Why is This So Cheap? Understanding SBF

[D_]

Hi All,

Recently I came across this diamond.
Below are the stats:
Carat: ??
Colour: G
Clarity: SI1
GIA Triple Ex
Table: 55%
Depth: 61.5%
Crown angle: 34%
Crown %: 15%
Pavilion angle: 40.8%
Pavilion %: 43%
Star: 50%
LGF: 80%
Girdle: M-STK (3.5%)
Dimensions are appropriate for its carat weight
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
Clarity characteristics: Twinning Wisp, Feather

Picture below


Price is 15-17% cheaper compared to other G SI1 GIA Triple Ex around similar weight within similar tight angles from the same vendor.
Other details: eye clean, the SBF doesn't make it look oily/cloudy, located in India.
Don't have IS & ASET scope.
Have been in the market for just over a month.
First saw it last week, then saw it marked unavailable two days later, then available again.

Looks like the feather on 10:30 o'clock is easily prongable.

I read somewhere that SBF can affect the price between 5%-15%.
But if it doesn't have noticeable impact on its appearance (not even outside when it's sunny but the sun is covered by clouds?), is it just the SBF that affects its price significantly? Or is this still normal?
What's the black area under the table at 10, 11:30 and 12:30? Just shadows of the camera? Is that normal?

 

[solgen]

Wasn't there a discussion about how VSBF and SBF diamonds tend to be over-graded in color? GIA and other labs use lights that emit enough UV that it can boost the color grade by around 2 for RBCs. So maybe the market offsets the price to account for this?

 

[decisively_unsure]

Maybe it's the camera shot, but regardless, strong blue fluorescence = a high presence of boron, which in this case suggests that the diamond just doesn't look as nice as one without fluorescence. The pic looks rather blurred and hazed to me.

 

[D_]

Wasn't there a discussion about how VSBF and SBF diamonds tend to be over-graded in color? GIA and other labs use lights that emit enough UV that it can boost the color grade by around 2 for RBCs. So maybe the market offsets the price to account for this?

2 grades?

This link says that since there are benefits of having blue fluorescence but also a possibility of over-grading, the "fair" price should be in between. If the price difference per colour grade is 15% then halfway of 2 colour grade difference is 15%.
Well that may explain it then.
http://www.antoinettematlins.com/pressroom/articles/Diamonds.html

Maybe it's the camera shot, but regardless, strong blue fluorescence = a high presence of boron, which in this case suggests that the diamond just doesn't look as nice as one without fluorescence. The pic looks rather blurred and hazed to me.

Ya I also think the picture looks rather blurred under the table, but thought it may be just the way it was taken.
Plus this is w/ 20X magnification. I doubt my eyes will be able to discern this under its normal size.

I know it's perhaps a futile exercise to try to understand diamond pricing, but I find it really interesting nonetheless.
Somehow I subscribe to the idea that great steals don't really exist (well, maybe a very minute percentage), so whenever I see these kind of prices, my first reaction is almost always "hmm, what's wrong with this?" instead of dialing the number to put this stone on my card.

Update: the diamond was listed reserved/unavailable less than half an hour after I pointed out that the price is really good for the stats to the rep (I'm dumb I know). Will be interesting to see if it reappears with "adjusted" price.

 

[yssie]

Maybe it's the camera shot, but regardless, strong blue fluorescence = a high presence of boron, which in this case suggests that the diamond just doesn't look as nice as one without fluorescence. The pic looks rather blurred and hazed to me.

Can you post a link or two to some supporting documentation for this assertion decisively_unsure?



As far as I am aware fluor in diamonds (blue fluor, as opposed to blue body colour) is due most commonly to excitation of N3 centers in LWUV:

GIA article: http://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2013-luo-fluorescence-optical-defects

The N3 center is the most common color-producing defect in diamond, consisting of a vacancy surrounded by three nitrogen atoms on a {111} plane.

And an old PS discussion: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/brownish-tone-negative-in-colorless-diamonds.153060/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/brownish-tone-negative-in-colorless-diamonds.153060/[/URL]

 

[yssie]

ETA: Feather at 10 o'clock is perfectly placed to prong - under the tip of the bezel facet. I wouldn't buy any stone without an excellent "viewing" policy (buy, have shipped out loose, no questions asked return period of at least three or four days to 'live' with it for a short time and see it in various lighting types)... which many drop-shippers of international stones won't offer.

 

[D_]

Thanks, Yssie.
Just from looking at the picture, do you see any potential red flag?
What's that black facet 10, 11:30 and 12:30 o'clock?

This may be one of those that got away so may as well use it for educational purposes.

 

[OoohShiny]

The pic looks rather blurred and hazed to me.

Macro photography is PITA to get right - depths of field end up so shallow that the back of a stone can be out of focus while the front is in focus, and vice-versa.


To the OP, check out Dancing Fire's VSBF Octavia!

https://www.pricescope.com/blog/jewel-week-stunning-mens-ring-octavia-diamond-gelin-abaci-tension-setting

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/2-30ct-octavia-on-a-gelin-abaci-tension-setting.210548/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/2-30ct-octavia-on-a-gelin-abaci-tension-setting.210548/[/URL]

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/showing-off-my-2-30ct-i-vs2-vsb-fluor-octavia.207321/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/showing-off-my-2-30ct-i-vs2-vsb-fluor-octavia.207321/[/URL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3CpHG-_kc8

 

[solgen]

Wasn't there a discussion about how VSBF and SBF diamonds tend to be over-graded in color? GIA and other labs use lights that emit enough UV that it can boost the color grade by around 2 for RBCs. So maybe the market offsets the price to account for this?

2 grades?

This link says that since there are benefits of having blue fluorescence but also a possibility of over-grading, the "fair" price should be in between. If the price difference per colour grade is 15% then halfway of 2 colour grade difference is 15%.
Well that may explain it then.
http://www.antoinettematlins.com/pressroom/articles/Diamonds.html

Here's the article discussing fluorescence and over grading.
http://www.acagemlab.com/temp/CowingOvergrading.pdf

If the link doesn't work just try searching for "The over-grading of blue-fluorescent diamonds: the problem, the proof and the solutions "

 

[D_]

Oh wow.
That diamond is pretty.
And even though it's VSBF, it doesn't look blue in most lighting conditions (maybe slightly under direct sunlight).

Hmm... so if the fluorescence doesn't get activated unless there's sufficiently strong UV (like direct sunlight), then that would mean fluorescence doesn't really make the stone look whiter most of the time... and even when it's activated, it will glow bluish that perhaps make it look whiter than it is (I think I saw a picture from Diamonds by Lauren of an M colour stone).

Then why so many people say that fluorescence makes a diamond look whiter (indoor)

Are the labs doing something to prevent colour over-grading in diamonds with fluorescence?

 

[OoohShiny]

Thanks, Yssie.
Just from looking at the picture, do you see any potential red flag?
What's that black facet 10, 11:30 and 12:30 o'clock?

This may be one of those that got away so may as well use it for educational purposes.

Just coming back to this, it looks like the twinning wisp runs along the '4.30pm' arrow so is nicely in line with the facets - that would hopefully make it less noticeable, although it may also reflect in the internal facets as the stone moves around relative to your eyes.

It is not an unattractive stone, though, and I can't really see any black inclusions myself!

 

[Jogani]

To the best of my knowledge, there's no practical, reliable, objective reason why fluorescent stones sell at a lower average going rate than comparable stones that don't fluoresce.

Frankly, the reasons for it are a matter of some debate in gemologist and jeweler circles even now. Any fluorescence that appears to the naked eye under regular sunlight will tend to have a beneficial effect on the stone's apparent color. So why is the stone cheaper than its non-fluorescing counterpart? Again... nobody can give you a straight answer. Until recently, it appears nobody really even cared. We have some vintage signed pieces from Tiffany, Cartier, etc in the studio that are covered in diamonds that fluoresce like a lightning storm. It doesn't impact the beauty of the pieces whatsoever.

It's a silly convention that's emerged relatively recently. If you're buying a stone to wear and enjoy, I'd not give it a second thought.

 

[Jogani]

Maybe it's the camera shot, but regardless, strong blue fluorescence = a high presence of boron, which in this case suggests that the diamond just doesn't look as nice as one without fluorescence. The pic looks rather blurred and hazed to me.

I've never, ever heard any suggestion that a fluorescent diamond doesn't look as nice as a similar stone without fluorescence. The opposite, in fact: there can be a beneficial impact on apparent color.

 

[Rockdiamond]

it's not silly- it's human nature.
In the case of someone spending for a higher color diamond, any "question mark" will bring down the price, as compared to a stone without that particular consideration.
I happen to agree that many MB or SB stones gain benefits from this characteristic.

BUT- there are indeed a small percentage of MB, and SB stones that suffer from a certain hazy personality which is a killer in terms of sparkle and beauty.
Put these two aspects together, and higher color MB, SB stones trade at between 5-25% below inert ( non fl) stones.

There's far less of a price difference in J color stones with SB and MB- I attribute this to the demographics.
If a buyer is willing to accept the lower colors ( which also get an undeserved bashing on many "informational" diamond sites), they are not as concerned with fluorescence.

 

[D_]

Thanks for the input, Jogani & Rockdiamond.

So... I'm still wondering if blue fluorescence makes a diamond look whiter and if so under what lighting conditions?
Sorry for being dense. There are conflicting info on this so I'm quite confused.

And what about the colour over-grading problem?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

To the best of my knowledge, there's no practical, reliable, objective reason why fluorescent stones sell at a lower average going rate than comparable stones that don't fluoresce.

Frankly, the reasons for it are a matter of some debate in gemologist and jeweler circles even now. Any fluorescence that appears to the naked eye under regular sunlight will tend to have a beneficial effect on the stone's apparent color. So why is the stone cheaper than its non-fluorescing counterpart? Again... nobody can give you a straight answer. Until recently, it appears nobody really even cared. We have some vintage signed pieces from Tiffany, Cartier, etc in the studio that are covered in diamonds that fluoresce like a lightning storm. It doesn't impact the beauty of the pieces whatsoever.

It's a silly convention that's emerged relatively recently. If you're buying a stone to wear and enjoy, I'd not give it a second thought.

There are several very logical reasons why fluorescent diamonds are discounted:
1)The possibility of over-grading for color
2)The possibility that transparency is compromised
3)The concern for future liquidity

The biggest factors are #1 and #2 in that order. (#3 is a result).

Some folks also are put off by seeing their diamonds glow under black lights, like in a nightclub. This goes back to earlier diamond simulants that glowed. And some folks mistakenly associate fluorescence with defects in the stone. (the cause of fluorescence is referred to in the technical literature as a defect in the crystal lattice, which doesn't help.)

For all these various reasons, the pool of potential buyers is smaller for fluorescent diamonds, equating to less demand. The laws of supply and demand dictate that the price be lower, and therefore it is.

Internet shopping has excacerbated the problem as most buyers don't want the uncertainty of #1,2 or 3.

#1 is correctable, but preserving the status quo at the big lab level is strong.

This does present an opportunity for shoppers who like fluorescence and can do the checks necessary to ensure that it is not problematic. Liquidity still has to be a concern if there is a good chance you will want to sell or trade in the future. However, getting a good price on the front end helps.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thanks for the input, Jogani & Rockdiamond.

So... I'm still wondering if blue fluorescence makes a diamond look whiter and if so under what lighting conditions?
Sorry for being dense. There are conflicting info on this so I'm quite confused.

And what about the colour over-grading problem?

D,
The link Solgen referenced above will answer your question. In short, the color masking effect of blue fluorescent diamonds takes place in the presence of very strong UV light, such as direct sunlight. Indoor light such as fluorescent tubes or CFL bulbs contain plenty of UV, however the intensity drops off dramatically over a short span of distance. Essentially, once you are a few feet away from an artificial UV source the intensity is too weak to activate the fluoro effect.

In regards to over-grading, current practices in the labs involve assessing color within a few inches of tubes containing a UV component. This is a departure from historic practice at GIA that is documented throughout the literature, of the need for grading color in a UV free lighting environment. The current practice allows the color masking effect to take place during grading potentially resulting in higher color grades given to stones with lower actual body color.

So if a diamond has a true body color of I, and you look at it in sunlight, it might appear to be an H due to the color masking effect of blue fluorescence. But if it was over-graded and it's true body color is really a J, you have a certified "I" color that never looks like an H, but in fact looks like a J in almost all real world lighting environments.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Coincidentally, there is another thread going here where a poster apparently has a fluoro stone that was over graded for color.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-quick-help-with-s11-diamond-twinning-wisps-only.215510/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-quick-help-with-s11-diamond-twinning-wisps-only.215510/[/URL]

 

[Rockdiamond]

Oh wow.
That diamond is pretty.
And even though it's VSBF, it doesn't look blue in most lighting conditions (maybe slightly under direct sunlight).

Hmm... so if the fluorescence doesn't get activated unless there's sufficiently strong UV (like direct sunlight), then that would mean fluorescence doesn't really make the stone look whiter most of the time... and even when it's activated, it will glow bluish that perhaps make it look whiter than it is (I think I saw a picture from Diamonds by Lauren of an M colour stone).

Then why so many people say that fluorescence makes a diamond look whiter (indoor)

Are the labs doing something to prevent color over-grading in diamonds with fluorescence?

The reason there's no "simple answer" is the fact that we're talking about a mineral. A natural substance.
Diamonds are mined in many different areas of the earth.
Different regions produce stones with different chemical makeup at the molecular level.
Nitrogen causes the yellow.
Boron causes Blue.
There's clearly many potential molecular differences from stone to stone.


When it comes to the way a color looks, some aspects are simply not quantifiable using current scientific tools.
It is said that Argyle Pinks have a special color.
Some certainly do.
But stones mined in Brazil might be just as pink.
I can't dispute those who may claim the Argyle color is somehow better. But it can't be proved either.

Even stones that are near colorless show their color differently.
Two J color stones may face up quite differently.
One looks yellow, the other not
Some will say it's due to cut.
I agree cut plays a role, yet sometimes two J colors, cut to the same shape, and cut quality and one looks yellow, the other white.
I believe this has to do with the character of the rough that became the polished stone you're looking at.


Fluorescence is similar- not all MB/SB stones behave exactly like others.
Some MB or SB stones are so discreet, they're impossible to detect without putting the stone in the dark, under UV light.
Other MB/SB stones show fluorescence in any light which is bright enough to see the diamond in detail.
In some cases I can spot MB/SB as soon as I open the parcel paper.
Some MB/SB super white D-E-F colors can actually look a bit blue in any sort of relatively bright indoor lighting.
Given the current market rules these stones present great value. In the '60's and '70's such stones sold at a premium. Now they're discounted in almost all cases.

Maybe it's due to factors similar to those that make two J colors look different.

Fluorescence, like body color, can not be quantified precisely using current technology. GIA lumps together all MB/SB stones based on how they behave in the dark under UV
Some MB/SB stones show effects in normal room lighting that others do not.
This effect is also more difficult to demonstrate online
Stones that really light up are easy for me to capture in a picture.
The subtle effects are more of a challenge

So, at this point, it's really still a hands on visual needed to determine how a MB/SB stone behaves.
There's no simple answer.

 

[D_]

Thank you Bryan and Solgen for the link.
I've read the article and this is what I understand (from the article and other threads):
In most viewing conditions, under artificial indoor lighting, the fluorescence will not usually get activated, so the diamond will display its true body colour.
Near the window/door with sunlight, there is sufficient UV light to make it appear whiter.
Under direct sunlight, the UV light is strong enough to fully activate the fluorescence so M-VSBF diamond may actually look bluish.
Am I understanding this correctly so far?

There are several very logical reasons why fluorescent diamonds are discounted:
1)The possibility of over-grading for color
2)The possibility that transparency is compromised
3)The concern for future liquidity

The biggest factors are #1 and #2 in that order. (#3 is a result).

Some folks also are put off by seeing their diamonds glow under black lights, like in a nightclub.

#1 OK
#2 Only 1-2% of diamonds with fluorescence exhibit this, right?
#3 We never know when we'll need to sell them, but considering (at least for me) it's usually a sentimental purchase, it's less likely to happen
#4 Night club - pretty scary to be wearing it in night clubs, will hamper ability to dance/move freely because we are concerned we'll knock it against something and who knows what we can do when we get really2 drunk, right? Plus actually it's kind of cool to have glowing stone in that kind of setting.

Question: OK, the article shows one experiment (2 if you count the picture with the 6 diamonds). Is this enough proof? What about empirical evidence from people in the trades here. Having been dealing with numerous diamonds, would you say the colour over-grading is a real/serious cause of concern?

Some MB or SB stones are so discreet, they're impossible to detect without putting the stone in the dark, under UV light.
Other MB/SB stones show fluorescence in any light which is bright enough to see the diamond in detail.
In some cases I can spot MB/SB as soon as I open the parcel paper.

I guess that somewhat explains it.
There is variation.
And when there is variation, especially in online purchases experience where we can't see the diamonds in person, it breeds uncertainty.
And hence the "uncertainty discounts".
The article itself seems to acknowledge that while there are diamonds w/ fluor that should have been discounted more, there are those that hold their colour in the absence of UV that can be unfairly discounted.
Although if it's a matter of preference, then it's a blessing to people who would prefer to have the fluor.
And a lot of vendors have convenient return process - thus eliminating the risk where fluor causes any negative impact to the beauty of the diamond without eliminating the "uncertainty discounts".

To those who own many many diamonds, do you notice this over-grading phenomena?
(or is it impossible to tell for untrained eyes even if one has many many diamonds due to different setup from grading lab - e.g. unmounted vs. mounted)
What about appraisers? Will they be able to detect these over-grading?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Indoor and under the sun pics. None vs VSB fluor. The RB is graded H color by GIA and the Octavia is graded I color by AGS.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's a relevant quote from the paper

The key point is that most diamonds
are seen in most forms of artificial
illumination at night or indoors out
of daylight, and in these viewing
environments the UV and visible violet
are too weak to stimulate grade-whitening
fluorescence. In contrast, the relatively
strong UV and visible violet at typical
distances of 1 to 7 in. from the fluorescent
tubes of grading instruments can stimulate
a good deal of fluorescence which
whitens the appearance of a diamond.

There are assumptions made in the statement which are the root of this debate.
The point of the paper was more specifically, overgrading of diamonds.
If we look at this statement in a more broad context, it's assuming lighting conditions that may not be realistic to how many people look at diamonds.
Of course in artificial night lighting you can't notice the color change effect- because all colors are muted in that lighting environment.
The statement discusses the fact that fluorescent lighting can stimulate the fluorescence.
In an office, there's frequently many overhead fluorescent bulbs.
To say nothing of the fact many offices and rooms have windows.
I'm not disagreeing that the issue of color grading accuracy, and how it relates to fluorescence is important- and challenging.
My real life experience, and that of countless colleagues in the trade, is that there are stones that do get a boost in color from the MB or SB in many "normal" viewing environments.

My perspective, as a person who owns a lot of diamonds, is that "Over-Grading" is an inaccurate way to look at it. Sometimes fluorescence is a benefit, other times a curse.
In all cases, when I consider the purchase of a high color a fl stone, I look at the diamond. If the MB /SB is beneficial, and it's 15% less costly, I think it's a win win.
If it's a J color and it as the type of fluorescence that's a plus to color, I'd expect to buy the diamond at the same price as a stone with no Fl.

The root of the discussion, in a sense, is how to accurately describe the phenomena so consumers can reasonably decide if a fluorescent diamond is for them.
If a person is color sensitive, and looking for an H, you're not going to satisfy them with a SB J color that looks like an H.
If a person is looking for a J, and a salesperson on the phone tells them the stone has a bit of a color bump, they are not necessarily being lied to.



If GIA would grade diamonds face up, this would be less of an issue.

 

[Rockdiamond]

d_
Thank you very much for starting a really great discussion.
You've brought up some excellent points.
Looking back to the top, you asked for advice for yourself.
You probably know forum rules prohibit me from advising you on any specific diamond.
IN general- the downside of eye clean SI and or SB diamonds, in many cases is a mind clean thing.
If you're the type of person who'll value the immediate benefit of lower price, in return for a whatever liabilities people can come up with, by all means, consider fluorescent diamonds.
The instance of an SI imperfection posing structural threat is minuscule.
The effect of the color will be immediately apparent to you when you see the stone. or lack thereof.
Any competent appraiser would notice if the florescence posed a problem- but you'd have already noticed that yourself.

When you consider the price benefits of SI, combined with the "Fluorescence discount" you're looking at a substantial savings compared to VS goods with no fl
Combined with a good return policy, you've got a good strategy IMO

 

[D_]

Thank you for your perspective, Rockdiamond.

Entirely different topic, I find it interesting that the tradespeople are not allowed to advise people on specific diamonds.
I saw questions/comments like "if the tradespeople [who have vast knowledge about diamond] are not allowed to advise people, that means consumers have to rely on the prosumers to guide them. That doesn't make sense" posed in another forum.

I agree to an extent.
I am aware there can be potential conflict of interest/bashing other vendors etc., some times the line can be very fine and blurry.
But IMHO while I respect the expertise of prosumers and diamond aficionados here, the expertise from looking at 1-10 diamonds a week is not the same as those who evaluate 10s or 100s of diamonds on a weekly basis.
Even if the prosumers collectively manage to reach that level, members may also appreciate wide varieties of perspectives, including those in trades.
And though I (and perhaps fellow newbies here) understand some of the concept, some times we are wondering which theories are applicable to specific stones - it's like case studies
(We can be talking about painting, digging etc. when it's actually a case of azimuth shift - just an example, there may be no correlation whatsoever). Without inputs from those who live and breathe diamonds (hmm... breathing diamonds... I want to be able to do that too...), how should we've known better?

Does this rule apply to everyone in the Trade category or are there exceptions?
For some reason some times I see some commenting, although again, it may be one of those fine line.
Can the rules be accessed somewhere?
I'd like to be cognizant of this when posing questions.

Also, is there any way around these rules?
Say if I start another thread without listing a specific stone...

 

[lknvrb4]

I prefer my diamond with fluorescence over any other diamond I have owned. I like the blue that it gives off and appreciate a stone with some personality.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you for your perspective, Rockdiamond.

Entirely different topic, I find it interesting that the tradespeople are not allowed to advise people on specific diamonds.
I saw questions/comments like "if the tradespeople [who have vast knowledge about diamond] are not allowed to advise people, that means consumers have to rely on the prosumers to guide them. That doesn't make sense" posed in another forum.

I agree to an extent.
I am aware there can be potential conflict of interest/bashing other vendors etc., some times the line can be very fine and blurry.
But IMHO while I respect the expertise of prosumers and diamond aficionados here, the expertise from looking at 1-10 diamonds a week is not the same as those who evaluate 10s or 100s of diamonds on a weekly basis.
Even if the prosumers collectively manage to reach that level, members may also appreciate wide varieties of perspectives, including those in trades.
And though I (and perhaps fellow newbies here) understand some of the concept, some times we are wondering which theories are applicable to specific stones - it's like case studies
(We can be talking about painting, digging etc. when it's actually a case of azimuth shift - just an example, there may be no correlation whatsoever). Without inputs from those who live and breathe diamonds (hmm... breathing diamonds... I want to be able to do that too...), how should we've known better?

Does this rule apply to everyone in the Trade category or are there exceptions?
For some reason some times I see some commenting, although again, it may be one of those fine line.
Can the rules be accessed somewhere?
I'd like to be cognizant of this when posing questions.

Also, is there any way around these rules?
Say if I start another thread without listing a specific stone...

D,
I understand your frustration. As you do research on the internet you will come across a whole range of opinions and information. Some of it solid, some of it not. Everyone eventually has to decide for themselves what is true and actionable. Maybe it is the opinion of tradespeople who have looked at countless diamonds for many years that gives that confidence, maybe it is new science that helps you find your understanding. Sometimes the two are at odds which makes it seem like a coin toss.

The forum rules exist for good reason. It's great to have tradespeople in here giving input as consumers evolve into prosumers. It is is not so healthy if it becomes a free for all to push their own particular agenda. Much better to leave it up to peer to peer discussion with an educational contribution from the trades. While many of the prosumers have not looked at nearly as many diamonds, many have acquired an in-depth knowlege of the issues you need to consider in your decision making. It is not an exaggeration to say that many prosumers understand certain aspects of diamonds far better than most tradespeople.

You show the earmarks of that kind of curious consumer. You seem to be very, very intrigued by diamonds in your search and you are absorbing a great deal of information and parsing it out correctly. I hope you stay on this board for a long time to help and guide others.

Forum rules can be found here:
https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

 

[Rockdiamond]

D_
Very good question ( again
Here's how I see this:
Purchasing a diamond is a more complex purchase than many other things we buy.
With the new "internet information age" there's a desire to be able to "commodify" everything.
Yet diamonds will not be able to be commoditized- and I can't imagine a time when they will.
The reason is that there's aesthetic considerations that go beyond scientific studies. Such aesthetic aspects will greatly increase, or decrease the market value of a given diamond based on stone specific characteristics ( as opposed to generally). Fluorescence ( as you've noticed) is one of these aspects.

SO- with regards to someone in the trade commenting specifically on a given stone being offered online: It's simply not possible to offer any sort of advice beyond general advice.
Without actually looking at a stone first hand, it's irresponsible, from a professional standpoint, to offer any specific advice.
In general, my advice is always to look at the deal holistically- who is offering the diamond, and under what terms and considerations. These are aspects that can be discussed in ways that assist consumers on specific purchases.

With regards to " new science" as it applies to diamonds.
Be VERY skeptical of using science to quantify diamonds, for the reasons I mentioned- the aesthetics.
IN many discussions it has become very clear that it's possible for sellers to use an interpretation of "science" to justify aspects that cost more, yet offer "different" as opposed to "better" aesthetics.
I agree with Bryan's statement that many of the more seasoned consumer participants have learned a lot here. In many cases more than most salespeople one might encounter in a jewelry store
Unfortunately if someone has learned a lot here, it may be tainted by these commercial aspects being passed off as scientific benefits.

The "new science" in the article about overgrading is not new, and not really science.
Here's the last paragraph of the paper. The part in bold is agreeing with what I ( and many others) have stated. Some fl stones have a benefit of a color boost even in the "absence of fluorescence"
And that some diamonds definitely show blue in natural daylight- which is indeed present in many indoor viewing environments

A return to this procedure would
benefit the diamond industry in a
variety of ways. First it would remove
the distrust and stigma attached to
fluorescent diamonds. Second, the rarer
blue-fluorescent diamonds that hold
their high-white colour in the absence
of fluorescence would be recognized for
their superior beauty and rarity. Thirdly,
blue-fluorescent diamonds could be
shown to whiten, and sometimes appear
blue-white in natural daylight. Promoting
this advantage in comparison with non-
fluorescent diamonds of similar grade
would be of substantial benefit in the
marketing of blue fluorescent diamonds.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The science is not aimed at commoditizing diamonds. It is aimed at understanding diamonds. Throughout history science has broken through misconceptions and revealed new and important things about the world we live in. Studies in diamonds are no different.

However, it often takes a long time for new scientific understandings to become accepted and applied in the proper way in the market. Status quo is very strong, especially if you have been taught a certain way for years and years. Some folks are more receptive to new things than others.

Ironically, gemologists and diamontaires where taught by GIA from the inception of the lab that diamonds should be graded for color in a UV free lighting environment, precisely to prevent the problem we see today. That was their practice for decades. In recent times they quietly transitioned away from that practice without really giving a good explanation for it.

If they went back to the original practice, then the market would better appreciate fluorescent stones for their special properties, and you would not see broad brush discounting of them.

 

[D_]

Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge, Bryan.
I hope so too

And thanks to DF & iknvrb4 for sharing your observations.

SO- with regards to someone in the trade commenting specifically on a given stone being offered online: It's simply not possible to offer any sort of advice beyond general advice.
Without actually looking at a stone first hand, it's irresponsible, from a professional standpoint, to offer any specific advice.

Thanks for the insight, Rockdiamond.
I never thought of that before.
Helpful to know.

ETA: Granted that GIA is a behemoth. How much disruption it will cause if they were to revise their method? Does it outweigh the price boost retailers can possibly have in selling their fluorescent diamonds? The Rap shows small percentage of price difference for diamonds w/ fl, but after observing prices for quite a while, the gap can be way more significant than reflected on Rap.

 

[Rockdiamond]

D_
Please call me David - we share the same initial