Another Fluorescence ques....in bars/clubs

[Rockdiamond]

No one can "always see the imperfection in VS2 stones" if they are shown a range of properly graded VS2 stones. Although non eye clean VS2 rounds do exist, they are extraordinarily rare- so the example Stone presented was a mind clean one- as opposed to reality.
Isabel- As I recall, I totally agreed with the VS2 grading on the non eye clean stone I saw.

In terms of standards relating to changes in clarity grades relating to size of the stone- I do not believe they exist.
If we''re attempting to educate about clarity, I believe it''s best to remove the concept of "visible" from the equation. Sometimes imperfections that are fairly substantial in size can be extremely difficult to locate- even with the loupe.

 

[Isabelle]

te:[/b] 6/22/2010 5:39:15 PM
Author: yssie

I hope one of our board experts will chime in on exactly how the scale changes when grading larger stones, and how those changes are kept uniform throughout the various agencies & countries in which a lab operates




ETA: I don''t think anyone is browbeating Tiffs, their goods, or their marketing - it''s obviously very successful. That doesn''t make them objective sources of information.

[/quote]

I would love to hear more about clarity scales too, come to that. As for Tiffany, actually we had one PSer compare them to McDonald''s today. That was a new one.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/22/2010 5:50:17 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
No one can 'always see the imperfection in VS2 stones' if they are shown a range of properly graded VS2 stones. Although non eye clean VS2 rounds do exist, they are extraordinarily rare- so the example Stone presented was a mind clean one- as opposed to reality.
Isabel- As I recall, I totally agreed with the VS2 grading on the non eye clean stone I saw.

In terms of standards relating to changes in clarity grades relating to size of the stone- I do not believe they exist.
If we're attempting to educate about clarity, I believe it's best to remove the concept of 'visible' from the equation. Sometimes imperfections that are fairly substantial in size can be extremely difficult to locate- even with the loupe.

so, calculate the volume percent of the stone that all the inclusions together take up as visible under a 10x loupe, and if it's less than 1% it's a VVS1, if it's less than 3% it's a vvs2... the fact that it's percentage based will account for more visible imperfections in larger stones.

actually why use people at all, there must be some ray-tracing software that can do this with the actual stone, like what our lab uses to delineate artifacts in our polymers

obviously this would have been implemented if it was a viable solution. So what am I missing?

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/22/2010 5:50:17 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
No one can ''always see the imperfection in VS2 stones'' if they are shown a range of properly graded VS2 stones. Although non eye clean VS2 rounds do exist, they are extraordinarily rare- so the example Stone presented was a mind clean one- as opposed to reality.

Isabel- As I recall, I totally agreed with the VS2 grading on the non eye clean stone I saw.


In terms of standards relating to changes in clarity grades relating to size of the stone- I do not believe they exist.

If we''re attempting to educate about clarity, I believe it''s best to remove the concept of ''visible'' from the equation. Sometimes imperfections that are fairly substantial in size can be extremely difficult to locate- even with the loupe.

That''s really interesting David. Very informative. I''m surprised that you thought the rating was accurate. It just shows how much more complicated it can be when you get outliers, like diamonds with strong fluor or clarity ratings that would normally indicate no eye visible inclusions. They don''t always means what they sound like they mean, but most of the time they do, so it''s a good rule of thumb for a consumer to use. Thanks

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/22/2010 5:57:16 PM
Author: yssie
actually why use people at all, there must be some ray-tracing software that can do this with the actual stone, like what our lab uses to delineate artifacts in our polymers

Octonus is implementing that, from what I read, in their DiamCalc.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/22/2010 6:01:39 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 6/22/2010 5:57:16 PM
Author: yssie
actually why use people at all, there must be some ray-tracing software that can do this with the actual stone, like what our lab uses to delineate artifacts in our polymers

Octonus is implementing that, from what I read, in their DiamCalc.

Link me?

 

[stone-cold11]

Just read some posts by Garry or Serg. Forgot which thread that was, been a while.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Isabelle You can drop the snarks about me and my comment about Tiffany's and McDonald's

I know you own a Tiffany ring, I am sure it is gorgeous, and for the record I like Tiffany's a lot. I also like McDonald's a lot, for different reasons obviously. Both are large multinational corporations that are very successful in their marketing and their branding which is the comparison I was making. Tiffany's has patents on diamonds, McDonald's has patents on food production methods. Sure, McDonald's does not have the same status and cache as Tiffany's, but those things are immaterial to me from the stand point of evaluating the validity of their marketing materials concerning the goods that they sell, be it diamonds or food. As Yssie said, my comments were not intended to bash Tiffs or the people who choose to shop there, but to point out parallels in business model and marketing.

 

[yssie]

ETA:

OctoNus' Oxygen (clarity software): http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/oxygen/xray/
Old thread on clarity standards vs size, and good for a laugh: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-standards-vary-with-weight-size.43335/

 

[Rockdiamond]

Anybody feel the urge for BIG MAC????


yssie- it''s not about percentages. Nor will a ray tracing system ever be adopted for clarity grading by GIA ( my prediction, but I have this on very good sources)
There''s already machines that can color grade diamonds, which GIA also does not use.

What you''re missing is that diamonds are not judged numerically- or by measurements.
The only way to become a grader is to look at thousands and thousands of diamonds.
With clarity there''s so many potential characteristics.

For example, there''s stones that have what looks like internal fractures- most likely classified as feathers- that are invisible unless the stone is perfectly oriented.
In a good case, you''d need to hold the diamond upside down, and look through the side to see something like I''m talking about.
I''ve seen many eye clean I1 diamonds possessing such imperfections.

Another possible characteristic is scattered imperfection.
Say a diamond has a teenie black spot- say it''s VS1 sized.
What if there are 20 such spots, scattered throughout the stone- it might be another case of a perfectly eye clean I1.


Yes, I''ve worked a lifetime grading and judging diamonds- so maybe I''m protective of the "human element"- but I don''t see any signs that it''s going away- these things need to be judged by human eyes.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/22/2010 6:39:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Anybody feel the urge for BIG MAC????


yssie- it's not about percentages. Nor will a ray tracing system ever be adopted for clarity grading by GIA ( my prediction, but I have this on very good sources)
There's already machines that can color grade diamonds, which GIA also does not use.

What you're missing is that diamonds are not judged numerically- or by measurements.
The only way to become a grader is to look at thousands and thousands of diamonds.
With clarity there's so many potential characteristics.

For example, there's stones that have what looks like internal fractures- most likely classified as feathers- that are invisible unless the stone is perfectly oriented.
In a good case, you'd need to hold the diamond upside down, and look through the side to see something like I'm talking about.
I've seen many eye clean I1 diamonds possessing such imperfections.

Another possible characteristic is scattered imperfection.
Say a diamond has a teenie black spot- say it's VS1 sized.
What if there are 20 such spots, scattered throughout the stone- it might be another case of a perfectly eye clean I1.


Yes, I've worked a lifetime grading and judging diamonds- so maybe I'm protective of the 'human element'- but I don't see any signs that it's going away- these things need to be judged by human eyes.

That's kinda my point. If we're not going to judge clarity by eye-visibility why not go the other way, totally by the numbers, remove the human element entirely and give it some scientific justifiability, standardization, sustainability, and transparency that the consumer can understand


Objectively, we know an IF is going to have more uninterfered light return than an I1. BUT depending on what is making the stone an I1, light return may be so minimally affected that it's not worth worrying about. But a consumer who does not care to understand this distinction does not care to shop for an I1 or an SI anyway, because he or she is out for the "best" and it is a mind-clean thing that is not always logical, so for that sect it's irrelevant (yes I'm exaggerating, there will always be exceptions)


This would require a clarity-meter that is very accurate and repeatably precise, which if I understand is not the case w/ the current colorimeters

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 6/22/2010 6:49:39 PM
Author: yssie

Date: 6/22/2010 6:39:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Anybody feel the urge for BIG MAC????


yssie- it''s not about percentages. Nor will a ray tracing system ever be adopted for clarity grading by GIA ( my prediction, but I have this on very good sources)
There''s already machines that can color grade diamonds, which GIA also does not use.

What you''re missing is that diamonds are not judged numerically- or by measurements.
The only way to become a grader is to look at thousands and thousands of diamonds.
With clarity there''s so many potential characteristics.

For example, there''s stones that have what looks like internal fractures- most likely classified as feathers- that are invisible unless the stone is perfectly oriented.
In a good case, you''d need to hold the diamond upside down, and look through the side to see something like I''m talking about.
I''ve seen many eye clean I1 diamonds possessing such imperfections.

Another possible characteristic is scattered imperfection.
Say a diamond has a teenie black spot- say it''s VS1 sized.
What if there are 20 such spots, scattered throughout the stone- it might be another case of a perfectly eye clean I1.


Yes, I''ve worked a lifetime grading and judging diamonds- so maybe I''m protective of the ''human element''- but I don''t see any signs that it''s going away- these things need to be judged by human eyes.

That''s kinda my point. If we''re not going to judge clarity by eye-visibility why not go the other way, totally by the numbers, remove the human element entirely and give it some scientific justifiability, standardization, sustainability, and transparency that the consumer can understand

This would require a clarity-meter that is very accurate and repeatably precise, which if I understand is not the case w/ the current colorimeters

I think this is an interesting point. Seems to me that clarity is the most opaque

aspect of diamond grading. It is almost meaningless when you go VS1 and above. Could it instead be a diuchotomous rating? Eye clean versus not eye clean? But then all the different definitions of eye clean...

 

[Rockdiamond]

This may always keep us on opposite sides of the proverbial fence- but I honestly believe that consumers are best served when they find a dealer they are comfortable with who can demonstrate these aspects- in relation to the particular consumer's needs and desires- as opposed to devising simplistic systems which would, theoretically teach consumers things that really take a lot of hands on experience to properly grasp. That goes for fluorescence, clarity grading, color, cut and other vital aspects of diamonds.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/22/2010 7:03:56 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
This may always keep us on opposite sides of the proverbial fence- but I honestly believe that consumers are best served when they find a dealer they are comfortable with who can demonstrate these aspects- in relation to the particular consumer's needs and desires- as opposed to devising simplistic systems which would, theoretically teach consumers things that really take a lot of hands on experience to properly grasp. That goes for fluorescence, clarity grading, color, cut and other vital aspects of diamonds.

No, I don't think so. As a consumer I will always buy from a vendor I trust who has hands-on experience - this is the difference between book learning and street smarts.


But I sure read up on how to drive a stick before I got behind the wheel of one, though my instructor (FI) has been driving them for years and certainly knows his way around one. And I was glad the website clearly explained exactly what the clutch does and does not do. I still stalled the darned thing.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 6/22/2010 7:09:56 PM
Author: yssie

Date: 6/22/2010 7:03:56 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
This may always keep us on opposite sides of the proverbial fence- but I honestly believe that consumers are best served when they find a dealer they are comfortable with who can demonstrate these aspects- in relation to the particular consumer''s needs and desires- as opposed to devising simplistic systems which would, theoretically teach consumers things that really take a lot of hands on experience to properly grasp. That goes for fluorescence, clarity grading, color, cut and other vital aspects of diamonds.

No, I don''t think so. As a consumer I will always buy from a vendor I trust who has hands-on experience - this is the difference between book learning and street smarts.


But I sure read up on how to drive a stick before I got behind the wheel of one, though my instructor (FI) has been driving them for years and certainly knows his way around one. And I was glad the website clearly explained exactly what the clutch does and does not do. I still stalled the darned thing.

Ditto to all of this.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/22/2010 5:31:22 PM
Author: Isabelle

Date: 6/22/2010 5:24:01 PM
Author: yssie

VS2 means the inclusion is very slightly visible with a 10x loupe - stones are graded w/ 10x loupe - problem is sometimes visibility through the loupe doesn''t correlate to visibility w/ naked eye as you''d expect - see David''s post from a couple of posts up:

.

Noted. Thank you. I am still going to say that the idea of seeing a flaw without 10X magnification in a VS 2 RB sounds pretty miraculous. Whomever has such eyes, (as opposed to a faulty grading report), really ought to consider herself quite fortunate.

This reminds me of a client I had several years ago. He could see VS2 inclusions literally from across my desk. I would take the stone, move it in my tweezers and he would tell me, yes, now it is at the 10:00 o''clock quadrant. I was flabergasted as I have excellent vision up close and I could not see it without a loupe. I loved it though, he insisted on spending a couple of grand more to get an eye clean diamond for his wife.

Ten years later when he called to come in and get an anniversary present he laughed and said, "You''re going to hate this, but all that close up work at Hewlet Packard has ruined my eyes, I can go with an SI1 now.

So, while you and I might consider him fortunate for the eagle eyes, he considered himself fortunate when he could spend less and enjoy it more!

LOL

Wink


P.S. I do not know where you are reading about not seeing inclusions with a loupe, even VVS, but it is incorrect. The standard for grading diamonds is a 10x loupe, although most of us find it much easier to use a scope.

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/22/2010 7:03:56 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
This may always keep us on opposite sides of the proverbial fence- but I honestly believe that consumers are best served when they find a dealer they are comfortable with who can demonstrate these aspects- in relation to the particular consumer''s needs and desires- as opposed to devising simplistic systems which would, theoretically teach consumers things that really take a lot of hands on experience to properly grasp. That goes for fluorescence, clarity grading, color, cut and other vital aspects of diamonds.

I like Big Macs! I''m in! But on the point you are making, I 100% agree with you David. Like my friend with the ring from the place that shall not be named: If you read some of the posts from a couple of years back, some experts said "A 60/60 diamond can never be ideal." But they''re wrong. Her diamond is ideal. It''s so beautiful. And had she not seen it first hand, she might have eliminated it b/c it''s table was larger than 57 or whatever the magic number is. And that would have been a mistake according to the HCA, GIA, AGS, Tiffany Gem Labs, etc. And then there is how it looks. Just so beautiful. Again, all judged by her eyes initially b/c she doesn''t get into all this scientific stuff. I sort of like the fact that there isn''t always consensus on what makes a perfect diamond. I like the fact that two people can see the same stone differently. I like the fact that experts do not agree on fluorescence, and I like the passionate debates that arise from people speaking their opinions.

I hope the stones are always graded by human eyes b/c that makes the science an art and the art more personal.

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/22/2010 8:39:46 PM
Author: Wink
P.S. I do not know where you are reading about not seeing inclusions with a loupe, even VVS, but it is incorrect. The standard for grading diamonds is a 10x loupe, although most of us find it much easier to use a scope.

Yes, yes, I know. I have been told in four different posts. I didn''t realize that a loupe was 10X magnification. By point of reference, a friend bought a diamond from T & Co. about a month ago. I couldn''t see ANY inclusions using the loupe. It was graded VS2 by Tiffany Gem Labs, so I assumed that you couldn''t see VS2 inclusions using a loupe. Well, at my urging she got it appraised independently. The appraiser said "It''s a VS1." Maybe that''s why no one could see the inclusions using the loupe. He also said the color grade was G, not H as had been graded by TGL. He said it''s unusual for him to be able to tell his client that their diamond is actually better than its papers state it to be. Usually, it''s the other way around. He spends a lot of time breaking bad news to people.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I''m sure many dealers may use scopes- gemologists certainly do- - but I find the use of scopes extremely limited when trading.
Since the standard is a 10power loupe, that''s what dealers ( at least places I''ve traded) generally use to examine diamonds. And sometimes, even if one is using a 10 power loupe, a VS2 inclusion can be really tough to spot- or completely impossible once the diamond is set.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/22/2010 9:14:24 PM
Author: Isabelle

Date: 6/22/2010 8:39:46 PM

Author: Wink

P.S. I do not know where you are reading about not seeing inclusions with a loupe, even VVS, but it is incorrect. The standard for grading diamonds is a 10x loupe, although most of us find it much easier to use a scope.

Yes, yes, I know. I have been told in four different posts. I didn't realize that a loupe was 10X magnification. By point of reference, a friend bought a diamond from T & Co. about a month ago. I couldn't see ANY inclusions using the loupe. It was graded VS2 by Tiffany Gem Labs, so I assumed that you couldn't see VS2 inclusions using a loupe. Well, at my urging she got it appraised independently. The appraiser said 'It's a VS1.' Maybe that's why no one could see the inclusions using the loupe. He also said the color grade was G, not H as had been graded by TGL. He said it's unusual for him to be able to tell his client that their diamond is actually better than its papers state it to be. Usually, it's the other way around. He spends a lot of time breaking bad news to people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Slaps forehead with hand and sighs* I knew it was a mistake to open this thread again.

Dreamer -- loved your McDonald's analogy. Tiffany was sold to Avon -- yup, you read that right -- in the late 1970s. In the early '80s the Tiffany brand began to fall out of favor due to the introduction of lower priced goods and the association with the Avon name. The company was purchased in the mid 1980s by board chairman William Chaney. It went public in the late 1980s. It is a large, multinational corporation, and you can purchase a share of its stock on the NYSE for about $42. In comparison, McDonald's stock is seling for approximately $68 per share. So, McDonald's is valued higher, at least by Wall Street standards.

Isabelle, if you want to pay more for the Tiffany's name, go right ahead. But please, stop trying to justify your purchase by insinuating that anyone who buys a diamond that falls out of Tiffany's narrow specs is buying something inferior and of less value. It's just not true no matter how may times you repeat it in this thread.

Part of the reason large companies, like Tiffany, have such narrow specs (besides the fact that the parameters they choose result in more profit for them) is because they buy in bulk. Quality control becomes more difficult when you're moving thousands and thousands of stones purchased from cutting houses (they don't do their own cutting as far as I know; however, they do own a major share in diamond mine). So it would make sense to simply rule out stones below certain color and clarity grades (as well as stones with fluoro). It's not just about quality; it's about quantity . Tiffany has a fine line to walk -- they must keep up the perception of quality and exclusivity while reaching more and more customers.

Would I buy a Tiffany piece -- sure. But it would have to be a vintage piece, produced during the time when the family owned the company.

ETA: And I'm not saying that Tiffany does not carry high quality jewelry and diamonds -- they do. I just don't think that they are any more special or better than what you can buy from many of the PS vendors (for way less money). But again, Tiffany's stock in trade is the blue box, and many, many people are willing to pay more for that very recognizable and powerful symbol.

 

[FB.]

Date: 6/22/2010 10:38:53 AM
Author: uvaray
Ok. That make sense. Laws of thermodynamics transfers energy from an ''excited'' form to ''relax'' form through light. But since the atoms still absorb UV light, which is blue/purplish in color, this does explain the color itself. Materials emit ''color'' based on the light rays they absorb.

Fluorescent diamonds take light from the invisible UV end of the spectrum and convert the light to a different wavelength, which then becomes visible to the human eye.
Or, to put it another way; they take UV light (a.k.a. invisible U.V. radiation) from the environment and convert it into blue light.

 

[FB.]

Date: 6/22/2010 12:49:09 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 6/22/2010 11:52:03 AM
Author: Isabelle
And I think AGS grades down a diamond with strong or very strong fluor, so again, the trade is discounting it for a reason.

And where did you get that piece of information from? Never heard of that before and my VSB is from AGS and cut graded AGS0.

Agreed.
I''ve seen a handful of SBF or VSBF with AGS0 grades.
AGS0 should be about the cutting.

 

[FB.]

Date: 6/22/2010 4:24:15 PM
Author: dreamer_d

Date: 6/22/2010 3:56:53 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 6/22/2010 3:53:03 PM
Author: Allison D.

Hee hee - lest anyone think I was talking about the ''mcdonald''s equivalent'' of a PS expert earlier....in my case, it wasn''t Tiffany.

The topic of the GIA study came up in conversation with a well-respected PS vendor, and he was fairly emphatic in his disagreement with the results. He felt that it (VSB) has to affect light performance in stones at least 2/3 of the time.

Since that''s not my area of training, I didn''t debate and we moved on.

Like any other highly technical field, experts can and do disagree from time to time, and in those cases the answer is somewhere short of absolute.

I think I know who since WF''s ACA will not include fluor stones.

And neither do BGD signature stones presently, to my knowledge.

Dealers need to stock diamonds that can be moved quickly.
Fluor stones have a bad reputation, and stones below I SI1 have a reputation for yellow tint and visible inclusions.
It doesn''t mean that all the above stones are bad, but people with only a little knowledge of diamonds will shy away from stones that may have "issues".

If I was a dealer, I''d have mostly stones with no more than faint fluor, no lower than I colour and no lower than SI1 clarity - because that''s what most people have been conditioned to think they should look for.

My own collection includes six "blue-whites" (D-F, SBF-VSBF) and only two that don''t have SBF or VSBF.
But if you''re selling stuff for a living, it''s what the customers want, not what you like. The customer is always right.

 

[FB.]

Date: 6/22/2010 5:31:22 PM
Author: Isabelle

Noted. Thank you. I am still going to say that the idea of seeing a flaw without 10X magnification in a VS 2 RB sounds pretty miraculous. Whomever has such eyes, (as opposed to a faulty grading report), really ought to consider herself quite fortunate.

I have a 1.02 VS2 (GIA-cert) with almost all of the inclusions (tiny black crystals) quite close together, near to the surface of the table.
If you get the correct angle and lighting, you can see the tiny black speck at 6-8 inches - but you have to look hard.
I still consider it to be eye clean, since nobody would see the inclusions at any normal viewing distance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/23/2010 7:05:10 AM
Author: FB.

Date: 6/22/2010 10:38:53 AM

Author: uvaray

Ok. That make sense. Laws of thermodynamics transfers energy from an ''excited'' form to ''relax'' form through light. But since the atoms still absorb UV light, which is blue/purplish in color, this does explain the color itself. Materials emit ''color'' based on the light rays they absorb.

Fluorescent diamonds take light from the invisible UV end of the spectrum and convert the light to a different wavelength, which then becomes visible to the human eye.

Or, to put it another way; they take UV light (a.k.a. invisible U.V. radiation) from the environment and convert it into blue light.

Sorry - I am very late to this discussion.

Here is a definition of what Fluoro is:
As diamonds grow nitrogen is dispersed throughout the crystal. The nitrogen absorbs some blue light leaving the diamond yellowish. Higher energy light (X-rays or short wave UV) cause electrons in a lower shell to jump to the outer shell, and as they fall back there is a release of energy that makes diamond emit the blue light that was previously absorbed. Natural UV from daylight or some light globes can make a yellowish diamond look whiter because of this effect. Nitrogen occurs in various ‘states’ – a D coloured non fluorescent stone can to have 10 times more nitrogen than a K that is fluorescent.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have not read all this thread - so I may be stating things already said.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/73/1/Blue-Fluorescence-in-Diamonds.aspx here is an article I wrote some years back. Michael Cowing has posted about a study being undertaken in USA - and in some discussions with him, I believe the new GIA color grading method (also used by AGS) does not excite diamonds enough for there to be any problem (as described also by Marty Haske here at PS).

I like fluoro diamonds, and I also use 3 sheets of Lexan taped to my color grading lamp to screen out most of the UV - and when I check fluoro diamonds with and without - so far one and a half grades is the biggest drop I have seen.
I use an ordinary daylight lamp, not a high color temp tube, because it is better for discriminating color (something Michael has also discovered without any collusion between us, and probably a shock to many) and has very little UV compared to other tubes. I hold the stones very close to the lamp.

 

[Isabelle]

I personally love the McDonald''s comparison b/c it inherently debunks the mischaracterization of Tiffany quality standards as a "marketing ploy." For example, would you buy a McDonald''s hamburger if it cost 150 to 200% more than a burger of similar quality? Hopefully not, and yet many of you rant against T & Co. while at the same time agreeing that you have bought from there in the past, would buy from them again, and have nothing against it per se. It''s only their "arbitrary grading standards" that you take issue with and the "marketing" of their products: "How dare they assert that an E color VVS1 with a triple excellent grade is superior to a K colored stone, for instance, with SI 2 inclusions??!" But yet those of you who have bought Tiffany have in fact paid that premium for a Tiffany product. That in itself demonstrates the difference better than anything I could ever say. You wouldn''t pay double or triple for similar quality hamburgers, but you do step up to the plate and pay double or triple for Tiffany jewelery. Why? Because higher quality diamonds cost more than lower quality diamonds. Case closed.

Oh, a special shout-out to SaraPJ who suggests that the Tiffany is wanted b/c of the blue box it sits in. You have the history backwards, Sara. The blue box is only famous because of the quality it represents.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/23/2010 6:49:36 PM
Author: Isabelle
I personally love the McDonald's comparison b/c it inherently debunks the mischaracterization of Tiffany quality standards as a 'marketing ploy.' For example, would you buy a McDonald's hamburger if it cost 150 to 200% more than a burger of similar quality? Hopefully not, and yet many of you rant against T & Co. while at the same time agreeing that you have bought from there in the past, would buy from them again, and have nothing against it per se. It's only their 'arbitrary grading standards' that you take issue with and the 'marketing' of their products: 'How dare they assert that an E color VVS1 with a triple excellent grade is superior to a K colored stone, for instance, with SI 2 inclusions??!' But yet those of you who have bought Tiffany have in fact paid that premium for a Tiffany product. That in itself demonstrates the difference better than anything I could ever say. You wouldn't pay double or triple for similar quality hamburgers, but you do step up to the plate and pay double or triple for Tiffany jewelery. Why? Because higher quality diamonds cost more than lower quality diamonds. Case closed.

Oh, a special shout-out to SaraPJ who suggests that the Tiffany is wanted b/c of the blue box it sits in. You have the history backwards, Sara. The blue box is only famous because of the quality it represents.

You mean the quality Tiffany used to represent before it was sold and become a multinational corporation. If you read this study proposal which details the company's current marketing strategy I think you may find that the blue box is now the proverbial tail that wags the dog.

And as far as paying 100 or 150% more than what McDonald's charges for a hamburger -- ever been to the 21 Club in NYC?

As for your comments that a K SI2 is a lower quality diamond than an E VVS1 -- I'm surprised that you'd even want to go there on a forum that prides itself in educating consumers that it is cut quality that is the only true beauty factor.

Color and clarity and fluoro are personal preferences. The public has been taught that the whiter and clearer the diamond the "better" it is (even though the majority of the population can't tell a D from a G when it's mounted and clarity grades above VS are only discernible under a microscope). Again, another case of marketing serving as the tail that wags the dog.

If I was in the market for luxury brand jewelry, Tiffany would not be my choice for the reasons I've stated above -- they haven't been family owned since the 1950s; they have been resting on their laurels since the deaths of some of their more famous jewelers -- and certainly since they've acquired Little Switzerland, and most certainly since they currently only produce about a quarter of their products in-house.

You are paying 100 or 150% more for your 1 carat E VVS2 just for the little blue box. At least with a burger I get some sustenance.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/23/2010 7:49:52 PM
Author: sarap333
Color and clarity are personal preferences. The public has been taught that the whiter and clearer the diamond the 'better' it is (even though the majority of the population can't tell a D from a G when it's mounted and clarity grades above VS are only discernible under a microscope). Again, another case of marketing serving as the tail that wags the dog.

Ditto this, especially color. See the post by Garry quoted below. Baseless assumption of the industry and public in general.

Date: 6/23/2010 5:41:21 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sorry - I am very late to this discussion.

Here is a definition of what Fluoro is:

As diamonds grow nitrogen is dispersed throughout the crystal. The nitrogen absorbs some blue light leaving the diamond yellowish. Higher energy light (X-rays or short wave UV) cause electrons in a lower shell to jump to the outer shell, and as they fall back there is a release of energy that makes diamond emit the blue light that was previously absorbed. Natural UV from daylight or some light globes can make a yellowish diamond look whiter because of this effect. Nitrogen occurs in various ‘states’ – a D coloured non fluorescent stone can to have 10 times more nitrogen than a K that is fluorescent.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/22/2010 6:32:26 PM
Author: yssie
ETA:


OctoNus'' Oxygen (clarity software): http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/oxygen/xray/

Old thread on clarity standards vs size, and good for a laugh: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-standards-vary-with-weight-size.43335/

Also you can all download a free demo version of DiamCalc. There is an option to see an incleded model in the bottom of File drop down.
I am currently working on the patent app''s.