier to sell a cloudy "eye-clean" SI2 diamond to am internet consumer than an otherwise crystal-clear SI2 diamond with a single black crystal: What @Garry H (Cut Nut) would refer to as an "Honest" SI2.

Personally, I love crystal inclusions. They're interesting to look at under 10X magnification, and they don't impact light performance if they're limited to a few crystals. Now that I know about diamonds, if I were buying in the SI range, I would much rather have an "honest" SI than a cloudy, milky stone that is eye-clean.

Agree completely.

It should be noted that a certified Flawless diamond may have inclusions visible under 20X ! All grading calls are made at what can be seen at 10x.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Can a PSer please post a lab report with the comment of "Brown or Gray undertones" ?

This chart explains how brown is reported on a GIA cert in the normal range (D-Z).

 

[baby monster]

Can a PSer please post a lab report with the comment of "Brown or Gray undertones" ?

Here's one https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...l-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-6041910. On JA site, it's fairly easy to pick out faint brown stones just by looking at the grid of K-M rounds but Faint Brown is typically mentioned right next to the color on GIA cert. I've never seen an additional comment about undertones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think anyone I know who's worked grading diamonds finds imperfections interesting.
I agree with tree scientist that the magnified pics - and other aspects - of the internet present a distorted picture of how imperfections actually look in person- or other implications.
A given poster dislikes "twining wisps" - others think a feather is a crack.
Putting myself in the shoes of a non expert shopper, I can easily see how this would influence someone considering a $5000 diamond.
I can't recall how many times a diamond has a horrible GIA plot, yet the stone looks amazing to the naked eye.

 

[yssie]

DF- I'd do anything for you Old Buddy!!!!

Would GIA ever note details about colour in the comments when grading a D-Z stone? My belief was not?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I wonder when the first lawyer will start a class action on the use of clarity based on clouds not shown. I expect the claims against labs could be in the Billions

 

[AV_]

I would like to see the online plots actually look like the real plots. Wink

A given poster dislikes "twining wisps" - others think a feather is a crack.

PS will require a resident crystal growth specialist - for a while.

 

[Dancing Fire]

This chart explains how brown is reported on a GIA cert in the normal range (D-Z).

Thanks TL, so the word "brown" well not appear on the report if the stone is graded J color or higher?