Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

ACA with fluoro?

Mondayschild

Mondayschild

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
321
Hi,

Having recently bought a BGD Blue stone (0.687 ct - medium blue fluoro) - I preface this by saying I'm not anti-fluoro at all!

However, I have a pair of ACA 0.66 ctw studs bought in 2014. I was using the UV light to look at my vintage rings in that light and - to my surprise - one of my ACA studs is fluoro. Scrambled for the AGS lab reports - both say "negligible'.

It is as strong, if not more so, than my medium blue BGD diamond - to my eye. So minimum rating is medium blue.

How is this possible??

Even though I don't mind, it does (somewhat) bother me that they aren't "matching" (my issue - have OCPD traits)
 
.
From memory: AGS 'Neglijable' means 'not a detraction', not 'barely detectable'.

[I cannot seem to find the fine print ... ]
 
As I understand it, "Negligible" covers every intensity from zero to nearly "Medium", so your stud probably came in at the top end of that range.
 
Have you contacted Whiteflash?
What did they say?
 
@kenny - yes but I'm in a different timezone (I'm in Aus) so they wont have email yet.
 
Fluorescence is also graded top down, so I would flip the earrings and check the flouro again. None and faint flouro = "negligible" grade per AGS. I also have a pair of small BGD signature stones which AGS graded to have "negligible" fluorescence, yet one of them exhibits some. @kayla17 had a similar to your experience with one of her recent ACA upgrades. You can check her post here:https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-321-aca-in-stuller-crown-setting.231646/
This is also what WF has posted on their site about fluorescence: https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...ion/diamond-fluorescence-good-or-bad-1322.htm
 
Mondayschild,
I can understand your surprise. As other posters have mentioned AGSL 'negligible' is not necessarily the same as 'none". Only when strength gets to medium is it non-negligible in AGS parlance. So a negligible can potentially have borderline medium fluoro. It would appear this is the case with your stone.

It may look medium or even strong under some kinds of UV sources. There is discussion of this variability in light sources and the observations they produce discussed in our article on fluorescence that SimoneDi referenced.

The good thing about our 100% lifetime upgrade policy is that diamonds can be exchanged for any reason. If it bothers you that the stones are not matched with respect to fluoro, you can always contact us and we will find a mate to the inert stone.
 
@Texas Leaguer - thank you for your response !

Was definitely surprised, I think as a consumer I have assumed negligible = none (while i see there are resources available which explain that AGS negligible fluorescence encompasses a range....I just wouldn't have even felt prompted to make those enquiries based on how I interpret the word 'negligible')

I've learnt something! And yes - can see that one snapshot picture from the top isnt the proper, validated grading process- that AGS grade bottom-up and in same standardised lighting.

I have no issue with fluorescent stones at all (in fact - i think they are very cool!) And it was a nice surprise. As I said, had the studs for 3 years and never noticed any difference in the performance or appearance.

I wonder whether - rather than trying to find a fluoro match - when I upgrade them - if i could ask Whiteflash to look for a pair that are matched in size & both have similar fluoro?

(Down the track.....my credit card is groaning at the moment ....)
 
Mondayschild said:
@Texas Leaguer - thank you for your response !

Was definitely surprised, I think as a consumer I have assumed negligible = none (while i see there are resources available which explain that AGS negligible fluorescence encompasses a range....I just wouldn't have even felt prompted to make those enquiries based on how I interpret the word 'negligible')

I've learnt something! And yes - can see that one snapshot picture from the top isnt the proper, validated grading process- that AGS grade bottom-up and in same standardised lighting.

I have no issue with fluorescent stones at all (in fact - i think they are very cool!) And it was a nice surprise. As I said, had the studs for 3 years and never noticed any difference in the performance or appearance.

I wonder whether - rather than trying to find a fluoro match - when I upgrade them - if i could ask Whiteflash to look for a pair that are matched in size & both have similar fluoro?

(Down the track.....my credit card is groaning at the moment ....)
Click to expand...
Mondayschild,
Thank you for your understanding. You are certainly not the first to interpret 'negligible' as 'none'. The logic AGSL used for their decision to report differently than GIA on this aspect makes sense. That is, there is negligible effect on appearance or quality due to low strengths of fluorescence. Coupled with the fact that there are many different UV devices on the market that result in different observations of fluorescence, pinning it to none or even faint can under certain conditions lead to differences of opinion.
Having said that, there is some confusion in the marketplace that is regrettable. While AGSL seeks to synch up with their sister organization GIA in most other aspects of grading, this is one area that I feel warrants a consideration on their part of realigning with GIA reporting. I have for some time expressed that opinion to the folks at the lab, and there is some acknowledgement that this practice, as solid as it is in concept, creates unintentional consequences.
In our series of educational articles on diamond grading done in collaboration with AGSL we have tried to bring understanding to consumers of the various processes at the AGSL, with a focus on explaining where reporting or methodology may differ from GIA, and the reasoning behind those differences.
As part of our internal diamond evaluations the Whiteflash review team observes fluoresce with a GIA UV device and we do make note of whether 'negligible' diamonds in our inventory have detectable fluorescence. So, yes it will be quite possible for us to find you a "none" to match when you are ready to trade-in.
Thank you again for your understanding and , if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me directly.
 
Texas Leaguer said:
... Having said that, there is some confusion in the marketplace that is regrettable. While AGSL seeks to synch up with their sister organization GIA in most other aspects of grading, this is one area that I feel warrants a consideration on their part of realigning with GIA reporting. I have for some time expressed that opinion to the folks at the lab, and there is some acknowledgement that this practice, as solid as it is in concept, creates unintentional consequences. ...
Click to expand...

Excellent point Bryan.

Add me to the list of surprised.
I can totally sympathize with the OP being upset seeing her mismatched diamonds.
This shouldn't happen.

But I get your explanation and why this is on AGSL.

Before this thread I had no idea AGSL's negligible grade could allow that much fluorescence.:eek2:
While I get their reasoning (their negligent fluor grade means the fluor has negligible effect) buyers are not psychic.
It is reasonable to assume a fluorescence grade indicates how much fluorescence the stone has.

This thread is the perfect demonstration of why AGS should change.
Customers are unhappy and it unfairly makes vendors look bad.
... Customer buys pair or matched diamonds from highly reputable dealer.
Though the stones were wonderful for years shinning a UV light on them reveals a mismatch that would disturb most owners.
This shouldn't happen, and I don't think it could happen with GIA's definition of fluor grades.

If AGSL refuses to change perhaps an explanatory note under the fluorescence grade is called for.
 
Last edited:
I've experienced the same case as you! Once I purchased a pair of HOF ideal cut diamond earrings. Going home and inspecting the stones, I was unpleasantly surprised to see prominent medium to strong blue fluorescence in one of the diamonds, both graded by AGS with negligible fluorescence. I returned these earrings. I am sure, that it wasn't misinterpretation of "negligible" fluorescence, but eventually error of the laboratory.
I have never experienced such error with the fluorescence grading made by GIA.
Your pictures shows obvious fluorescence. I cannot justify AGS in this case!
 
Last edited:
kenny said:
Excellent point Bryan.

Add me to the list of surprised.
I can totally sympathize with the OP being upset seeing her mismatched diamonds.
This shouldn't happen.

But I get your explanation and why this is on AGSL.

Before this thread I had no idea AGSL's negligible grade could allow that much fluorescence.:eek2:
While I get their reasoning (their negligent fluor grade means the fluor has negligible effect) buyers are not psychic.
It is reasonable to assume a fluorescence grade indicates how much fluorescence the stone has.

This thread is the perfect demonstration of why AGS should change.
Customers are unhappy and it unfairly makes vendors look bad.
... Customer buys pair or matched diamonds from highly reputable dealer.
Though the stones were wonderful for years shinning a UV light on them reveals a mismatch that would disturb most owners.
This shouldn't happen, and I don't think it could happen with GIA's definition of fluor grades.

If AGSL refuses to change perhaps an explanatory note under the fluorescence grade is called for.
Click to expand...
Hey Kenny,
Good points all. And I agree with you. I think the GIA approach is better in this day and age.
In fairness to AGSL, I think their reasoning for a different approach was very solid at the time. But in the last several years shoppers have become more aware about fluorescence and some of the issues surrounding this property.
GIA teaches that fluorescence is primarily an identification characteristic. As such, it is understandable that AGSL would view small amounts of fluoro as a non-issue. And given the variability in observations in the field, slicing and dicing lower strength levels was probably seen by AGSL as not really adding value.
But, no matter where you stand on liking fluoro or not liking it, the fact is that the consumer market today is making important value judgements on it; even on faint fluoro. It therefore makes sense for AGSL to more fully serve this consumer need in their reporting. While there will still be differences in observation, at least the reporting approaches would be unified between the two labs, eliminating some misunderstandings.
 
Texas Leaguer said:
I have for some time expressed that opinion to the folks at the lab, and there is some acknowledgement that this practice, as solid as it is in concept, creates unintentional consequences.
In our series of educational articles on diamond grading done in collaboration with AGSL we have tried to bring understanding to consumers of the various processes at the AGSL, with a focus on explaining where reporting or methodology may differ from GIA, and the reasoning behind those differences.

As part of our internal diamond evaluations the Whiteflash review team observes fluoresce with a GIA UV device and we do make note of whether 'negligible' diamonds in our inventory have detectable fluorescence. So, yes it will be quite possible for us to find you a "none" to match when you are ready to trade-in.

Thank you again for your understanding and , if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me directly.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much @Texas Leaguer

Just reiterating- i don't feel misled or upset!
I understand the purpose of a system that examines the impact of fluorescence & have made an assumption that the term was also a "grade".

I think I'm just a bit of a particular person (eeek) and therefore it bothers me that they don't match - so I will probably investigate upgrade options shortly!

kenny said:
Add me to the list of surprised.
I can totally sympathize with the OP being upset seeing her mismatched diamonds.
This shouldn't happen.

But I get your explanation and why this is on AGSL.

Before this thread I had no idea AGSL's negligible grade could allow that much fluorescence.:eek2:

...

If AGSL refuses to change perhaps an explanatory note under the fluorescence grade is called for.
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding! I agree that, especially for the "close to medium" negligible fluro AGSL like mine, it would be worth noting.

(Having said that - plenty of consumers seek out & love the fluoro....either the appearance or the price reduction;)))

Texas Leaguer said:
Hey Kenny,
Good points all. And I agree with you. I think the GIA approach is better in this day and age.
In fairness to AGSL, I think their reasoning for a different approach was very solid at the time. But in the last several years shoppers have become more aware about fluorescence and some of the issues surrounding this property.
GIA teaches that fluorescence is primarily an identification characteristic. As such, it is understandable that AGSL would view small amounts of fluoro as a non-issue. And given the variability in observations in the field, slicing and dicing lower strength levels was probably seen by AGSL as not really adding value.
But, no matter where you stand on liking fluoro or not liking it, the fact is that the consumer market today is making important value judgements on it; even on faint fluoro. It therefore makes sense for AGSL to more fully serve this consumer need in their reporting. While there will still be differences in observation, at least the reporting approaches would be unified between the two labs, eliminating some misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

What you have explained makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to add to the thread.
 
Brian of WF--

You mentioned an upgrade policy, I dont know your upgrade policy, does this mean that you will exchange the diamond of the OP for one with no fluorescence to make her happy?
thank you.

EDIT: Just read your upgrade policy, no need to explain, very clear., thanks
 
Hi,
I actually had the same thing happen to me with my new ACA earrings. I recieved them this past June and I have one that glows blue while the other one doesn’t.
In regular light I don’t notice a difference at all in color. They are perfectly matched otherwise. I am a bit OCD about things like this so at first I wanted to return them. But I eventually plan to upgrade them at some point in the future so I figure I’ll just keep them for now.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do!
 
EvaEvans said:
Once I purchased a pair of HOF ideal cut diamond earrings. Going home and inspecting the stones, I was unpleasantly surprised to see prominent medium to strong blue fluorescence in one of the diamonds, both graded by AGS with negligible fluorescence. I returned these earrings.
Click to expand...

@EvaEvans - wow - it's a shock isn't it? I have an AGS medium blue to compare to (Brian Gavin Blue diamond) so I feel it is awfully close in appearance (albeit with my own small UV light device).

kayla17 said:
I actually had the same thing happen to me with my new ACA earrings. They are perfectly matched otherwise. I am a bit OCD about things like this so at first I wanted to return them. But I eventually plan to upgrade them at some point in the future so I figure I’ll just keep them for now.
Click to expand...

@kayla17 - thank you, sounds like a similar experience... I'm the same....it's not the fluoro that is an issue it's the "mind clean" aspect of them not matching :oops2:
 
The reason the AGS Laboratory uses the term "Negligible" instead of "None" like the GIA is that diamonds usually exhibit some degree of fluorescence. The degree obviously varies and there is a spectrum or range of possibility that exists between the markers of Negligible, Faint, Medium, Strong, and Very Strong or Distinct.

At the same time, diamonds are graded by people and the data is entered by people into the system and sometimes typographical errors occur. With that in mind, you can always arrange to send the diamonds back to Whiteflash for evaluation and Bryan Boyne can help you determine the degree of fluorescence exhibited by the diamonds, and determine whether they need to be resubmitted to the AGSL for a recheck if that is important to you.

Personally, I'm rather fond of blue fluorescence in diamonds and the positive effects that they can have on our perception of diamond color. Thus, I would be likely to select blue fluorescent diamonds for earrings and might consider this to be a bonus. But I also understand that we tend to like our i's dotted and our T's crossed when it comes to the paper that accompanies our diamonds.
 
Todd Gray said:
The reason the AGS Laboratory uses the term "Negligible" instead of "None" like the GIA is that diamonds usually exhibit some degree of fluorescence. The degree obviously varies and there is a spectrum or range of possibility that exists between the markers of Negligible, Faint, Medium, Strong, and Very Strong or Distinct.

At the same time, diamonds are graded by people and the data is entered by people into the system and sometimes typographical errors occur. With that in mind, you can always arrange to send the diamonds back to Whiteflash for evaluation and Bryan Boyne can help you determine the degree of fluorescence exhibited by the diamonds, and determine whether they need to be resubmitted to the AGSL for a recheck if that is important to you.

Personally, I'm rather fond of blue fluorescence in diamonds and the positive effects that they can have on our perception of diamond color. Thus, I would be likely to select blue fluorescent diamonds for earrings and might consider this to be a bonus. But I also understand that we tend to like our i's dotted and our T's crossed when it comes to the paper that accompanies our diamonds.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't feel like I have any remaining confusion about the differences between GIA and AGS reporting & I know that human error is possible!!

Having fluoro in a stone (if it isn't affecting performance) is not a deal breaker for me.

I'm not suggesting that AGSL have assessed the fluorescence incorrectly. Whiteflash have stated that they keep a database of certain stones that exhibit more fluorescence (under the "neglible" umbrella).

My issue- and I'm aware it is just the way my mind works- is that with studs i like the concept of things matching. As Bryan has kindly offered, I will likely upgrade or liaise with WF to find a new pair.

Like you, i think blue fluoro is very cool & would happily have both studs with fluorescence. I don't see it as a negative. :sun:
 
Mondayschild said:
My issue- and I'm aware it is just the way my mind works- is that with studs i like the concept of things matching. As Bryan has kindly offered, I will likely upgrade or liaise with WF to find a new pair.
Click to expand...

I understand completely! Even if two diamonds face-up the same to me, I still need them to work from the perspective of being mind clean or it will just nibble at the back of my brain until it bleeds out my ears ;))
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top