How would you rate the milkiness in this VS flo diamond

[Gypsy]

Fluorescence effects is one of the least benchmarked characteristics.
I would like to know how this diamond benchmarks
- lets say on a scale of 1-10 for milkiness how would this compare.

I have researched but I can't find anything.

I hope I am not offending anyone by talking about this?
Maybe this indicates that there is a need for some sort of a guide for this.

Even Gavin Diamonds does not want to provide a photo of one of their Blue diamonds in sunlight.
I wonder why.

Looks I've seen very strong blue fluorescence in the sunlight. The first time I've seen it was on a 3 carat round worn by a appraiser (a reputable one with real credentials). It was her engagement ring from her husband (also an appraiser, also a reputable one, and one I use regularly). And was on several (I've seen this ring often) sunny CA days.

Pictures can't capture how lovely the blue glow.

I've also seen multiple other strong blues, which frankly are lovely as well (but not as lovely as the very strong) in sunlight. Loose. A local jeweler here had a bunch of them and let me play. It was fun.

I tried to photograph a couple of them. They didn't photograph well.

There's no conspiracy. There's a full return policy on the stones. And you can even ask them to waive return shipping before you buy.

Brian is a very conservative man. Before he puts his name on ANYTHING he does his homework because it is his legacy to his family. And his family is everything to him. He does NOT put his name on anything inferior. If they don't provide pictures, its because they would be misleading. And that's it.

 

[pyramid]

In all the years I have read here, it has always been said that fluorescence can make a stone look a bit whiter but to go no further than Medium or you may see oilyness/milky in sunlight.

A question I would ask is if you gave up the Strong Fluorescence but stayed in the same color, clarity, cut, size what would
you have to give up to do that? If a stone was available with that specifications.

I don't know if fluorescence is worth as much as a step down in color, clarity or cut at the size you have, but if not you
would have to go down in size. Otherwise a grade lower in color, clarity or cut.

More money makes a better diamond obviously in value placed by most people and jewellers otherwise a J color SI1 diamond would be more expensive OR the same cost as a D Flawless diamond with no fluorescence. Just because our eyes can't see it doesn't mean
it is not there. You CAN'T beat the system unless in your own mind, that a J color looks the same as a D or a SI1 looks the same as a VVS2. It may look it but it is not.

 

[Mayk]

BG Blue w/SBF and I love mine...it's also an 2.0 ct. I VS1 AGS 000 Kenny makes excellent points.. you need to find where you are happy and know to get it there will be a price to pay... I had a 1.3 ct G VS1 AGS000 and loved it too... but they are distinctly different.

 

[pyramid]

I would not be surprised if the Brian Gavin Blue diamonds do not have a difference in their cut to alleviate the blue milkyness as
Brian Gavin is a diamond designer too, he designed the cut which Whiteflash have on their A Cut Above when he was one of those in charge there, he could easily have made a few changes to counteract this, that is if that can be done, I have no idea. I take it his
line of diamonds and his blue line now, have a difference in cut from Whiteflash, as he would probably want to design his own
brand differently or maybe in his mind better than he did before.
.
Brian Gavin hand picks his stones, as he did when at Whiteflash. He has expertise in diamonds and cutting and would know what to
look for that we would not, he is picking strong blue diamonds which do not have these bad effects obviously.
I would in no way, think his diamonds come into the category of just picking a diamond and not going over medium fluorescence.
With ideal cut there is probably a difference anyway. Maybe if you asked Brian Gavin Diamonds if ideal cut means the milkyness of
strong blue diamonds is minimized in some way, you would have your answer?

As I said, I always read before, and this was before Brian Gavin cut his Blue diamonds, that you should not go over medium flurescence. I took that sort of like you should not buy a I3, L Colored, poorly cut diamond. This was back in the day when no one
on here bought diamonds below J Color and only bought J with an ideal cut to help improve the face up color.

 

[arkieb1]

And Ideal or an exceptional cut does NOT negate the negative effects of stones with bad looking fluorescence so I think that is confusing the issue. Stones are either negatively impacted by it (and we are talking a very small percentage here) by varying degrees, not impacted by it, or enhanced by it to varying degrees (again this is a small percentage of stones).

I have seen a triple ex GIA cut diamond that would be a comparable cut to a Brian Gavin blue and it WAS adversely impacted by strong blue fluorescence it didn't matter squat that the stone had a wonderful HCA, it still looked like smuck when comparing it to other triple EX GIA stones of the same colour without it.

Similarly I think both Gypsy and myself have observed stones that are enhanced by blue fluorescence, the stone my mother has is either icy white indoors or outside in sunlight or in some bright shop lighting situations the best way I can describe it is that it has this ethereal blue glow about it. It's very nice to look at and it improves the actual body colour of the stone.

Can stones be adversely impacted by strong fluorescence to varying degrees? The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

I am guessing zz00ter didn't buy the stone from him? But you can correct me if I am wrong.

I do however, agree that if it is obviously bugging you, that you should take the stone back to where you purchased it from and get a refund and purchase a stone with NO fluorescence.

 

[Mayk]

And Ideal or an exceptional cut does NOT negate the negative effects of stones with bad looking fluorescence so I think that is confusing the issue. Stones are either negatively impacted by it (and we are talking a very small percentage here) by varying degrees, not impacted by it, or enhanced by it to varying degrees (again this is a small percentage of stones).

I have seen a triple ex GIA cut diamond that would be a comparable cut to a Brian Gavin blue and it WAS adversely impacted by strong blue fluorescence it didn't matter squat that the stone had a wonderful HCA, it still looked like smuck when comparing it to other triple EX GIA stones of the same colour without it.

Similarly I think both Gypsy and myself have observed stones that are enhanced by blue fluorescence, the stone my mother has is either icy white indoors or outside in sunlight or in some bright shop lighting situations the best way I can describe it is that it has this ethereal blue glow about it. It's very nice to look at and it improves the actual body colour of the stone.

Can stones be adversely impacted by strong fluorescence to varying degrees? The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

I am guessing zz00ter didn't buy the stone from him? But you can correct me if I am wrong.

I do however, agree that if it is obviously bugging you, that you should take the stone back to where you purchased it from and get a refund and purchase a stone with NO fluorescence.

EXCUSE ME... Ill stay out if it....
Clearly you are the expert... I can leave it to the experts. Back to my hole...

What I was attempting to say was if SBF interests you and you perceive a discount pick a good one you have faith and peace of mind. We all know there are very few deals. carry on!

 

[LLJsmom]

BG Blue w/SBF and I love mine...it's also an 2.0 ct. I VS1 AGS 000 Kenny makes excellent points.. you need to find where you are happy and know to get it there will be a price to pay... I had a 1.3 ct G VS1 AGS000 and loved it too... but they are distinctly different.

MayK, I think your stone is soooo gorgeous!!

 

[Mayk]

BG Blue w/SBF and I love mine...it's also an 2.0 ct. I VS1 AGS 000 Kenny makes excellent points.. you need to find where you are happy and know to get it there will be a price to pay... I had a 1.3 ct G VS1 AGS000 and loved it too... but they are distinctly different.

MayK, I think your stone is soooo gorgeous!!

Thank you!!! Ditto.. your's is fabulous and your setting.. over the top fabulous!!!!

 

[Karl_K]

In all the years I have read here, it has always been said that fluorescence can make a stone look a bit whiter but to go no further than Medium or you may see oilyness/milky in sunlight.

A question I would ask is if you gave up the Strong Fluorescence but stayed in the same color, clarity, cut, size what would
you have to give up to do that? If a stone was available with that specifications.

Howdy Pyramid!!
The advise has evolved over the years.
GIA came out with a study that only a small percentage get oily/milky the rest just look blue to some degree.
Garry went to India and sat down with a bunch of stones and said the same thing.
The advise changed to over med COULD have a problem, have the vendor check.
Some people bought them and loved the effect and reported it on PS.
People started asking for them and Brian came out with a line that is pre-screened for no milkiness.

edit:
There is no way to cut it to eliminate the milkiness, it is a property of the material itself.
Either it has it or it don't.

 

[pyramid]

Hi Karl

Thanks for that info, I had missed that. So the cut has nothing to do with it.


I was wondering too like the poster above what Brian Gavin's stones had to do with it and if he had bought the diamond from
him but thought not.

 

[pyramid]

zzOOter, I was wondering, I notice that your first photo is not straight on like the second and we can see the table facet reflecting,
would this be what you are seeing as milkyness as it is not looking straight into the diamond. I think you should go to an independant appraiser or even ask a local jeweller before returning it to see if they think it has a bad look from the fluorescence. At least you
have a return timeframe so you are not stuck with it.

Does anyone know if strong blue fluorescence costs as much as a grade in clarity or color at this size? Are steps in fluorescent pricing just a bit cheaper as it gets worse but not as much as a change in one of the four c's grades cost?



Edited to add: After looking at the search engine it seems to be not as much as a change in one of the four c's would be. Just
get another diamond with less fluorescence or get someone to check it for you to make sure a new one does not have a negative effect.
Ask your jeweller to search for a comparable diamond for you.

 

[pyramid]

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond/32b06d5adb39bcd8317338e7dbe60b2b

 

[pyramid]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3022053.htm

 

[pyramid]

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond/ecb938ffb8560e023ff90eb437931338

 

[pyramid]

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond/86803e6f44595f602b0499903dc592d6

 

[arkieb1]

And Ideal or an exceptional cut does NOT negate the negative effects of stones with bad looking fluorescence so I think that is confusing the issue. Stones are either negatively impacted by it (and we are talking a very small percentage here) by varying degrees, not impacted by it, or enhanced by it to varying degrees (again this is a small percentage of stones).

I have seen a triple ex GIA cut diamond that would be a comparable cut to a Brian Gavin blue and it WAS adversely impacted by strong blue fluorescence it didn't matter squat that the stone had a wonderful HCA, it still looked like smuck when comparing it to other triple EX GIA stones of the same colour without it.

Similarly I think both Gypsy and myself have observed stones that are enhanced by blue fluorescence, the stone my mother has is either icy white indoors or outside in sunlight or in some bright shop lighting situations the best way I can describe it is that it has this ethereal blue glow about it. It's very nice to look at and it improves the actual body colour of the stone.

Can stones be adversely impacted by strong fluorescence to varying degrees? The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

I am guessing zz00ter didn't buy the stone from him? But you can correct me if I am wrong.

I do however, agree that if it is obviously bugging you, that you should take the stone back to where you purchased it from and get a refund and purchase a stone with NO fluorescence.

EXCUSE ME... Ill stay out if it....
Clearly you are the expert... I can leave it to the experts. Back to my hole...

What I was attempting to say was if SBF interests you and you perceive a discount pick a good one you have faith and peace of mind. We all know there are very few deals. carry on!

The comments I wrote were aimed at answering Pyramid's comments, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything you said whatsoever..... Sorry if I upset you, I didn't cut and past pyramid's comments because they were too long and are directly above mine anyway. I can't even see how you can take that personally when there is no reference made to you or anything you said quoted or referred to, and I just went back and re-read what you said and I can't understand how anything I said relates to your comments at all - but if you took it that way I am indeed sorry. No one on here has to justify themselves to me, and I have been shredded by everyone on more than one occasion on here myself.

Anyway I think the the OP has decided to keep the stone so we should all move on...

 

[Mayk]

The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

When I saw this after my post I thought you were saying you didn't understand why I would use a BGB as an example... Like I had lost my mind... Which by Friday afternoon is highly possible...

 

[arkieb1]

The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

When I saw this after my post I thought you were saying you didn't understand why I would use a BGB as an example... Like I had lost my mind... Which by Friday afternoon is highly possible...

Oooooops, I wasn't referring to you at all, I was referring to the fact the poster initially made the comment that he thought Brian Gavin doesn't take pics of their BGBs in the sun because he thought they were trying to hide something - which I admit did get my back up, because I think BGBs are lovely stones. I like stones with SBF and MBF when they are not impacted in an adverse way - in fact I think they are VERY cool. I was just worried that people (not you) were mistakenly attacking Brian and Leslie when I don't think that really was necessary & unless I am mistaken the stone in question was not even purchased from them.

 

[Mayk]

The answer is YES they can. I have no idea what bringing Brian Gavin into the discussion even has to do with this. Brian, I believe, handpicks stones that are either neutral or enhanced by it. I can't think of anyone that owns a Brian Gavin Blue that has come on here and said the stone was YUK.

When I saw this after my post I thought you were saying you didn't understand why I would use a BGB as an example... Like I had lost my mind... Which by Friday afternoon is highly possible...

Oooooops, I wasn't referring to you at all, I was referring to the fact the poster initially made the comment that he thought Brian Gavin doesn't take pics of their BGBs in the sun because he thought they were trying to hide something - which I admit did get my back up, because I think BGBs are lovely stones. I like stones with SBF and MBF when they are not impacted in an adverse way - in fact I think they are VERY cool. I was just worried that people (not you) were mistakenly attacking Brian and Leslie when I don't think that really was necessary & unless I am mistaken the stone in question was not even purchased from them.

My mistake.... Very sorry!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just wanted to add that my last diamond had SBF and I absolutely loved it! I only changed to upgrade size and to a specialty cut, and there were no stones with fluorescence within the specs I was searching. From what I have read here, SBF is rarely milky. It may be more of a problem in stones with lower clarity.

Jonathan at GOG is working on some educational videos on fluorescence but I don't believe they are ready yet. I think it will be helpful when finished.