- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
GIA triple excellent but score 3.6 in HCA!
- Thread starter tunge
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Date: 12/22/2008 2:14:46 PM
Author: Wink
Dark? Maybe you should spend some time with Paul too! I will admit to loving the look of a well cut diamond under the shade of a green leafed tree, but the real reason for not looking at an incredible cut diamond in the sun is not to hurt your eyes...Date: 12/22/2008 10:28:50 AM
Author: Ellen
I think he just doesn''t like that (dark) look Wink.
Wink
P.S. Ellen, I hope that my playfullnes came through in that post. I know that diamonds can look a little dark centered in bright sunlight, but the large flashes of fire can leave you with afterimages for some minutes. I know this as I just took a 2.28ct Strong Blue out into the dazzlking sunlight that often arrives after a snow storm and I am still seeing spots as I type this.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
Wink my man, you are preaching to the choir. I started the fire thread, remember?Date: 12/22/2008 2:31:36 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 12/22/2008 2:14:46 PM
Author: Wink
Dark? Maybe you should spend some time with Paul too! I will admit to loving the look of a well cut diamond under the shade of a green leafed tree, but the real reason for not looking at an incredible cut diamond in the sun is not to hurt your eyes...Date: 12/22/2008 10:28:50 AM
Author: Ellen
I think he just doesn''t like that (dark) look Wink.
Wink
P.S. Ellen, I hope that my playfullnes came through in that post. I know that diamonds can look a little dark centered in bright sunlight, but the large flashes of fire can leave you with afterimages for some minutes. I know this as I just took a 2.28ct Strong Blue out into the dazzlking sunlight that often arrives after a snow storm and I am still seeing spots as I type this.
I''ve just heard Mr. Gary talk about the unattractive darkness before, and I have argued (and posted glamour shots of) this very point. But I guess the upside of it (the fire) is not enough for him?
Who can call this unattractive?
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Date: 12/22/2008 3:14:06 PM
Author: Ellen
Wink my man, you are preaching to the choir. I started the fire thread, remember?Date: 12/22/2008 2:31:36 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 12/22/2008 2:14:46 PM
Author: Wink
Dark? Maybe you should spend some time with Paul too! I will admit to loving the look of a well cut diamond under the shade of a green leafed tree, but the real reason for not looking at an incredible cut diamond in the sun is not to hurt your eyes...Date: 12/22/2008 10:28:50 AM
Author: Ellen
I think he just doesn''t like that (dark) look Wink.
Wink
P.S. Ellen, I hope that my playfullnes came through in that post. I know that diamonds can look a little dark centered in bright sunlight, but the large flashes of fire can leave you with afterimages for some minutes. I know this as I just took a 2.28ct Strong Blue out into the dazzlking sunlight that often arrives after a snow storm and I am still seeing spots as I type this.
I''ve just heard Mr. Gary talk about the unattractive darkness before, and I have argued (and posted glamour shots of) this very point. But I guess the upside of it (the fire) is not enough for him?
Who can call this unattractive?
Holy Cow! Not me! I first saw that thread after it had reached four or five hundred pages and never had time to go read it, then it fell off the front page and it was out of site, out of mind, plus, when was I going to find the several hours I needed to read it???
Your pictures make me wish I had made the time. Sigh, maybe next year I can find a week to do all the things I never quite got to this year...
Wink
P.S. Nice Polish on that ring too!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
thanks Wink and all.
Dear 
your post is great - if we can wait till silly season and my journal article i plan to do some answering and get you all to do some testing and your UVA and UVB topic will be worth looking into.
Wink there are degrees of haziness, and sure there is no problem identifying the really bad stones - but the stone that losses 10% of its life out doors unders a shady umbrella - that is an issue.
I will wait for Paul to show me a diamond that looks great in direct sunlight and in a dim room.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
My 2c, degrees of haziness is a gemological evaluation and for that direct sunlight stinks.
If someone is used to looking for gemological clues then they arent going to like direct sunlight.
I notice that when I take a stone(diamond or colored stone) into direct sunlight I have to switch my brain from what am I seeing and what is it telling me to WOW pretty mode.
Most people are worried about is it wow pretty .. yes/no?
That is a totally different thing than looking at it from a gemological standpoint.
If someone is used to looking for gemological clues then they arent going to like direct sunlight.
I notice that when I take a stone(diamond or colored stone) into direct sunlight I have to switch my brain from what am I seeing and what is it telling me to WOW pretty mode.
Most people are worried about is it wow pretty .. yes/no?
That is a totally different thing than looking at it from a gemological standpoint.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
:)
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,864
ROFL Wink - I got snipped!
(Your first guess was right, I am a physican) - You are right we often don''t know what we are looking for no matter how well educated we get on these boards, which is why we do have to know when to stop and have an expert step in. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
What I was trying to say is that with my understanding of UV rays, my hypothesis is that we should not need to stand in direct sunlight (as we usually advise) to evaluate a stone for UV, but it would be really good if we had some type of actual concrete study (which possibly Garry will have for us!) to help us know the best way to evaluate (because I think if we don''t have to tell people to look in direct sun it would at least remove the potential confounder of a blue sky which could cause potential bias in the ''results'' that a novice sees - i.e. person sees blue sky reflection, thereby assuming he/she has a stone with lots of ''blue'' effects from the fluoro so perhaps thus ''sees'' (by expecting) a negative effect which perhaps is only a greasy stone or such.)
Perhaps there may be different ways to evaluate for smaller degrees of effect (if indeed there are varying degrees, but I may be way off there - but maybe Garry''s article will enlighten?) In other words, exactly how much UV is actually necessary to tell if there is a negative effect and what is the best way to obtain that necessary level? - We may see that the effect may differ with percent UV (A, etc), or even with area of the world you are in (with varying solar UV levels.) I suspect it (the level of UV needed) may differ for different stones (just as fluoro itself differs, and the nonuniform distribution even within a single stone), but I don''t know the answer. Perhaps there has never been any real standardization for consumers to evaluate because it is hard to come by enough stones at one time with the actual negative effect to study. Thus, I think having an expert independent appraiser is a consumer''s best bet at this time (one that does not sell jewelry, or trashes your stone and tries to send you immediately to a different jeweler (at which point an immediate suspicion should arise that they were in cahoots with that jeweler...)
Alternatively perhaps I could make a killing inventing a sunblock for fluorescent diamonds with negative effects...
Thank you also Garry, I really look forward to reading your upcoming article!
(Your first guess was right, I am a physican) - You are right we often don''t know what we are looking for no matter how well educated we get on these boards, which is why we do have to know when to stop and have an expert step in. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
What I was trying to say is that with my understanding of UV rays, my hypothesis is that we should not need to stand in direct sunlight (as we usually advise) to evaluate a stone for UV, but it would be really good if we had some type of actual concrete study (which possibly Garry will have for us!) to help us know the best way to evaluate (because I think if we don''t have to tell people to look in direct sun it would at least remove the potential confounder of a blue sky which could cause potential bias in the ''results'' that a novice sees - i.e. person sees blue sky reflection, thereby assuming he/she has a stone with lots of ''blue'' effects from the fluoro so perhaps thus ''sees'' (by expecting) a negative effect which perhaps is only a greasy stone or such.)
Perhaps there may be different ways to evaluate for smaller degrees of effect (if indeed there are varying degrees, but I may be way off there - but maybe Garry''s article will enlighten?) In other words, exactly how much UV is actually necessary to tell if there is a negative effect and what is the best way to obtain that necessary level? - We may see that the effect may differ with percent UV (A, etc), or even with area of the world you are in (with varying solar UV levels.) I suspect it (the level of UV needed) may differ for different stones (just as fluoro itself differs, and the nonuniform distribution even within a single stone), but I don''t know the answer. Perhaps there has never been any real standardization for consumers to evaluate because it is hard to come by enough stones at one time with the actual negative effect to study. Thus, I think having an expert independent appraiser is a consumer''s best bet at this time (one that does not sell jewelry, or trashes your stone and tries to send you immediately to a different jeweler (at which point an immediate suspicion should arise that they were in cahoots with that jeweler...)
Alternatively perhaps I could make a killing inventing a sunblock for fluorescent diamonds with negative effects...
Thank you also Garry, I really look forward to reading your upcoming article!
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
I got a chance to test your hypothesis today. I had a client in looking at a 2ct h color princess with Very Strong Blue. We looked at it in many different lights indoors then went out into an overcast day where the diamond took on a wonderful violetish blue color out of doors. No direct sun, thick clouds in fact, but wonderful effect from the UV, so I will remember to wear my sunscreen even when it is cloudy this summer!Date: 12/23/2008 10:14:07 PM
Author:
ROFL Wink - I got snipped!
(Your first guess was right, I am a physican) - You are right we often don''t know what we are looking for no matter how well educated we get on these boards, which is why we do have to know when to stop and have an expert step in. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
What I was trying to say is that with my understanding of UV rays, my hypothesis is that we should not need to stand in direct sunlight (as we usually advise) to evaluate a stone for UV, but it would be really good if we had some type of actual concrete study (which possibly Garry will have for us!) to help us know the best way to evaluate (because I think if we don''t have to tell people to look in direct sun it would at least remove the potential confounder of a blue sky which could cause potential bias in the ''results'' that a novice sees - i.e. person sees blue sky reflection, thereby assuming he/she has a stone with lots of ''blue'' effects from the fluoro so perhaps thus ''sees'' (by expecting) a negative effect which perhaps is only a greasy stone or such.)
Perhaps there may be different ways to evaluate for smaller degrees of effect (if indeed there are varying degrees, but I may be way off there - but maybe Garry''s article will enlighten?) In other words, exactly how much UV is actually necessary to tell if there is a negative effect and what is the best way to obtain that necessary level? - We may see that the effect may differ with percent UV (A, etc), or even with area of the world you are in (with varying solar UV levels.) I suspect it (the level of UV needed) may differ for different stones (just as fluoro itself differs, and the nonuniform distribution even within a single stone), but I don''t know the answer. Perhaps there has never been any real standardization for consumers to evaluate because it is hard to come by enough stones at one time with the actual negative effect to study. Thus, I think having an expert independent appraiser is a consumer''s best bet at this time (one that does not sell jewelry, or trashes your stone and tries to send you immediately to a different jeweler (at which point an immediate suspicion should arise that they were in cahoots with that jeweler...)
Alternatively perhaps I could make a killing inventing a sunblock for fluorescent diamonds with negative effects...
Thank you also Garry, I really look forward to reading your upcoming article!
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
You and I are in complete agreement on this. Sometimes a stone is so beautiful we just don''t care about any facts that might be trying to tell us otherwise... Sometimes the facts are telling us something is supposed to be beautiful but our eyes are screaming that it is not. That is why some of us keep saying to learn, learn, learn, but when it comes time to buy, buy with your eyes.
Wink
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
DearDate: 12/23/2008 10:14:07 PM
Author:
ROFL Wink - I got snipped!
(Your first guess was right, I am a physican) - You are right we often don''t know what we are looking for no matter how well educated we get on these boards, which is why we do have to know when to stop and have an expert step in. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
What I was trying to say is that with my understanding of UV rays, my hypothesis is that we should not need to stand in direct sunlight (as we usually advise) to evaluate a stone for UV, but it would be really good if we had some type of actual concrete study (which possibly Garry will have for us!) to help us know the best way to evaluate (because I think if we don''t have to tell people to look in direct sun it would at least remove the potential confounder of a blue sky which could cause potential bias in the ''results'' that a novice sees - i.e. person sees blue sky reflection, thereby assuming he/she has a stone with lots of ''blue'' effects from the fluoro so perhaps thus ''sees'' (by expecting) a negative effect which perhaps is only a greasy stone or such.)
Perhaps there may be different ways to evaluate for smaller degrees of effect (if indeed there are varying degrees, but I may be way off there - but maybe Garry''s article will enlighten?) In other words, exactly how much UV is actually necessary to tell if there is a negative effect and what is the best way to obtain that necessary level? - We may see that the effect may differ with percent UV (A, etc), or even with area of the world you are in (with varying solar UV levels.) I suspect it (the level of UV needed) may differ for different stones (just as fluoro itself differs, and the nonuniform distribution even within a single stone), but I don''t know the answer. Perhaps there has never been any real standardization for consumers to evaluate because it is hard to come by enough stones at one time with the actual negative effect to study. Thus, I think having an expert independent appraiser is a consumer''s best bet at this time (one that does not sell jewelry, or trashes your stone and tries to send you immediately to a different jeweler (at which point an immediate suspicion should arise that they were in cahoots with that jeweler...)
Alternatively perhaps I could make a killing inventing a sunblock for fluorescent diamonds with negative effects...
Thank you also Garry, I really look forward to reading your upcoming article!
Wink and Storm,I do not like analysis in direct non cloudy day bright sunlight because no clean well cut diamonds look good in it because it is a single pin point light source and can only provide 1 to 5 intense flashes with the body of the diamond becoming very dark
(Ellen I have said it before - it is to do with our pupils dilating because of the intense damaging blinding flashes that look great in a camera but not that great for humans - the fre photo''s are fun - but not much help for the many people who get a shock that their fine diamond looks very dark in that lighting).
Paul - dissprove it please. I will be happy to learn otherwise
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
And very firey. I guess I just don't see it as that big of a deal. Because with the "bad" (though it's not to me) comes some "good" (fire).Date: 12/24/2008 5:15:48 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dear
I do not like analysis in direct non cloudy day bright sunlight because no clean well cut diamonds look good in it because it is a single pin point light source and can only provide 1 to 5 intense flashes with the body of the diamond becoming very dark
(Ellen I have said it before - it is to do with our pupils dilating because of the intense damaging blinding flashes that look great in a camera but not that great for humans - the fre photo's are fun - but not much help for the many people who get a shock that their fine diamond looks very dark in that lighting).
Paul - dissprove it please. I will be happy to learn otherwise
*shrugs*
Maybe I can just find beauty in all places....
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
There are several different issues at play here.
For starters, I routinely advise people to look at diamonds they are considering in direct sunlight looking for exactly the hazy effect that Wink mentions. It’s true that this is hardly the typical viewing environment ant it isn’t the way to make stones look their best but it’s the ONLY standard environment outside of the disco and tanning salon with lighting that has any UV content at all. Standard incandescent, fluorescent, LED and glass transmitted sunlight, which is what what illuminates all of our interior environments and the places where we spend 99% of our time are simply devoid of significant UV spectra. Direct sunlight is not, and it’s an easy to arrange test.
Who cares and why? That’s a more difficult question. Since 99% of the time it has no visible effect even with the ‘overblue’ stones that are feared, and only a small percentage of the strong blue stones you see even do it is direct sun, it seems like a tiny issue. The problem is that people DO fear it. It’s widely discussed on the Internet and it’s widely discussed in stores as something to watch out for and as a reason to avoid the Internet and it DOES affect both the price and saleability of a stone. I’ll leave it to the consumer to decide if this is a feature, a problem or a nothing but I think it’s entirely reasonable to take a look.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
For starters, I routinely advise people to look at diamonds they are considering in direct sunlight looking for exactly the hazy effect that Wink mentions. It’s true that this is hardly the typical viewing environment ant it isn’t the way to make stones look their best but it’s the ONLY standard environment outside of the disco and tanning salon with lighting that has any UV content at all. Standard incandescent, fluorescent, LED and glass transmitted sunlight, which is what what illuminates all of our interior environments and the places where we spend 99% of our time are simply devoid of significant UV spectra. Direct sunlight is not, and it’s an easy to arrange test.
Who cares and why? That’s a more difficult question. Since 99% of the time it has no visible effect even with the ‘overblue’ stones that are feared, and only a small percentage of the strong blue stones you see even do it is direct sun, it seems like a tiny issue. The problem is that people DO fear it. It’s widely discussed on the Internet and it’s widely discussed in stores as something to watch out for and as a reason to avoid the Internet and it DOES affect both the price and saleability of a stone. I’ll leave it to the consumer to decide if this is a feature, a problem or a nothing but I think it’s entirely reasonable to take a look.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
See link for painting info
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
Excellent - it shows the leakage zones that are predictable.
The dark zones just in from the table. These are different from the dark zone with the green arrow - when you move the stone those star patterns will alternate very very bright to dark. Where as the red zones will never get very bright, and when the stone is dirty, they will be quite flat.
Venice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 628
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,836
Please concentrate on cleaning the pavilion - boiling water with a dash of ammonia and detergent etc - search cleaning and you will find heaps of advice here.
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=cleaning+site:www.pricescope.com for example
Venice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 628
kcoursolle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 10,612
- Status
How to Buy the Best $25,000 Engagement Ring: A Smart Shopper’s Guide
How to Buy the Best $25,000 Engagement Ring: A Smart Shopper’s Guide - 02/24
300x240.png)