Calling all Florescence Experts.

[darkness13]

Hi Everyone,

I was recently told by a PS considered reputable jeweler that when it comes to diamonds, any stone with florescence will have some haziness to its appearance.

Is this true? Id really like to know thoughts as I am no expert.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Circe]

... no. That's a complete and total piece of nonsense. Who on earth said THAT, and what reputable research do they have to back it up? Whatever they've got, I think I'll put my money on the GIA study that came out a few years ago ... here's a link to a basic recap:

http://www.jckonline.com/1998/09/01...ettle-fluorescence-question-don-t-count-on-it

 

[Gypsy]

no. https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence


read here; http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/brian-gavins-blue-diamonds-with-fluorescence/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Great video: "A Consumer's Guide to Understanding Diamond Fluorescence" by Jonathan at Good Old Gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKDshYGBdko

I am sorry there are jewelers still telling people this. It just isn't true. I had one with strong blue until I upgraded my diamond and was very sorry I couldn't get the new one with fluorescence. I prefer it whenever possible. I think it is a good idea to avoid fluorescent stones with poor clarity such as those having a lot of clouds.

 

[darkness13]

I purchased a XXX diamond from this jeweler which has medium blue florescence. When I asked if the FL detracted from the stone in any way making it milky or dull I received this reply:

"It’s a medium blue so it has a little bit of a haze but not that much to affect the sparkle. Anything with FL has some haziness but it is not milky and it does not affect the sparkle significantly"

Hmmmm, should I be worried? I have purchased it sight unseen...starting to feel like I may have made a mistake

HELP

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Other posters are correct: It is incorrect to present such general statements on the effects of fluorescence.

Then again, in the context of the selling vendor stating that there is a small negative effect on this stone, diminishing the importance by stating that all fluorescent diamonds exhibit the same, it makes me very worried about this specific stone.

Live long,

 

[darkness13]

So when a vendor assures you a stone is 100% eye clean does that still mean I should assume it could still look hazey when they say its clean? I would have thought 100% eye clean meant it looked clean to the eye free of any visible imperfections, haze being one of them.

I'm trying to establish whether this haziness should have realistically been revealed that to me when I asked them the eye clean question.

I'm no expert so I'm interested to know thoughts from people, if its my error then I can accept that.

thanks

 

[ame]

So when a vendor assures you a stone is 100% eye clean does that still mean I should assume it could still look hazey when they say its clean? I would have thought 100% eye clean meant it looked clean to the eye free of any visible imperfections, haze being one of them.

I'm trying to establish whether this haziness should have realistically been revealed that to me when I asked them the eye clean question.

I'm no expert so I'm interested to know thoughts from people, if its my error then I can accept that.

thanks

Eyeclean is subjective, frankly. I am kind of skeptical when people tell me "eye clean" most of the time, but that's because my definition of it varies from most vendors, and most other people on here, for example. You'd have to ask them what they define the term as, and if they have a "range" of distance, or factors for which eyeclean qualifies. Most of the vendors have a definition that specifies a specific distance from the eye, top down only. I tend to feel that if it's visible AT ALL without a 10x loupe, any distance (even a mm from my eyeball!) , any direction, any condition, that it's not eye clean.

In this situation, I find it unusual and a little concerning that a stone properly graded Medium Blue by a reputable lab (I assume you calling this a XXX stone that it's GIA graded?) would have any such haze. I have a med/strong blue (depending on which lab report you go with, I've had it regraded a few times because I am a weirdo) and mine has no such haze at all, absolutely none.

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

With 25 years of GIA grading experience, I can honestly say that until a diamond with medium UVF was tested under the UV light, 95% of the time experienced graders would not have known if the stone was one with medium blue UV. In the trade these stones will get a slight discount on price, mainly due to the, misconception of how UVF stones look.

A dirty stone with no UVF will look more hazy then a clean stone with medium blue UVF.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

So when a vendor assures you a stone is 100% eye clean does that still mean I should assume it could still look hazey when they say its clean? I would have thought 100% eye clean meant it looked clean to the eye free of any visible imperfections, haze being one of them.

I'm trying to establish whether this haziness should have realistically been revealed that to me when I asked them the eye clean question.

I'm no expert so I'm interested to know thoughts from people, if its my error then I can accept that.

thanks

Darkness,

I think that you should reverse the question.

Generally, badly informed or badly intended retailers attempt to scare consumers away from fluorescent stones by exaggerating the potential negative effect of fluorescence. All posters here have told you that this is grossly exaggerated, and you should not be scared.

In this case, however, your vendor is telling you that there IS indeed a negative effect in this particular stone, but he attempts to talk that down by stating that same effect is present in all fluorescent stones.

Then, the question should not be whether all fluorescent stones have this negative effect. In fact, they do not. The real question is whether you want that stone, knowing that it contains a negative.

Live long,

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi Everyone,

I was recently told by a PS considered reputable jeweler that when it comes to diamonds, any stone with florescence will have some haziness to its appearance.

Is this true? Id really like to know thoughts as I am no expert.

Thanks for your help.

Maybe they have cataracts?

I've always been a big fan of diamonds with blue fluorescence and tend to promote them heavily because I like the visual properties that blue fluorescence can provide within a diamond, plus I also just think that they look amazing when exposed to black light. I've personally owned and worn diamonds with medium blue, strong blue, and even very strong blue fluorescence; the latter of which definitely exhibited a hint of over blue and had to be kept perfectly clean so as to not look a bit hazy, but I also thought that it looked amazing in the sunlight because it kicked off a slight lavender blue hue if you knew what to look for.

If you want to play it perfectly safe, select a diamond which does not exhibit fluorescence, but if the thought of fluorescence appeals to you and you'd like to take advantage of the discount which is generally applied to diamonds with fluorescence, then I recommend working with a vendor who takes the time to personally evaluate every diamond that they offer, who can therefore determine whether the fluorescence is creating any negative impact upon the appearance of the diamond, in which case the odds are that they would reject it to start off with because nobody wants to take that kind of PR hit in the delicate world of online diamonds...

 

[Karl_K]

Has the vendor actually saw the stone?
That would be my first question.
If yes and it is negatively effected then you have to decide if its a deal breaker.
If it is negatively effected then it calls into question the grading.
Which lab did the grading report?

But if they are just repeating the scare tactic that florescence is bad I would find a different dealer that:
A: Inspects each diamond for any ill effects.
B: Doesn't use BS scare tactics.

 

[darkness13]

Thanks for all of your feedback it really helps. I love the idea on FL as long as the stone isnt impacted to the naked eye.

The vendor has the stone on site and has assured me it’s not hazy to the naked eye, or looks dull at all. Only if you put it next a diamond without FL you will see a slight difference. It’s very minimal nothing that would affect the overall sparkle of the diamond.

I have asked that they take a photo of my medium blue FL J next to a similar sized J that is eyeclean with no FL or haze so I can see the 'slight difference' they are talking about. Once I have that I will post it here so you can comment and see if you see anything concerning.

They placed my J into one of their halo mounts and took a photo of it so I could see the J against the F/G melee and it does appear to be quite white (albeit there 'is' blue paper behind one half of the stone, so focus on the other half). I have posted it for you all to comment.

Interested to know if you can see any haze here, to my naked eye I cant see it at all but I don't have the best eye for this.
Anyone else see haze? I know its not the best photo but please comment if you can

Thanks

 

[tyty333]

Doesnt look hazy too me...looks beautiful! I have a strong blue also and I love it!

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

Doesn't look hazy to me either...although the center/culet does look a bit off center, but that could just be photography. Interesting that the melee is not in focus either.... Do you have a report number to look at?

Hi Paul!!

 

[darkness13]

Doesn't look hazy to me either...although the center/culet does look a bit off center, but that could just be photography. Interesting that the melee is not in focus either.... Do you have a report number to look at?

Hi Paul!!

Hi SandyinAnaheim,

GIA is 1169607805. They have also sent me some pictures of my 2.41 stone next to another J with no FL.
I will post them - can anyone see any haze? They look the same to me but Id guess the only real way to know for sure is to see in person.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

With 25 years of GIA grading experience, I can honestly say that until a diamond with medium UVF was tested under the UV light, 95% of the time experienced graders would not have known if the stone was one with medium blue UV. In the trade these stones will get a slight discount on price, mainly due to the, misconception of how UVF stones look.

A dirty stone with no UVF will look more hazy then a clean stone with medium blue UVF.

I agree. Virtually no possibility the fluor is causing the stone to look hazy. However, the clarity features in some Si1 grades can interfere with light performance and cause the stone to lose crispness. Since the vendor states that the stone does have a little haziness I would suspect the issue is clarity based.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

With 25 years of GIA grading experience, I can honestly say that until a diamond with medium UVF was tested under the UV light, 95% of the time experienced graders would not have known if the stone was one with medium blue UV. In the trade these stones will get a slight discount on price, mainly due to the, misconception of how UVF stones look.

A dirty stone with no UVF will look more hazy then a clean stone with medium blue UVF.

I agree. Virtually no possibility the fluor is causing the stone to look hazy. However, the clarity features in some Si1 grades can interfere with light performance and cause the stone to lose crispness. Since the vendor states that the stone does have a little haziness I would suspect the issue is clarity based.

Just noticed the GIA number in the previous post and ran a report check. Here's the most likely culprit:

CLARITY CHARACTERISTICS

Twinning Wisp, Crystal, Feather, Needle

COMMENTS
Additional twinning wisps, clouds, pinpoints and surface graining are not shown.

 

[Todd Gray]

I concur with Bryan on this one, if anything is making the diamond appear cloudy, it is more apt to be the presence of twinning wisps which might contain darker diamond crystals spun within the intergrowth, than the medium blue fluorescence... twinning wisps seem to be a pretty common inclusion type at the moment, especially within SI clarity diamonds, which is why it is important to work with a vendor who takes the time to personally evaluate every diamond that they sell, so that you can avoid buying diamonds which are negatively impacted by clarity characteristics, cut quality, or fluorescence.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The ignorance of sales people blows my mind, but I should be used to it by now. Sad if they don't have enough knowledge to know where the "haze" comes from! However, I would personally want VS2 or higher in a stone that size. Clarity is going to be a much bigger factor than MBF in a stone that size, in my opinion. I'd prefer medium to strong blue in a J color stone, in fact.

 

[darkness13]

Thanks for commenting its been useful.
What you are saying about clarity makes sense, it's just interesting that they have maintained the whole time that this stone is eye clean from inclusions and haze!

I guess only time will tell once I receive the stone and can see it in person. It's unfortunate for me though as I won't get to see it whilst its still within the warranty period (I'm in Australia) given its about to be sent to Victor Canera in LA to be set.

Are we still unable to post video on PS? They sent me a video of the stone to show that it doesn't look cloudy etc.
Happy to share if Im permitted to.

 

[treasurehunter]

Maybe its just the vendor protecting himself by saying it may contain haziness ?

 

[Frisbeenut]

Hi, first time poster but have really appreciated the learnings from these forums before I purchased my diamond engagement ring. It is a sample size of one but I wanted to post some pictures of the diamond that I bought (in setting) showing the effect of GIA graded strong blue fluorescence if it will help someone with their decision. FYI both my fiancé and I love the diamond.

Some quick specs:
Cushion modified brilliant. 1.0 form factor
1.50 ct, H color, VS1 (a few crystals and a small cloud under the table, a few naturals, indented naturals on the edges) no feathers or twinning.
Polish/symmetry Excellent/very good
Table 60%, Depth 69.8%, no culet, medium to thick girdle
Strong Blue fluorescence.

Some notes:
- Extremely bright white looking diamond in diffuse and combination lighting with excellent fire and scintillation IMO.
- If looking directly top down at the table with strong backlighting there looks to be some leakage in the corners of the table but these spots look very bright in strong diffuse lighting. I think this is not uncommon. The diamond shows all sorts of colors in the top down non fluorescent view primarily as it's picking up all the green and yellows of plants etc in my backyard.

- Blue fluorescence only visible under direct sunlight not shaded sunlight and varies with time of day and amount of haze in the atmosphere. The pictures I show are at noon sun Under extremely clear skies. This is as blue as it gets (plus it is likely reflecting some if the blue sky directly back to the observer as well). The non fluorescent pictures are when I shade the sun with a paper towel.

- Amount of blueness clearly depends on viewing angle.



I might be tempted to say that there is some very slight 'haziness' in the last magnified photo but if there is it's completely unnoticeable to the naked eye and I really don't think it's 'haze' at all, just blueish color and one can see quite clearly through one of the lower girdle facets and it looks completely clean to me.

Absolutely love the blue fluorescence in this diamond and makes it all the more unique for my fiancé.

Hope that these pictures help!

 

[Frisbeenut]

Some more pics at shallower angles

 

[Dancing Fire]

Is this what diamond expert refer to as haziness b/c of the blue hue?...

 

[ame]

I would hope not, that is super clear.

 

[Karl_K]

Is this what diamond expert refer to as haziness b/c of the blue hue?...

I wish that was an easy question to answer.
But no, it is not what most of the experts around here would consider hazy.
But there are others in the trade that see a hint of blue and they sneer.
Then you have the ones that see it and say I wish I had this back in the day, I could have sold it for a large premium.
Then you have some that see it and say wow neat I like it.
I happen to think it is kewl.

Truly milky over-blues are hard to describe and don't look like they do in person in video and pictures.
Video and pictures can show that a diamond is over-blue but the look in person is different.
Many "experts" have never actual seen an over-blue. I had a hard time hunting one down to look at and many jewelers I talked to had never seen one in person. Others I got something like oh yea I saw one of those years ago............

 

[drk14]

Since this thread got revived, I thought I would re-post a comment I made on one of Frisbeenut's threads in SMTB:

- Blue fluorescence only visible under direct sunlight not shaded sunlight and varies with time of day and amount of haze in the atmosphere. The pictures I show are at noon sun under extremely clear skies. This is as blue as it gets (plus it is likely reflecting some of the blue sky directly back to the observer as well).

*snip*

Frisbeenut, let me start by saying that your ring is quite beautiful.

I am also a diamond newbie, but I work with fluorescence in scientific research. In my opinion, if the blue that you're capturing in these photos is fluorescence, you should be seeing a lot of blue in the pavilion in the sideways view. As you know, stones are viewed sideways to evaluate color, because from that angle, there are no reflections to obscure what is truly happening inside the diamond. In the same way, a sideways look into the pavilion should give you the best possible view of any emitted fluorescence (which come from inside the diamond, and generates light that radiates in all directions, including back towards the viewer). What I'm getting at is that if the fluorescence generated by your diamond under sunlight was as strong as your first image suggests, we should also see a deep blue pavilion in that last image.

This is not a critique of your diamond in any way, in fact the large amount of blue coming off the diamond is a direct testament to its extraordinary light return properties (but IMO, due almost entirely to reflections of the blue sky).

I only bring this up because, as you noted in your original post, there is a lot of confusion about fluorescence-- even on PS. I've seen several new diamond owners here who have purchased a non-fluorescent diamond (because that's what they wanted), and who became worried and concerned because their diamonds looked blue under a blue sky. I even saw someone who ended up returning a beautifully cut, bright diamond (which reflected a ton of blue sky on a sunny day), for what seemed to me to be a worse-performing diamond that was not returning any blue-sky light on sunny days.

So I'm hoping that some experts will either confirm my suspicions, or correct me if I'm wrong. There is too much misinformation out there about fluorescence, and it can sometimes have sad consequences.

In the time since I wrote the above comment, I have seen some examples of diamonds in which the fluorophores are not uniformly distributed throughout the diamond volume, which would refute my point to some degree. Nonetheless, if any experts care to comment, I would be interested to hear your opinion about my contention that the fluorescence, if visible, should manifest in the pavilion (and that this may be a good way to distinguish between the effects of fluorescence versus confounding reflections of the blue sky...).

 

[Dancing Fire]

Stormy
The reason I asked the Q, b/c my Octavia is graded VSB and I have no idea what to expect from a VSB stone.. This is the first time I have ever seen a VSB stone IRL. I don't know what a oily, milky stone supposed to look like...

 

[Karl_K]

Stormy
The reason I asked the Q, b/c my Octavia is graded VSB and I have no idea what to expect from a VSB stone.. This is the first time I have ever seen a VSB stone IRL. I don't know what a oily, milky stone supposed to look like...

I understand, over-blue is one of those things that when you saw it you would know it and yours doesn't have it.
I would expect some blue in sunlight that cant be attributed to blue sky but basically it looks the same just with a blue tint to the body of the stone.
Where with an over-blue it to me sorta looks like a steamed up mirror under the table.
Under the table is where it shows up the most if it is over-blue the smaller VFs under the rest of the crown don't show it as much.