Diamond Florescence opinion review

[treasurehunter]

This is not my website and I invite others here to review or criticise what this person has said about milkiness in strong florescent diamonds.

http://www.diamonds.pro/truth-about/diamond-fluorescence/

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

treasurehunter,

Here is a different take:
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

Supported by the aforementioned GIA article:
http://www.gia.edu/Winter-1997-A1-Fluorescence-diamonds-Moses

Meanwhile, the site you linked says: "I can tell you with absolute certainty, that their research is bunk. I have seen tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of diamonds in my career and I can tell you without question the following:

Strong/Very Strong Blue Fluorescent diamonds usually appear hazy
Medium Blue Fluorescent diamonds rarely appear hazy
Slight/Faint Blue Fluorescent diamonds never appear hazy

The study, though, does make one claim that is correct. Fluorescence will usually improve the appearance of color in the diamond. So as I suggested in my bottom line recommendation above, if you are buying a diamond with a color H or lower, seek out a diamond with Medium Blue Fluorescence. "

While I am always interested in differing opinions, I am not inclined to take the word of an expert who bases his entire argument on his personal experience and anecdotal evidence when confronted with a scientific study of over 26,000 diamonds which confirms the opposite. Furthermore, there is a historical explanation for the abundance of “overblue” fluorescent diamonds which flooded the market some decades ago – starting the “wives’ tales” about a fluorescence problem.

As with clarity…or durability…every diamond must be judged on its own specific merits. Also remember that fluorescence is not a constant. It’s a sliding scale. So “Strong” could be closer to medium than Very Strong, just as Very Strong could be closer to Strong than overblue. Whether assessing color, clarity, cut or fluorescence it must be done on a diamond by diamond basis. To quantify the study as 'not making one claim correct' immediately negates the necessary flexibility for case by case evaluations.

 

[Gypsy]

That guy (and I say this, not for the first time) is often wrong but, apparently, NEVER in doubt.

Ignore him.

Honestly, there was a guy on here for a while that kept linking to that website like it was the holy grail. I accused him of being the website owner and I never heard from him again.

Read this: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-all-florescence-experts.198989/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-all-florescence-experts.198989/[/URL]

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Thanks for the link Gypsy! I have spent countless hours in archives and older threads - it seems PScope is just full of these old (and not so old) 'gems' <-- see what I did there?

 

[treasurehunter]

Of the GIA study they mention 0.2 % have a milkiness or over blue effect, is mikiness and over blue always together or do you find either milkiness or over blue effects in the negatively affected diamonds?

 

[Gypsy]

Thanks for the link Gypsy! I have spent countless hours in archives and older threads - it seems PScope is just full of these old (and not so old) 'gems' <-- see what I did there?

I did!

When these gems occur, I bookmark them. Of course, I just got all new computers (work and at home) so I've had to go gem hunting a bit.