shape
carat
color
clarity

Hazy / oily / milky diamond with fluorescence?

tr-sherwin

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
3
We just purchased a diamond that is G color and has very strong blue fluorescence. We noticed a slight blue tint under the jewelers lights (which we were told had some UV), but the diamond looked great outside in the sunlight and in one of the back rooms (we had another diamond that was an I color with no fluorescence to compare it with). We have a 30 day return policy and just brought it home today so I haven't had a chance to see it again in the sunlight. My question is, I keep reading that sometimes with fluorescence a diamond will appear hazy, oily or milky. What does that look like? Could someone post a picture of what a hazy / oily / milky diamond looks like compared to one that is not? With inside lighting the diamond looks like it might have a bit of a "white" tint to it (is this what's meant by milky?), but I think it makes it look brighter. Any help would be appreciated, as I said, we have a 30 day return policy so we want to make sure this is the one we want to keep! Thanks!!!
 

stci

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
2,514

stone-cold11

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
14,083
stci|1301022186|2879687 said:
I saw plenty of diamonds with oily because high fluor. I don't think it's rare IMO.

Probably depends on the market. GIA could not find a large enough sample for their studies, so at least in the US market that is rare.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,691
Here is a diamond with about an "I" body color that has strong blue-white UV fluorescence. The left image is taken in my office lighting and the one on the right has a UV source about 15" away from the diamond in the same office lighting. No color adjustments have been made. The image with the UV added definitely shows the diamond as less tinted in the yellow-brown family than in regular room lighting. The stone does have some oily character in strong sunlight due to some internal cloudiness and also due to the UV effect.

dsa3.jpg
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
stci|1301022186|2879687 said:
diamondseeker2006|1301018317|2879640 said:
It is very rare to see a negative appearance with strong blue fluorescence. Read more about it here:

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

I saw plenty of diamonds with oily because high fluor. I don't think it's rare IMO.
I see and examine many diamonds every day that people have purchased both locally and through the internet and where they have questions about what they've bought. Although I certainly agree that this is not a random selection of stones, I haven't seen an 'overblue' in the hands of a client (other than collectors who were actually looking for this attribute) in years.
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
27,239

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,691
Diamonds with definite internal cloudiness are not the regular menu of the GIA or any other major lab. They have so much less value because there is so much less consumer demand that these kinds of stones are sold more by having a sufficiently low enough asking price to encourage a retailer or consumer to choose them. These kinds of diamonds are not commonly seen in the trade although there is no doubt that many exist in dusty inventories and in the back of many safes. A lot of cloudy diamonds end up being offered on Ebay. Frequently these stones are misrepresented as having higher clarity than any lab would give them. No real surprise there.

Some cloudy diamonds have no UV reaction and others have varied levels of response. They effect of cloudiness does not correlate to a particular level of UV reaction. There also exist quite a few diamonds that have a somewhat oily, usually purply-bluish watery effect in daylight situations where some UV is present. These stones generally flouresce moderately or more to close up UV lighting, but manage to react to most any UV light waves in the environment sufficient to create this oilyness reaction. Again, such diamonds don't generally require a GIA or other major lab report to get them sold. They are sold for substantial discounts from everyday diamonds that fit the standard pricing strategy of the larger market.

Of course, one sees cloudy and oily looks combined on occasion, too. It is the result of two separate issues happening at the same time in a particular diamond. Needless to say, the more things like this going on in a diamond, the less interest most consumers and dealers have in the stone. "More inclusions" and/or "more reactions" when it comes to the argument between dealers over the value of a particular diamond nearly always leads to less value than a stone lacking these "problems".
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
27,239
Oldminer|1301070179|2880080 said:
Diamonds with definite internal cloudiness are not the regular menu of the GIA or any other major lab. They have so much less value because there is so much less consumer demand that these kinds of stones are sold more by having a sufficiently low enough asking price to encourage a retailer or consumer to choose them. These kinds of diamonds are not commonly seen in the trade although there is no doubt that many exist in dusty inventories and in the back of many safes. A lot of cloudy diamonds end up being offered on Ebay. Frequently these stones are misrepresented as having higher clarity than any lab would give them. No real surprise there.

Some cloudy diamonds have no UV reaction and others have varied levels of response. They effect of cloudiness does not correlate to a particular level of UV reaction. There also exist quite a few diamonds that have a somewhat oily, usually purply-bluish watery effect in daylight situations where some UV is present. These stones generally flouresce moderately or more to close up UV lighting, but manage to react to most any UV light waves in the environment sufficient to create this oilyness reaction. Again, such diamonds don't generally require a GIA or other major lab report to get them sold. They are sold for substantial discounts from everyday diamonds that fit the standard pricing strategy of the larger market.

Of course, one sees cloudy and oily looks combined on occasion, too. It is the result of two separate issues happening at the same time in a particular diamond. Needless to say, the more things like this going on in a diamond, the less interest most consumers and dealers have in the stone. "More inclusions" and/or "more reactions" when it comes to the argument between dealers over the value of a particular diamond nearly always leads to less value than a stone lacking these "problems".


Thanks OldMiner, that was helpful. If I'm understanding, your position on that last is that fluor can exacerbate cloudiness in a stone in the presence of UV, but it's not a causal correlation - fluor is not *causing* the cloudiness in an otherwise cloudy stone, just perhaps visually tipping it over the cliff from slightly less brilliant due to clouds (as seen indoors) into 'hazy/oily' territory (in sunlight)..? Makes sense to me.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,691
Yssie; For sure, fluorescence does not improve cloudiness and cloudiness is not improved by anthing else, either. Flourescence on its own often can slightly improve some diamonds. Usually flourecence has minor negative effect and only occasionally creates some degree of visual problem, such as oilyness. Anything going on in a diamond which reduces or alters light return and/or transparency creates some issue that dealers can haggle over or that a consumer might see as a deal breaker.
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
tr-sherwin|1301017898|2879632 said:
We just purchased a diamond that is G color and has very strong blue fluorescence. We noticed a slight blue tint under the jewelers lights (which we were told had some UV), but the diamond looked great outside in the sunlight and in one of the back rooms (we had another diamond that was an I color with no fluorescence to compare it with). We have a 30 day return policy and just brought it home today so I haven't had a chance to see it again in the sunlight. My question is, I keep reading that sometimes with fluorescence a diamond will appear hazy, oily or milky. What does that look like? Could someone post a picture of what a hazy / oily / milky diamond looks like compared to one that is not? With inside lighting the diamond looks like it might have a bit of a "white" tint to it (is this what's meant by milky?), but I think it makes it look brighter. Any help would be appreciated, as I said, we have a 30 day return policy so we want to make sure this is the one we want to keep! Thanks!!!

From your comments it would appear that you like the fact that to you it appears brighter. I have many clients who actively search for great looking diamonds with Strong Blue Fluorescence that are not overblues. Personally I love them too!

Fluorescence is just another flavor of diamond. Some love it, some hate it, some don't care one way or the other.

Wink
 

tr-sherwin

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
3
Thank you all for your responses! I really appreciate it. I attached some pictures of the ring in some different lighting.

photo 1.jpg

photo 3.jpg

photo 4.jpg

photo 6.jpg
 

tr-sherwin

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
3
Here's a couple of more pics.

photo 7.jpg

photo 8.jpg
 

ecf8503

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,091
I think mine gets a little oily in bright sun as well. I love it - it just glows!
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
If it is really oily/hazy looking it will look like a diamond straining to sparkle, ie it would be visibly less bright than other diamonds in some lighting situations which is not what you seem to be describing here.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,418
arkieb1|1473227232|4073980 said:
If it is really oily/hazy looking it will look like a diamond straining to sparkle, ie it would be visibly less bright than other diamonds in some lighting situations which is not what you seem to be describing here.
In almost all lighting this stone will appear hazy. This was photographed in an early ViBox that has a mix of low wattage fluorescent tubes with diffusing perspex. There would be some UV present, but not as much as near a window in daylight. I think the stone was Strong Blue Fluoro
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
I was talking about the OPs stone, but if you have seen it I believe you. I think it's difficult for people who have never seen good and bad fluorescence to understand the true impact it can have on the brilliance of a stone, your pic demonstrates it really well, but if the stone is in between the two visually some people still might not fully get it.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,418
arkieb1|1473257136|4074056 said:
I was talking about the OPs stone, but if you have seen it I believe you. I think it's difficult for people who have never seen good and bad fluorescence to understand the true impact it can have on the brilliance of a stone, your pic demonstrates it really well, but if the stone is in between the two visually some people still might not fully get it.
True
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473225461|4073979 said:
Have been doing a little research on opinions on fluoro - transparency is a real issue - here is a bad/good comparion
Garry,
I think an image like this would be more informative if it was actually two halves of the same fluoro diamond, one taken in daylight and the other in lighting without sufficient UV/VV to stimulate the fluorescent effect. Then any changes in transparency could be attributed to fluorescence alone.

In this quite interesting discussion I see the presence of additional variables "clouding" the issue, so to speak :))

Clarity features such as twinning wisps which seem to be commonly associated with fluoro can, in and of themselves, reduce crisp transparency, as can graining. And clouds can do so as well of course. So, determining the effects on appearance of fluoro can be complicated by these factors. It is also possible that the combination of strong fluoro with some of these clarity features can have a compounding effect on transparency.

It has been my experience, as poster Stci said earlier, that oily/hazy in strong fluoro stones is more common than people often state, including GIA. In fact, I see it as a matter of degree along a continuum, just like anything else. I think it is a bit simplistic to phrase it as a binary question - is this fluoro stone hazy/milky or is it not? I have seen it go from no impact at all to the "over blue" which is stated to be so rare. But there is a lot in the middle, in my opinion, where the effect is subtle enough to be detectable but not be readily apparent. I believe that if it were a YES/NO type of question you would see the labs indicating on reports, perhaps under comments, something to the effect that "transparency not affected by fluoro" or 'transparency affected by fluoro". If it is to be believed that it is such a rare case that transparency is affected, this would be an easy and useful piece of information for the labs to provide the consumer. The fact that no lab provides such information is an indication that it is not a simple call.

Dave Atlas seemed to be saying something similar if I read it correctly, but there was some extra context around it from the other thread on 'cloudy' VS type material.

I have speculated with some lab people that one reason for transparency deficits as a result of strong fluoro may have to do with polarization. The act of 'glowing' and emitting light in all directions may somehow cause a dissonance or some sort of interference with the light rays moving directionally from light source through the diamond and back to the eye. I should say though, that I never got any of them to bite on that theory! :read:
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
tr-sherwin|1301017898|2879632 said:
We just purchased a diamond that is G color and has very strong blue fluorescence. We noticed a slight blue tint under the jewelers lights (which we were told had some UV), but the diamond looked great outside in the sunlight and in one of the back rooms (we had another diamond that was an I color with no fluorescence to compare it with). We have a 30 day return policy and just brought it home today so I haven't had a chance to see it again in the sunlight. My question is, I keep reading that sometimes with fluorescence a diamond will appear hazy, oily or milky. What does that look like? Could someone post a picture of what a hazy / oily / milky diamond looks like compared to one that is not? With inside lighting the diamond looks like it might have a bit of a "white" tint to it (is this what's meant by milky?), but I think it makes it look brighter. Any help would be appreciated, as I said, we have a 30 day return policy so we want to make sure this is the one we want to keep! Thanks!!!
With regard to your initial concern and trying to determine if there is any kind of an issue within your return window, from the pictures you posted there does not seem to be a problem with transparency. And the thing to recognize, which should put a lot of people at ease about fluoro stones, is that any milkiness due to fluoro will essentially only be seen in direct sunlight. Typical indoor lighting has insufficient intensity in the wavelengths required to stimulate the fluoro effect, unless you place the diamond within inches of the light source. So, if you are like most people and don't spend a lot of time outdoors admiring your diamond, the fluoro effect- for good or for bad- is essentially dormant. And direct sunlight is not always the most flattering light for diamonds anyway!
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,418
Texas Leaguer|1473287191|4074170 said:
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473225461|4073979 said:
Have been doing a little research on opinions on fluoro - transparency is a real issue - here is a bad/good comparion
Garry,
I think an image like this would be more informative if it was actually two halves of the same fluoro diamond, one taken in daylight and the other in lighting without sufficient UV/VV to stimulate the fluorescent effect. Then any changes in transparency could be attributed to fluorescence alone.

In this quite interesting discussion I see the presence of additional variables "clouding" the issue, so to speak :))

Clarity features such as twinning wisps which seem to be commonly associated with fluoro can, in and of themselves, reduce crisp transparency, as can graining. And clouds can do so as well of course. So, determining the effects on appearance of fluoro can be complicated by these factors. It is also possible that the combination of strong fluoro with some of these clarity features can have a compounding effect on transparency.

It has been my experience, as poster Stci said earlier, that oily/hazy in strong fluoro stones is more common than people often state, including GIA. In fact, I see it as a matter of degree along a continuum, just like anything else. I think it is a bit simplistic to phrase it as a binary question - is this fluoro stone hazy/milky or is it not? I have seen it go from no impact at all to the "over blue" which is stated to be so rare. But there is a lot in the middle, in my opinion, where the effect is subtle enough to be detectable but not be readily apparent. I believe that if it were a YES/NO type of question you would see the labs indicating on reports, perhaps under comments, something to the effect that "transparency not affected by fluoro" or 'transparency affected by fluoro". If it is to be believed that it is such a rare case that transparency is affected, this would be an easy and useful piece of information for the labs to provide the consumer. The fact that no lab provides such information is an indication that it is not a simple call.

Dave Atlas seemed to be saying something similar if I read it correctly, but there was some extra context around it from the other thread on 'cloudy' VS type material.

I have speculated with some lab people that one reason for transparency deficits as a result of strong fluoro may have to do with polarization. The act of 'glowing' and emitting light in all directions may somehow cause a dissonance or some sort of interference with the light rays moving directionally from light source through the diamond and back to the eye. I should say though, that I never got any of them to bite on that theory! :read:

Hi Bryan,
Yes, a photograph in light with UV and without would show the same thing in a milky stone where the cause of milkyness is fluorescence.

I am on the record some years ago as saying that 10-20% of strong Blues and 30-40% of Very strong blues have transparency issues - with is way more than GIA's 0.2% from their 1997 G&G study.

On the entire issue of transparency whether it is from fluoro or inclusions - I believe GIA is guilty of the worst deception in our times. I put it up their with multinational companies shifting tax liability and payments via transfer pricing and tax havens. They profit hundreds of millions of dollars (with no income tax) from grading lab reports - they can easily afford to solve the problem.

Bryan my geological background had a strong focus on polarization - its a dead horse mate :angel:
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473291741|4074196 said:
Texas Leaguer|1473287191|4074170 said:
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473225461|4073979 said:
Have been doing a little research on opinions on fluoro - transparency is a real issue - here is a bad/good comparion
Garry,
I think an image like this would be more informative if it was actually two halves of the same fluoro diamond, one taken in daylight and the other in lighting without sufficient UV/VV to stimulate the fluorescent effect. Then any changes in transparency could be attributed to fluorescence alone.

In this quite interesting discussion I see the presence of additional variables "clouding" the issue, so to speak :))

Clarity features such as twinning wisps which seem to be commonly associated with fluoro can, in and of themselves, reduce crisp transparency, as can graining. And clouds can do so as well of course. So, determining the effects on appearance of fluoro can be complicated by these factors. It is also possible that the combination of strong fluoro with some of these clarity features can have a compounding effect on transparency.

It has been my experience, as poster Stci said earlier, that oily/hazy in strong fluoro stones is more common than people often state, including GIA. In fact, I see it as a matter of degree along a continuum, just like anything else. I think it is a bit simplistic to phrase it as a binary question - is this fluoro stone hazy/milky or is it not? I have seen it go from no impact at all to the "over blue" which is stated to be so rare. But there is a lot in the middle, in my opinion, where the effect is subtle enough to be detectable but not be readily apparent. I believe that if it were a YES/NO type of question you would see the labs indicating on reports, perhaps under comments, something to the effect that "transparency not affected by fluoro" or 'transparency affected by fluoro". If it is to be believed that it is such a rare case that transparency is affected, this would be an easy and useful piece of information for the labs to provide the consumer. The fact that no lab provides such information is an indication that it is not a simple call.

Dave Atlas seemed to be saying something similar if I read it correctly, but there was some extra context around it from the other thread on 'cloudy' VS type material.

I have speculated with some lab people that one reason for transparency deficits as a result of strong fluoro may have to do with polarization. The act of 'glowing' and emitting light in all directions may somehow cause a dissonance or some sort of interference with the light rays moving directionally from light source through the diamond and back to the eye. I should say though, that I never got any of them to bite on that theory! :read:

Hi Bryan,
Yes, a photograph in light with UV and without would show the same thing in a milky stone where the cause of milkyness is fluorescence.

I am on the record some years ago as saying that 10-20% of strong Blues and 30-40% of Very strong blues have transparency issues - with is way more than GIA's 0.2% from their 1997 G&G study.

On the entire issue of transparency whether it is from fluoro or inclusions - I believe GIA is guilty of the worst deception in our times. I put it up their with multinational companies shifting tax liability and payments via transfer pricing and tax havens. They profit hundreds of millions of dollars (with no income tax) from grading lab reports - they can easily afford to solve the problem.

Bryan my geological background had a strong focus on polarization - its a dead horse mate :angel:

Garry,
I wonder how hard it would be to devise an instrument that would simply measure transparency. The light source could be UV/VV so you could effectively account for fluoro problems. But it would also account for any and all clarity features, even on the microscopic level, that would be undermining light transmission.

This would be VERY useful information for the consumer. Your thoughts?
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,418
Texas Leaguer|1473375770|4074462 said:
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473291741|4074196 said:
Texas Leaguer|1473287191|4074170 said:
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1473225461|4073979 said:
Have been doing a little research on opinions on fluoro - transparency is a real issue - here is a bad/good comparion
Garry,
I think an image like this would be more informative if it was actually two halves of the same fluoro diamond, one taken in daylight and the other in lighting without sufficient UV/VV to stimulate the fluorescent effect. Then any changes in transparency could be attributed to fluorescence alone.

In this quite interesting discussion I see the presence of additional variables "clouding" the issue, so to speak :))

Clarity features such as twinning wisps which seem to be commonly associated with fluoro can, in and of themselves, reduce crisp transparency, as can graining. And clouds can do so as well of course. So, determining the effects on appearance of fluoro can be complicated by these factors. It is also possible that the combination of strong fluoro with some of these clarity features can have a compounding effect on transparency.

It has been my experience, as poster Stci said earlier, that oily/hazy in strong fluoro stones is more common than people often state, including GIA. In fact, I see it as a matter of degree along a continuum, just like anything else. I think it is a bit simplistic to phrase it as a binary question - is this fluoro stone hazy/milky or is it not? I have seen it go from no impact at all to the "over blue" which is stated to be so rare. But there is a lot in the middle, in my opinion, where the effect is subtle enough to be detectable but not be readily apparent. I believe that if it were a YES/NO type of question you would see the labs indicating on reports, perhaps under comments, something to the effect that "transparency not affected by fluoro" or 'transparency affected by fluoro". If it is to be believed that it is such a rare case that transparency is affected, this would be an easy and useful piece of information for the labs to provide the consumer. The fact that no lab provides such information is an indication that it is not a simple call.

Dave Atlas seemed to be saying something similar if I read it correctly, but there was some extra context around it from the other thread on 'cloudy' VS type material.

I have speculated with some lab people that one reason for transparency deficits as a result of strong fluoro may have to do with polarization. The act of 'glowing' and emitting light in all directions may somehow cause a dissonance or some sort of interference with the light rays moving directionally from light source through the diamond and back to the eye. I should say though, that I never got any of them to bite on that theory! :read:

Hi Bryan,
Yes, a photograph in light with UV and without would show the same thing in a milky stone where the cause of milkyness is fluorescence.

I am on the record some years ago as saying that 10-20% of strong Blues and 30-40% of Very strong blues have transparency issues - with is way more than GIA's 0.2% from their 1997 G&G study.

On the entire issue of transparency whether it is from fluoro or inclusions - I believe GIA is guilty of the worst deception in our times. I put it up their with multinational companies shifting tax liability and payments via transfer pricing and tax havens. They profit hundreds of millions of dollars (with no income tax) from grading lab reports - they can easily afford to solve the problem.

Bryan my geological background had a strong focus on polarization - its a dead horse mate :angel:

Garry,
I wonder how hard it would be to devise an instrument that would simply measure transparency. The light source could be UV/VV so you could effectively account for fluoro problems. But it would also account for any and all clarity features, even on the microscopic level, that would be undermining light transmission.

This would be VERY useful information for the consumer. Your thoughts?
I had a crack at transparency a decade ago using some suggestions from Sergey and with the very able assistance of a Diamcalc software engineer who moved to Australia and we helped each other out - he needed a landing base and I needed a CRM system - I think we have the best jewel based one in the world now. Thanks Vladimir!
I have a collection of very good to very poor transparency diamonds for the purpose.
We got close, but not close enough. Now Vladimir has a serious day job and helps us out with updates to our CRM system. But I am sure that with serious resources it would be a cinch.
And yes, the system we were working on would have detected any loss of brilliance from any cause. It would not matter to me if the cause was clouds or fluoro, But our approach would have made it easy to be applied to different lighting and sources.
And for the record, there is plenty of visible violet (VV) light emitted from many types of LED's, contrary to what various experts say and charts show.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,707
Texas Leaguer|1473289507|4074188 said:
tr-sherwin|1301017898|2879632 said:
We just purchased a diamond that is G color and has very strong blue fluorescence. We noticed a slight blue tint under the jewelers lights (which we were told had some UV), but the diamond looked great outside in the sunlight and in one of the back rooms (we had another diamond that was an I color with no fluorescence to compare it with). We have a 30 day return policy and just brought it home today so I haven't had a chance to see it again in the sunlight. My question is, I keep reading that sometimes with fluorescence a diamond will appear hazy, oily or milky. What does that look like? Could someone post a picture of what a hazy / oily / milky diamond looks like compared to one that is not? With inside lighting the diamond looks like it might have a bit of a "white" tint to it (is this what's meant by milky?), but I think it makes it look brighter. Any help would be appreciated, as I said, we have a 30 day return policy so we want to make sure this is the one we want to keep! Thanks!!!
With regard to your initial concern and trying to determine if there is any kind of an issue within your return window, from the pictures you posted there does not seem to be a problem with transparency. And the thing to recognize, which should put a lot of people at ease about fluoro stones, is that any milkiness due to fluoro will essentially only be seen in direct sunlight. Typical indoor lighting has insufficient intensity in the wavelengths required to stimulate the fluoro effect, unless you place the diamond within inches of the light source. So, if you are like most people and don't spend a lot of time outdoors admiring your diamond, the fluoro effect- for good or for bad- is essentially dormant. And direct sunlight is not always the most flattering light for diamonds anyway!

This is a very easy aspect to put consumer's mind's at ease about.
When it comes to "problem" fluorescent diamonds- specifically stones that are dull due to fluorescence- such stones are easy to see- you don't need sunlight- or to be any sort of expert. The dullness in worst case scenario SB stones is pervasive. If the light is bright enough to see the stone well enough to notice transparency, these problem stones are easy to spot.
Such stones are rare in my experience. There are indeed cases of truly gorgeous SB diamonds that do in fact, have a very slight degree of haziness- as Bryan pointed out, there's a question of degree.
The concept of polarization within the crystal structure definitely seems to make sense.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top