just how negligible is negligible?

[Niel]

Ill start off by saying no i dont think my diamond got switched.....


but i got my ring back from JA yesterday and i stuck it under my black light. My largest three diamonds are certed as no fluor, but the last three are so small they were uncerted so i wanted to see if they had and fluor.... im a nerd like that


well they dont, but my center stone has the slliiiiightest of fluor to it, though its not listed on the cert. I had checked it once while it was in the solitaire setting, and i didnt notice it, but it is hard to notice. The only reason i could tell it wasnt just the reflection of the light was because it was slightly bluer than the onther 4 stones.

so sense it does technically have fluor, i would have assumed it would be graded as "negligible"... why wasnt it?

 

[doberman]

I would think that if it truly has minor fluorescence that it would be marked as "faint".

Fluorescence is cool. I look at my settings under black light all the time to find the glowing stones.

 

[Niel]

yeah your probably right, regardless its marked as none. I really like it too i would have preferred strong fluor, i just dont know why it isnt marked as having at least a little bit when, comparing to other stones, it clearly does. I mean i know fluor doesnt have as strict standards for different grading levels though GIA, but i mean its not like it has none.

 

[doberman]

It's odd that the GIA didn't catch the glow...I always thought fluorescence either is or is not - but perhaps it is subject to interpretation in the way that clarity grades are.

On a side note, I have never understood why fluorescent diamonds are worth a bit less. Certainly for the rare diamond whose fluorescence gives the stone a milky/cloudy look, I understand. But most fluorescent diamonds look just fine.

 

[diamond-enthusiast]

what's the wavelength of UV backlight you are using?

 

[Niel]

what's the wavelength of UV backlight you are using?

blacklight I bought at a part store wavelength? Haha sorry that's a good question but I have no idea. I'll check the light today see if its listed.

 

[maccers]

Niel - is it possible that you're seeing the reflection of the light but it's not actually fluorescing?

When testing my e-ring (which I knew the centre stone had SBF), the side stones initially appeared to have fluor as well but it turned out that I was holding the light too close to the stones and mostly it was just reflection and not actual fluor. I will say it's difficult for me to tell the difference between faint fluor versus the stone is reflecting the black light.

I'll try to find pics of what I'm talking about. Not sure if I'm explaining myself well enough.

 

[Niel]

Niel - is it possible that you're seeing the reflection of the light but it's not actually fluorescing?

When testing my e-ring (which I knew the centre stone had SBF), the side stones initially appeared to have fluor as well but it turned out that I was holding the light too close to the stones and mostly it was just reflection and not actual fluor. I will say it's difficult for me to tell the difference between faint fluor versus the stone is reflecting the black light.

I'll try to find pics of what I'm talking about. Not sure if I'm explaining myself well enough.

See when it was in a solitaire I figured I was seeing reflection, but now when its with my other 5 I am certain there is a slight fluor in one that is not in the others.

 

[yssie]

I *just* posted about GIA and fluor too - a couple of days ago in another thread. AGSL doesn't have a fluor grade of "none" - negligible is the lowest they'll go. I don't know that I'd agree w/ the implication that a diamond can't have fluor, a "pure" diamond w/ a perfect lattice structure would be completely inert, but maybe that's one of those reality vs. textbooks differences...

365nm.

One of the largest pair of sidestones has "faint" fluor by the GIA, the other has "none".
Both of the middle pair of sidestones have "none" per the GIAs.



[Edited comment*]

 

[Niel]

I want to get a picture because I can see a slight but distinct difference between my center and sides. Though all have that same grade. See I knew that fluor isn't something as strictly graded as color. But how can it have some and get that grade? How much does it have to have to be slight? And how can you call it none when I can clearly see some. A variation in gradation I can see; say within the grading of "slight" I could see that, but none should mean none I feel like.

 

[Christina...]

I *just* posted about GIA and fluor too - a couple of days ago in another thread. AGSL doesn't have a fluor grade of "none" - negligible is the lowest they'll go. I don't know that I'd agree w/ the implication that a diamond can't have fluor, a "pure" diamond w/ a perfect lattice structure would be completely inert, but maybe that's one of those reality vs. textbooks differences...

365nm.

One of the largest pair of sidestones has "faint" fluor by the GIA, the other has "none".
Both of the middle pair of sidestones have "none" per the GIAs.



[Edited comment*]

LOL I was just getting ready to link to the thread you posted this in!

 

[Roxy]

Niel, what did the folks at JA tell you when you asked them about this? I'd think that they would be best equipped to explain what you're seeing.

 

[Niel]

i didnt ask. I was just looking of a discussion as to how much fluor a stone needs to have before its markled on the gia cert.

 

[oldminer]

GIA arbitrarily says "none" when there is less than what they term "faint". It is one of the strangest grading situations but of only tiny actual importance. AGSL took the higher road by using "negligible" below "slight" or "faint"...It makes more sense to most anyone. I am told by a science guy that I am closely associated with that ALL diamonds fluoresce to UV, but that not every fluorescent effect is in the visible light spectrum that our eyes can see. If you can't see it, then it appears not to be there and that's where the whole thing gets fuzzy with the exact spot where some of our eyes see a bit differently than someone else's. We are not aware of those nuance differences in how our eyes uniquely receive light from how someone else's eye's perceive the same light.

Negligible is a useful term, The fact that a tiny amount of UV reaction shows has no financial or other consequences. It might be helpful in identifying your diamond from others. Since "none" has been abused by GIA, I use "Inert" when there is no visible UV reaction and "Negligible' when a tiny bit of reaction happens below what I term "slight".

 

[Christina...]

GIA arbitrarily says "none" when there is less than what they term "faint". It is one of the strangest grading situations but of only tiny actual importance. AGSL took the higher road by using "negligible" below "slight" or "faint"...It makes more sense to most anyone. I am told by a science guy that I am closely associated with that ALL diamonds fluoresce to UV, but that not every fluorescent effect is in the visible light spectrum that our eyes can see. If you can't see it, then it appears not to be there and that's where the whole thing gets fuzzy with the exact spot where some of our eyes see a bit differently than someone else's. We are not aware of those nuance differences in how our eyes uniquely receive light from how someone else's eye's perceive the same light.

Negligible is a useful term, The fact that a tiny amount of UV reaction shows has no financial or other consequences. It might be helpful in identifying your diamond from others. Since "none" has been abused by GIA, I use "Inert" when there is no visible UV reaction and "Negligible' when a tiny bit of reaction happens below what I term "slight".

The idea that ALL diamonds fluoresce is very interesting. I'd like to learn more about this....could you point me in a direction? Any resource I have come by all give the classic examples of strength, none, faint, medium blue, etc.

I' knew that the designation of 'none' per GIA means only that the stone had less than 'faint', however that doesn't really explain Yssies situation. The two stones designated as 'none' per her report, appear to have the same strength as the stone designated as 'faint'. And from the photo anyway IMO all three stones look to have, what I would consider, perhaps 'medium' fluorescence, but certainly not 'none'. So could we conclude that grading fluoro is as subjective as, or even more subjective, than color and clarity grading?

 

[oldminer]

I concluded that GIA does not consistently grade fluorescence some years ago. It can be done far better by machine, but most appraisers handle UV fluorescence grading quite well on a subjective basis, so I wonder if dealers may have influenced GIA over time to keep a weak standard in this regard. To my way of thinking "none" means not at all. Any amount showing could not possibly be "none", but I'm not in charge of the way a lab decides to call it.

Many things react to certain wavelengths of visible or non-visible energy, but we only have limited senses in detecting these reactions as human detector devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence What humans can detect with our limited set of senses is far less than what actually surrounds us.

 

[Christina...]

I concluded that GIA does not consistently grade fluorescence some years ago. It can be done far better by machine, but most appraisers handle UV fluorescence grading quite well on a subjective basis, so I wonder if dealers may have influenced GIA over time to keep a weak standard in this regard. To my way of thinking "none" means not at all. Any amount showing could not possibly be "none", but I'm not in charge of the way a lab decides to call it.

Many things react to certain wavelengths of visible or non-visible energy, but we only have limited senses in detecting these reactions as human detector devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence What humans can detect with our limited set of senses is far less than what actually surrounds us.

Ahh! I, sadly,think that this may be exactly the case. I agree with you that NONE should mean NONE at all, and I believe that most consumers believe that this is indeed the case.

I appreciate the link Dave! Thanks!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

GIA arbitrarily says "none" when there is less than what they term "faint". It is one of the strangest grading situations but of only tiny actual importance. AGSL took the higher road by using "negligible" below "slight" or "faint"...It makes more sense to most anyone. I am told by a science guy that I am closely associated with that ALL diamonds fluoresce to UV, but that not every fluorescent effect is in the visible light spectrum that our eyes can see. If you can't see it, then it appears not to be there and that's where the whole thing gets fuzzy with the exact spot where some of our eyes see a bit differently than someone else's. We are not aware of those nuance differences in how our eyes uniquely receive light from how someone else's eye's perceive the same light.

Negligible is a useful term, The fact that a tiny amount of UV reaction shows has no financial or other consequences. It might be helpful in identifying your diamond from others. Since "none" has been abused by GIA, I use "Inert" when there is no visible UV reaction and "Negligible' when a tiny bit of reaction happens below what I term "slight".

Correct Dave - infact all diamonds fluoresce with strong enough energy rays - the shorter the wavelength the more energy.
This fact is the main way diamonds are seperated from other rocks and minerals by very strong shorter than visible light - called XRays (which only Superman can see).
http://www.diamcormining.com/diamond_info/recovery_methods/

Historically we used the two available UV light sources that were possible with fluoro tubes as identification tools in gemmology - the fact they became used for this other rather silly purpose is wierd - and like many others, I prefer non milky blue fluoro diamonds.
I even like your fun ring Dave!!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

GIA arbitrarily says "none" when there is less than what they term "faint". It is one of the strangest grading situations but of only tiny actual importance. AGSL took the higher road by using "negligible" below "slight" or "faint"...It makes more sense to most anyone. I am told by a science guy that I am closely associated with that ALL diamonds fluoresce to UV, but that not every fluorescent effect is in the visible light spectrum that our eyes can see. If you can't see it, then it appears not to be there and that's where the whole thing gets fuzzy with the exact spot where some of our eyes see a bit differently than someone else's. We are not aware of those nuance differences in how our eyes uniquely receive light from how someone else's eye's perceive the same light.

Negligible is a useful term, The fact that a tiny amount of UV reaction shows has no financial or other consequences. It might be helpful in identifying your diamond from others. Since "none" has been abused by GIA, I use "Inert" when there is no visible UV reaction and "Negligible' when a tiny bit of reaction happens below what I term "slight".

Correct Dave - infact all diamonds fluoresce with strong enough energy rays - the shorter the wavelength the more energy.
This fact is the main way diamonds are seperated from other rocks and minerals by very strong shorter than visible light - called XRays (which only Superman can see).
http://www.diamcormining.com/diamond_info/recovery_methods/

Historically we used the two available UV light sources that were possible with fluoro tubes as identification tools in gemmology - the fact they became used for this other rather silly purpose is wierd - and like many others, I prefer non milky blue fluoro diamonds.
I even like your fun ring Dave!!!!