Another Fluorescence ques....in bars/clubs
Click to view full-size image.
Related topics
|
|
|
|
by Isabelle » June 22nd, 2010, 3:49 am
That is such an interesting story! Thank you for sharing it and educating me. I will look into the Rapaport story. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
This history is very interesting. And your point on not having all the stats on the diamond in question is excellent. Thanks Wink. |
|
|
|
|
Wow - This is quite a discussion. I read all your responses carefully and I feel like we shared a moment - we laughed, we cried, we tried to fix the internet. Even the comic pictures were great!
Basically, these are my takeaways...please tell me if I''m wrong: 1 - I should not consider "value" because I''m screwed in the secondary market anyway so I should get what I want. 2 - There''s still significant misconception about fluorescence. Just about everywhere I looked, I''ve read that the milky or hazy is a rare and I should not be worried. I''ve seen videos and pictures of this as well...but uneducated people put a negative connotation to fluorescence. 3 - Thanks to all your history, I now know that one of the main reasons for the "devalue" of diamonds with fluorescence is from sales people not being able to explain fluorescence. To me this is very simple, but most people can''t (or won''t) listen to anything semi-complicated. UV rays are light rays w/ short wavelengths that human''s can''t see. Because these rays have short wavelengths, they produce blue/purpleish color. Therefore, it''s natural for the diamond to emit the bluish color, if it can reflect the uv rays. And what the fluorescence diamond is doing is segmenting the light spectrum during the "light bounce back" even more than the non-fluorescence diamonds. If I were a physicist, I''d actually prefer a diamond w/ fluorescence because I can perform more tests w/ varying light spectrums. 4 - A few of you made some really good points for my specific case on how it would look in a club, hanging out w/ drunk people. It serves multiple purposes, including serving as a glow stick. I actually like the bluish glow and I''d like to get this. However, take-away #2 might be the decisive point. Because there are so many misconceptions about fluorescence, my girl friend might be mortified to find her diamond glow. Especially since diamonds are regarded as "colorless" stones. And uneducated people might then question the legitimacy of her stone and I basically would have to explain to these uneducated, non-PriceScope reading savages. This just seems like too much work. |
|
|
|
|
Wrong. Not how fluorescence work. An invisible ray reflected back is still invisible. It is quantum mechanics. In the atom that absorbed the UV (any rays actually) rays, the electron is excited, jumps to a higher energy state, when it relaxes, it gives off a particular wavelength of light (color), this color light is specific to that atom/molecule, and that is fluorescence, it is a light emitted, not reflected. |
|
|
|
|
Not true. How do you explain other color fluorescence with that explanation? Yellow fluor with Ultra Yellow rays? Materials emit colors based on how fast and how much they relax from their excited state. |
|
|
|
|
Ok. I thought about my statement and that doesn't make sense. But, then yours doesn't either. Colors are based on light rays the material absorbs. But, if the material absorbs "invisible" colors, then we still shouldn't be able to see these colors. Unless the only thing we're seeing is not the colors but only the energized glow.
Not that the whys really add anything of value to the fluorescence discussion...... |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, as per your comment on take-away #2, that might be something you discuss with your fine lady. She might be one of those people who would relish it, or she might be one who would hate it. As for having to explain to the savages, well that would excite me no end as I love a good cause to champion. Stone has addressed the issue of the higher state, but I have not seen much mention of the fact that fluorescence can be many colors, incuding yellow and red and can be VERY unattractive at times. This is yet another reason why a stone really needs to be seen to be fully appreciated, whether in the bad sense or in the good sense of appreciation. Wink |
|
|
|
|
Heat is another form of an excited state, it is at a higher energy then the surrounding. |
|
|
|
|
I think you are making the right decision b/c strong or very strong fluor is discounted in the trade. You might only get a 1% discount when you buy the stone, but you will take more than a 1% hit on the fluor should you try to sell it later. Also, it is controversial. If it weren''t, upper end jewelers wouldn''t make a policy against carrying them particularly for colorless diamonds. And third, there are people who would see it and think "Oooh. It is glowing. That''s fluorescence. That''s baaad." And even if they are dead wrong, that''s what they''d think. In a lot of ways, people have been conditioned to view the presence very strong fluor in a diamond report as poorly as they view the presence of carbon when they examine a diamond with their own eyes. It might be wrong, but it''s definitely the standard belief. And I think AGS grades down a diamond with strong or very strong fluor, so again, the trade is discounting it for a reason. When you can get a beautiful, white, well cut diamond without the presence of strong fluor, why not go that route? |
|
|
|
|
I think McDonald''s has perfected the art of marketing its goods to its target population and highlighting or spinning information in a way that meets its needs, and therin lies my comparison with a multinational corporation like Tiffany. You may not see the parallel, but I certainly do. And I would also take with a grain of salt the information that Ferrari provided in marketing information for its consumers, especially when some of that information was contradicted by many other experts. |
|
|
|
|
Just for clarification, they actually found VSB stones, they could not find any "overblues" that showed oily or milky appearances: "Although yellow fluorescent diamonds and “overblues” are also of concern in the trade, such stones are so rare that we could not assemble appropriate examples to perform a comparable study." GIA''s conclusions: "Unlike the notion held by many in the trade, fluorescent diamonds are not as prevalent as nonfluorescent stones, as the GIA Gem Trade Laboratory sample data for more than 26,000 diamonds showed. The present study also challenges the trade perception that fluorescence usually has a negative effect on better-color diamonds. Our results show that the diamond industry would be better served by considering each individual diamond on its own visual merits" The highlighted is of course what we always recommend on PS. |
|
|
|
|
Really? Where is this shown? This implies a double hit for flour on the market, once at primary and once at secondary sale. Seems more rasonable to assume that if you get 35% of primary when you sell at secondary, that proportion will holf no matter the characteristics of the stone. So you may get 1% less on resale, but you also paid 1% less, and therefore it is all a wash. And I do NOT think it is good practice to look at upper end jewlers and say, "Well they do it, then it must be right/meaningful" when a major reason it is controversial in the first place is because large diamond vendors decided it was controvercial. It is tautology. I have no vested interest in Flour or no Flour, but I really think there are certain issues that have been marketed to create a tempest in a tea pot, and the dangers of flour is one of them. The "tint" or "yellow" in I/J colored stones is the other. Neither of these misapprehensions benefit consumers and that is why I keep addressing this issue over and over in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
My experience is that in higher colors and clarity, the discount on a strong Blue diamond is much greater than 1%- on large stones I''ve seen it as high as 15% as compared to an inert stone
David
President-Diamonds by Lauren/ Rock Diamond Corp Partnering with Yoram F to produce the only Modern Antique Diamonds on the market cut specifically to show off their yellow color |
|
|
|
|
You're welcome for the info. I wanted to mention that I also enjoyed reading Wink's historical perspective.
AGS doesn't downgrade for fluorescence. No lab does, that I know of. It may be helpful to offer this perspective: Fluorescence discounting becomes somewhat negligible when you compare it to discounting in categories considered more significant, like color or clarity. Move from D to E in color, or IF to VVS in clarity and you'll find a meaningful discount. Now try moving 5 grades. And, like fluorescence, the discounts may or may not reflect something that's visible to the casual viewer. On the overall topic GIA's study concludes well, and offers a gentle spanking to trade members who would carrry on old wives' tales about the "evils" of fluorescence: "Unlike the notion held by many in the trade, fluorescent diamonds are not as prevalent as nonfluorescent stones, as the GIA Gem Trade Laboratory sample data for more than 26,000 diamonds showed. The present study also challenges the trade perception that fluorescence usually has a negative effect on better-color diamonds. Our results show that the diamond industry would be better served by considering each individual diamond on its own visual merits." Having given this perspective, it's also important to say that it is anyone's right to HATE fluorescence. No problem. I defend their right to hate it. To spit when they hear it. To curl their fists aloft and with angry howls break the clouds! In such matters involving personal preference we should just remember that - as we exercise our own right to choose - it's a good idea to respect that others may choose differently... whether fluoro, color, clarity, cut or pie flavor. It's a two-way street. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with a lot of what you wrote John- I''m a big advocate for the "live and don''t insult other''s taste about diamonds " part. We might have a different perspective on the pricing issue- because we''re buying polished from a many sources- meaning that strong blue stones, which are already on the market are what I based my statement on. Since you are representing a cutter, the discounts you offer for a strong blue might be much smaller ( justifiably so) as compared to stones on the general market. I do disagree, slightly, about the part in bold- in one specific area. That being Fancy Light, Fancy Yellow, and Fancy Intense Yellow stones with strong blue. It would be possible to make a case that GIA is tougher on these colors when they are strong blue- although part of this has to do with the stronger effect on perceived color these stones experience. The result is that a Fancy Yellow with Strong blue, viewed in "normal" lighting, may have a color as strong as an inert Fancy Intense Yellow.
David
President-Diamonds by Lauren/ Rock Diamond Corp Partnering with Yoram F to produce the only Modern Antique Diamonds on the market cut specifically to show off their yellow color |
|
|
|
|
Thanks John, Kind of daunting in a way, living through a period that so many of you think of as historical. LOL! Some day time will catch up with you and you will be told by your children that your historical perspective is interesting. Hopefully I will still be here, selling diamonds from my wheel chair and laughing at the irony... Wink, Geezer Extraordinaire |
|
|
|
|
I think you interpreted my statement outside of the envelope I intended. I simply noted that there isn't a policy to penalize (downgrade) fluorescence by lowering another grade. There are other attributes, like details of girdle, culet and finish, which may result in a penalty (a downgrade) to another grade. Of course there is influence as you note in the fancy colors, especially since they are judged face-up. In the trade a lot of people feel there is also potential for positive influence in near-colorless and down, even when graded face-down. In that broad context I guess judgments can go down or up, depending on the case. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
After reading this thread, I am soooo wanting to check out these here glowin'' stones.
As far as owning one, I''d love to as part of a collection of pieces, but for my ering - I knew I wanted a white clear poppin'' little number. For me, "mind clean" for my ering is ice cold and clear. I can imagine owning one as a pendant. And I''d try to get as strong a FL as possible without milkiness. Because for me it would have value both as a beautiful object and as a conversation piece. The only problem with having one as an ering (that you wear all the time) would be having the subject come up if you don''t feel like educating people. That can be a drag. |
|
|
|
|
I was mistaken on that.- I apologize. I thought I had seen an AGS Report wherein the grade was given next to the fluorescence statement, (like they do with color and such) but I was wrong in my recollection. I don''t really know what you are arguing about anymore though. I have been fully convinced by you, John and David that some Strong or Very Strong fluor stones can look amazing. But I hope you aren''t trying to say that the market grades them equally to non-strong fluor stones. That''s simply not true. |
|
|
|
|
You''re right. I don''t see the parallel. But I doubt we will see eye to eye on this one so it''s probably best to let it go. 
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting distinction John! My interpretation is that the downgrades for things like girdle, culet and finish are an integral part of the cut grade itself. The way I see it, it''s really a question of the methodology used to grade the fancy colors that allows this "unwritten rule"- which is not a rule at all- but rather the result of how the colors are graded. Wink, I''m 53- who you calling old???
David
President-Diamonds by Lauren/ Rock Diamond Corp Partnering with Yoram F to produce the only Modern Antique Diamonds on the market cut specifically to show off their yellow color |
|
|
|
|
Just a note - this doesn't mean that all SI2s have inclusions visible to the naked eye. All SI1s have inclusions visible in the standard loupe, that's how they're graded, and some SI1s have inclusions visible to the naked eye - as do some VS2s, esp. in larger sizes |
