amazing strong blue fluorescence with D color

[zpak1981]

I went to the factory store to see the diamond color today, and I found a 1.07ct D SI1 w. strong blue fluorescence on it. Very very very beautiful, I don''t know why I like it, but I am sure I like the blue purple color under the sunlight. That piece didn''t show milky color at all, I don''t know why. I looked clearly icy blue. Amazing~~~~~~~ I like it, just love it.
I didn''t buy it because of the cut, it''s not idea cut and the price is very high. over 8.5k! no deal!!
I wonder how much people here are like the fluorescence, any one can show the pic w/ the ring. Gosh, amazing piece!
I also take look the j color, with si quality. I also like the warm color, haha! J didn''t borther me at all. Next time I will think about K. haha!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/26/2008 7:34:51 PM
Author:zpak1981
I went to the factory store to see the diamond color today, and I found a 1.07ct D SI1 w. strong blue fluorescence on it. Very very very beautiful, I don''t know why I like it, but I am sure I like the blue purple color under the sunlight. That piece didn''t show milky color at all, I don''t know why. I looked clearly icy blue. Amazing~~~~~~~ I like it, just love it.
I didn''t buy it because of the cut, it''s not idea cut and the price is very high. over 8.5k! no deal!!
I wonder how much people here are like the fluorescence, any one can show the pic w/ the ring. Gosh, amazing piece!
I also take look the j color, with si quality. I also like the warm color, haha! J didn''t borther me at all. Next time I will think about K. haha!

There is going to be a fierce debate about what % of Strong and Very Strong blues are milky / hazy.

 

[honey22]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:49:47 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/26/2008 7:34:51 PM

Author:zpak1981

I went to the factory store to see the diamond color today, and I found a 1.07ct D SI1 w. strong blue fluorescence on it. Very very very beautiful, I don''t know why I like it, but I am sure I like the blue purple color under the sunlight. That piece didn''t show milky color at all, I don''t know why. I looked clearly icy blue. Amazing~~~~~~~ I like it, just love it.

I didn''t buy it because of the cut, it''s not idea cut and the price is very high. over 8.5k! no deal!!

I wonder how much people here are like the fluorescence, any one can show the pic w/ the ring. Gosh, amazing piece!

I also take look the j color, with si quality. I also like the warm color, haha! J didn''t borther me at all. Next time I will think about K. haha!

There is going to be a fierce debate about what % of Strong and Very Strong blues are milky / hazy.

Hi Gary! I am sure you have told us before, but as I happen to trust your judgement, in your opinion what is the true percentage - ie stones that you have come across? Not wanting to add fuel to the first, just genuinely curious!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/27/2008 1:18:04 AM
Author: honey22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:49:47 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


There is going to be a fierce debate about what % of Strong and Very Strong blues are milky / hazy.

Hi Gary! I am sure you have told us before, but as I happen to trust your judgement, in your opinion what is the true percentage - ie stones that you have come across? Not wanting to add fuel to the first, just genuinely curious!

In researching an an article soon to be published - that I hope after that to be able to put in the journal section here -I asked several respected lab directors and trade experts this question:

“Please estimate / guesstimate the % of hazy / oily diamonds where transparency is reduced when viewed in shaded daylight for very strong, strong, medium, faint and negligible fluorescent diamonds”?

The answers for ‘Very Strong’ ranged from “very small”, and “a small fraction” right through to “Almost all the Very Strong fluorescent stones (±90%) have an oily look, especially visible in lower colors such as J, K, L..., they''re also called ‘over-blue’".

The majority of reply’s indicated from 20% to 40% of Very Strong blue fluorescent diamonds suffered from a reduction in transparency. Of those who indicated that 20% or more of ‘Very Strong’ diamonds had reduced transparency, the response for ‘Strong’ was around one half of that noted for the ‘Very Strong’ fluorescent diamonds.

 

[honey22]

Wow, thanks for that Gary. The text is a bit funky on my PC but I get the idea. You always read around here that it''s not a problem, but I guess to some untrained eyes we don''t realise what we are seeing. So I guess it''s a matter of having a reliable expert check it out on a stone by stone basis.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/27/2008 3:02:05 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/27/2008 1:18:04 AM
Author: honey22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:49:47 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


There is going to be a fierce debate about what % of Strong and Very Strong blues are milky / hazy.

Hi Gary! I am sure you have told us before, but as I happen to trust your judgement, in your opinion what is the true percentage - ie stones that you have come across? Not wanting to add fuel to the first, just genuinely curious!

In researching an an article soon to be published - that I hope after that to be able to put in the journal section here -I asked several respected lab directors and trade experts this question:

“Please estimate / guesstimate the % of hazy / oily diamonds where transparency is reduced when viewed in shaded daylight for very strong, strong, medium, faint and negligible fluorescent diamonds”?

The answers for ‘Very Strong’ ranged from “very small”, and “a small fraction” right through to “Almost all the Very Strong fluorescent stones (±90%) have an oily look, especially visible in lower colors such as J, K, L..., they''re also called ‘over-blue’''.

The majority of reply’s indicated from 20% to 40% of Very Strong blue fluorescent diamonds suffered from a reduction in transparency. Of those who indicated that 20% or more of ‘Very Strong’ diamonds had reduced transparency, the response for ‘Strong’ was around one half of that noted for the ‘Very Strong’ fluorescent diamonds.

WOW!!! Very surprising answers....

....

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Garry,

Don''t you agree with me that you are highly skeptical about the correctness of these answers?

Live long,

 

[arjunajane]

Here is my thread with a K colout with med blue fluoro if you''re interested zpak
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-wonderful-e-ring-upgrade-thankyou.89827/page-2

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/27/2008 6:44:38 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Garry,

Don''t you agree with me that you are highly skeptical about the correctness of these answers?

Live long,

I imagine the answer lies in the mid ground Paul - what do you think?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I do not have sufficient experience, Garry, to put a percentage on that myself.

Like everybody in the industry, I have been taught to suspect oiliness as soon as I see ''strong'' or ''very strong'' mentioned. But I need to go back years to remember an oily stone.

Also, like in all lab-grading, there is a lot of variance in the grading of fluorescence. I do not even know if some labs have a grade of ''Very Strong''.

Live long,

 

[John P]

Since this is reported so differently i wonder if it's like cut/color/clarity, in that diamonds with notable negative fluorescent effects are relegated to softer labs?

As a manufacturer I'd be inclined not to send a milky stone in my shipment to GIA or AGS; because clients of mine who sell those stones would expect me to filter that stuff out. It might explain why cut-focused sellers report rarely seeing such examples - as well as why GIA couldn't locate enough of them to include in the study a decade ago.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/27/2008 1:20:53 PM
Author: John Pollard
Since this is reported so differently i wonder if it''s like cut/color/clarity, in that diamonds with notable negative fluorescent effects are relegated to softer labs?

As a manufacturer I''d be inclined not to send a milky stone in my shipment to GIA or AGS; because clients of mine who sell those stones would expect me to filter that stuff out. It might explain why cut-focused sellers report rarely seeing such examples - as well as why GIA couldn''t locate enough of them to include in the study a decade ago.

My thoughts on the highlighted...

As a cutter in a world of manufacturers..., I never noticed or heard of any intentions to filter fluorescence Diamonds to any specific labs (due to fluo negativity).
I dont believe there is a way to escape the fluo. grading and documentation! Its either there or not..., plus the techniques used to grade the intensity is (in my opinion) inconsistent at all labs...

A decade or so ago..., not all QC departments of the high end jewelers were rejecting them (yet)..., it became fashionable more like 5+/- years ago.
I say fashion because my view of the matter is as followed;

Huge jewelers (mass marketers) like ''for example'' Tiffany & Co. needed to filter Diamond purchases to a max. allowed grade of medium fluo as a defence mechanism not to let any "hazy/oily" appearances slip into their inventory..., and it is understandable as they had no other options for controlling this issue!

Other jewelers followed suit..., and what is good for T&Co (and alike) cant be bad for the smaller jewelers...

I may be wrong (as I am realy surprised at the numbers Garry posted above)..., but in my history in this industry..., I have rarely encountered a hazy/oily appearance caused by fluo. intensity...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Diagem,

I am pleased to say that we are in complete agreement.

I only wondered in the sense that I am not sure that the big shift happened only 5 years ago. But that is nitpicking.

Live long,

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Hey Gary,

Can you help me with this question?

I recently looked at a diamond (H Color, SI1, Very Good Cut, GIA, 3.13 carat, strong blue fluoro) in the store and outside (but it was not in direct sunlight) Should I have looked at the diamond in direct sunlight to see if it drastically changed? Or, would the fluoro in the shaded sunlight be as apparent in the direct sunlight? I just want to make sure I adequately judged the effect the fluoro had on the diamond. I assume more UV would show the fluoro in direct sunlight, but I thought I remember you saying that the best way to see the full effect of fluoro on a diamond is in the shade. Thanks a lot.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:41:29 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/27/2008 1:20:53 PM
Author: John Pollard
Since this is reported so differently i wonder if it's like cut/color/clarity, in that diamonds with notable negative fluorescent effects are relegated to softer labs?

As a manufacturer I'd be inclined not to send a milky stone in my shipment to GIA or AGS; because clients of mine who sell those stones would expect me to filter that stuff out. It might explain why cut-focused sellers report rarely seeing such examples - as well as why GIA couldn't locate enough of them to include in the study a decade ago.

My thoughts on the highlighted...

As a cutter in a world of manufacturers..., I never noticed or heard of any intentions to filter fluorescence Diamonds to any specific labs (due to fluo negativity).

Neither have I, and I am not suggesting conspiracy. But I can say that our company filters this out at tender. But such rough, if it exists in abundance (as some of Garry's interviewees seem to believe) must be bought by someone. If so, it's not the cutters or sellers I rub shoulders with. So who is buying and cutting - and grading - this rough, if it does exist in abundance?

I may be wrong (as I am realy surprised at the numbers Garry posted above)..., but in my history in this industry..., I have rarely encountered a hazy/oily appearance caused by fluo. intensity...

Neither have I. And this includes examination in the commercial & discount markets I am prone to poo-poo.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

stated differently . . . I would want to know if the diamond turned "bluer" in direct sunlight than it did in the shade. . . if that makes any sense. I didn''t mean to restrict this question to Gary - I just read some of his very interesting thoughts on fluoro and wanted to see what he thought. . .

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/27/2008 3:52:03 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Diagem,

I am pleased to say that we are in complete agreement.

I only wondered in the sense that I am not sure that the big shift happened only 5 years ago. But that is nitpicking.

Live long,

I agree..., thats why I added the +/-

I started noticing it about 13 years ago..., and to put it more correctly..., it intensified ever since...
Only lately due to the though''er market conditions..., I feel the resistance softening more...

After all..., cant get too picky these days..., especialy when its 95% non-sense in "my opinion" I should add

.

 

[dbsdiamonds]

I have a client overseas that buys 2 and 3ct Strong Blue+ F and G VS2 rounds from me. Every one of them I''ve secured for him have been quite gorgeous. He''s been doing it for almost 6 years now. No idea who he is selling them to or if keeping himself. I suspect the discount off Rap has a lot to do with it.

Each SB to VSB should be looked at independently. I can''t even remember the last time one came across here graded strong blue or vsb that was remotely an issue...

And they do become quite a talking point in certain lighting conditions...one day Debeers will do a big campaign on them and demand will blow up, supply will be almost none and these stones will be more costly than "no" flo diamonds...mark it down!

Marty
CEO/Pres
Diamond Brokerage Service, Inc
www.dbsdiamonds.com

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/27/2008 4:05:41 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/27/2008 2:41:29 PM
Author: DiaGem


As a cutter in a world of manufacturers..., I never noticed or heard of any intentions to filter fluorescence Diamonds to any specific labs (due to fluo negativity).

Neither have I, and I am not suggesting conspiracy. But I can say that our company filters this out at tender. But such rough, if it exists in abundance (as some of Garry''s interviewees seem to believe) must be bought by someone. If so, it''s not the cutters or sellers I rub shoulders with. So who is buying and cutting - and grading - this rough, if it does exist in abundance?

Like T&Co (for example)..., I assume your Company decided to filter a certain intensity of the rough prior to knowing if it will have a negative impact on the polished outcome as per your clients preference...

I for example take advantage of these situations and will be more than happy to offer on the "problematic" rough quality at tenders as a lot of buyers wont (at high offers).

As far as the quantities of such Diamonds is concerned..., I have learned that specific regions will produce a higher % of Fluo Diamonds vs others..., but the most I have seen in a "run-of-mine" production was maybe reaching 5-7% of the 100%..., but I have not seen all

.

Date: 8/27/2008 4:05:41 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/27/2008 2:41:29 PM
Author: DiaGem

I may be wrong (as I am realy surprised at the numbers Garry posted above)..., but in my history in this industry..., I have rarely encountered a hazy/oily appearance caused by fluo. intensity...

Neither have I. And this includes examination in the commercial & discount markets I am prone to poo-poo.

There ya go....

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/27/2008 3:02:05 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/27/2008 1:18:04 AM
Author: honey22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:49:47 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


There is going to be a fierce debate about what % of Strong and Very Strong blues are milky / hazy.

Hi Gary! I am sure you have told us before, but as I happen to trust your judgement, in your opinion what is the true percentage - ie stones that you have come across? Not wanting to add fuel to the first, just genuinely curious!

In researching an an article soon to be published - that I hope after that to be able to put in the journal section here -I asked several respected lab directors and trade experts this question:

“Please estimate / guesstimate the % of hazy / oily diamonds where transparency is reduced when viewed in shaded daylight for very strong, strong, medium, faint and negligible fluorescent diamonds”?

The answers for ‘Very Strong’ ranged from “very small”, and “a small fraction” right through to “Almost all the Very Strong fluorescent stones (±90%) have an oily look, especially visible in lower colors such as J, K, L..., they''re also called ‘over-blue’''.

The majority of reply’s indicated from 20% to 40% of Very Strong blue fluorescent diamonds suffered from a reduction in transparency. Of those who indicated that 20% or more of ‘Very Strong’ diamonds had reduced transparency, the response for ‘Strong’ was around one half of that noted for the ‘Very Strong’ fluorescent diamonds.

No idea what all the fancy squiglies mean, but the large number of stones being indicated to be overblues is stunningly and diametrically opposed to what GIA reported in their report where they found way less than 1% of the stones acquired for their research to be overblues. In my lifetime I have seen only a handful, probably less than ten and I have sold hundreds of strong to very strong blues.

Your numbers are interesting if true, but I have questions, such as are all of the high numbers of overblues coming from one mine or ???

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:41:29 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/27/2008 1:20:53 PM
Author: John Pollard
Since this is reported so differently i wonder if it''s like cut/color/clarity, in that diamonds with notable negative fluorescent effects are relegated to softer labs?

As a manufacturer I''d be inclined not to send a milky stone in my shipment to GIA or AGS; because clients of mine who sell those stones would expect me to filter that stuff out. It might explain why cut-focused sellers report rarely seeing such examples - as well as why GIA couldn''t locate enough of them to include in the study a decade ago.

My thoughts on the highlighted...

As a cutter in a world of manufacturers..., I never noticed or heard of any intentions to filter fluorescence Diamonds to any specific labs (due to fluo negativity).
I dont believe there is a way to escape the fluo. grading and documentation! Its either there or not..., plus the techniques used to grade the intensity is (in my opinion) inconsistent at all labs...

A decade or so ago..., not all QC departments of the high end jewelers were rejecting them (yet)..., it became fashionable more like 5+/- years ago.
I say fashion because my view of the matter is as followed;

Huge jewelers (mass marketers) like ''for example'' Tiffany & Co. needed to filter Diamond purchases to a max. allowed grade of medium fluo as a defence mechanism not to let any ''hazy/oily'' appearances slip into their inventory..., and it is understandable as they had no other options for controlling this issue!

Other jewelers followed suit..., and what is good for T&Co (and alike) cant be bad for the smaller jewelers...

I may be wrong (as I am realy surprised at the numbers Garry posted above)..., but in my history in this industry..., I have rarely encountered a hazy/oily appearance caused by fluo. intensity...

Something must be wrong here, you and I are agreeing again...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/27/2008 3:59:58 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Hey Gary,

Can you help me with this question?

I recently looked at a diamond (H Color, SI1, Very Good Cut, GIA, 3.13 carat, strong blue fluoro) in the store and outside (but it was not in direct sunlight) Should I have looked at the diamond in direct sunlight to see if it drastically changed? Or, would the fluoro in the shaded sunlight be as apparent in the direct sunlight? I just want to make sure I adequately judged the effect the fluoro had on the diamond. I assume more UV would show the fluoro in direct sunlight, but I thought I remember you saying that the best way to see the full effect of fluoro on a diamond is in the shade. Thanks a lot.

There is not any reason I know of to ever look at a diamond in direct sunlight.
In general the nicer the stone looks, the worse it looks in direct sunlight - there are many threads here on that.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/27/2008 4:05:51 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
stated differently . . . I would want to know if the diamond turned ''bluer'' in direct sunlight than it did in the shade. . . if that makes any sense. I didn''t mean to restrict this question to Gary - I just read some of his very interesting thoughts on fluoro and wanted to see what he thought. . .

yes it would turn bluer - and some of the folk here love that look - so there is a good reason to go look at fluoro blues for fun

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Guys the point is some lab directors say VStrong Blues milky hazy are rare, some say some about half and some say most.

Obviously there is no standard language here because all these people are experts.
I want to build a standard.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:40:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Guys the point is some lab directors say VStrong Blues milky hazy are rare, some say some about half and some say most.


Obviously there is no standard language here because all these people are experts.

I want to build a standard.

And how do you propose to do that when at least some of these people are either seeing dramatically different things or are talking out of their hats or are delusional and we have no way of knowing which is which.

Wink

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Garry will make them an offer which they can''t refuse...