Type IIa diamond w/ fluorescence (question)

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Who's spreading fear Garry? Certainly not me. Please don't misrepresent my commentaries.

My record is very clear, and recorded here on the forum for years for anyone to review. My positions are not the least bit hazy.

I consider this to be spreading fear in the same way that Tiffany, Harry Winston (who must be rolling over in his grave as a lover of strong blues and had trained staff to weed out hazy stones) Cartier et al..............

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

From page 305 8-10 inches from the lamps - :

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

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I consider this to be spreading fear in the same way that Tiffany, Harry Winston (who must be rolling over in his grave as a lover of strong blues and had trained staff to weed out hazy stones) Cartier et al..............

This is a statement of the perceptions in the market. This is the reality of the current state of play with fluorescent stones. These are reasons that form the basis of the discounting!

It is information that helps a consumer understand pricing and determine what is right for them. This is not fear mongering.

The fact that Whiteflash decided long ago to eliminate potential negative perceptions from our super ideal brand by offering only diamonds of negligible fluorescence is simply a business response to the market in which we operate.

We do buy for stock and offer diamonds up to medium fluorescence in our Expert Selection category. And we gladly source strong fluorescent diamonds for customers looking specifically for them.

It might help forum visitors to provide the full context of the article rather than your curated snippet:

Over the years there have been temporary cycles of interest in highly fluorescent diamonds, but in the modern market many buyers are cautious about it. The market today seems to perceive fluorescence in a couple of distinctly negative ways. First, there is an assumption that the milky effect that is seen in some strongly fluorescent stones must be present to some extent in diamonds of lower strengths. And secondly, the purity of the diamond is suspect because of the presence of a “defect” causing the fluorescent effect. For these reasons and the others outlined above, A CUT ABOVE® Super Ideal Diamonds are required to have negligible fluorescence.

Full article here:

Is Diamond Fluorescence Good or Bad?

What is diamond fluorescence and how does it affect the look and price of the diamond? Find out answers to all this questions with this guide.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[John Pollard]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) , from experience, mixing fluo diamonds into a signature line where unrestricted upgrade is offered is a commercial gamble due to volatility.

It doesn't matter how much a company likes fluo or wishes to include SB or VSB in their premiere collection as a demonstration of "fluorescence solidarity." Every time you make a sale, promising to value 100% SB/SBF retail toward a possible non-fluo upgrade in the future, you're gambling on a separate value-variable you can't predict - which has been trending the wrong way in Asia-Pacific markets.

A company could mitigate this by stipulating SB/VSB can only be upgraded to SB/VSB, creating a somewhat apples to apples adjustment, but I think doing that would underscore the stigma as much as a separate page explaining why they are not included.

 

[yssie]

Some companies are marketing and capitalising on phenomena that are currently unpopular in the general market - fluor, cape colours.

BGD is one example. They will allow customers to upgrade from Signature H&A to Blue or from Blue to Signature, as long as all trade-up requirements are fulfilled. Of note here is the fact that they chose to create a separate line rather than include fluorescent stones in their Signature brand.