Musings about HPHT vs CVD looking forward the most natural… please weigh in if you have thoughts!

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Forgive me for diverting this but I though Type 11a were the purest, as in Golconda diamonds. "Limpid." "Of the first water." They're not?

Yes, according to Traviner's reports under suboptimal viewing conditions such as candles and under nearby trees

 

[John Pollard]

Yes, according to Traviner's reports under suboptimal viewing conditions such as candles and under nearby trees

@Garry H (Cut Nut) that is silly. Traveling at the moment so I will need to elaborate later.

Short story, Type IIa have no measurable nitrogen or boron impurities. Among all diamonds they are chemically the most pure.

They are celebrated among natural D color collectors as “Golconda” stones, referring to the region in India where Tavernier sourced the first “finest water” stones that blew away European royalty - and their court Jewelers - in all lighting conditions. Trees and candles notwithstanding.

Among naturally occurring diamonds Type IIa specimens are usually colorless. They can also have hints of other colors - including light yellow, brown, pink or gray - but those were not emblematic of what Tavernier and his people celebrated as “Golconda” stones.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

So, why are labgrown Type 11a not spoken of as being are rare and beautiful? What happened?
Sorry, I'm just a dumb housewife.

 

[DejaWiz]

So, why are labgrown Type 11a not spoken of as being are rare and beautiful? What happened?
Sorry, I'm just a dumb housewife.

Rarity in nature vs synthesized in a factory.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

How charming.

 

[DejaWiz]

How charming.

It is for earth grown, but almost all CVD are IIa...and a CVD diamond has a chance to have some very off-putting issues.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

It just surprises me that no expert has said, the really good ones are like Golcondas. Do you think the really really good ones are whisked off for technology and no one gets to see them?

 

[DejaWiz]

It just surprises me that no expert has said, the really good ones are like Golcondas. Do you think the really really good ones are whisked off for technology and no one gets to see them?

Maybe to a degree. If we're talking diamond lenses, then they'd be creme de la creme of CVD.

Diamond Optical Lenses

Diamond single lenses and lens arrays have found considerable interest in terahertz spectroscopy and CO2 laser surgery. As the focussing element of a…

www.diamond-materials.com

 

[Karl_K]

Maybe to a degree. If we're talking diamond lenses, then they'd be creme de la creme of CVD.

Apple has a very high interest in diamond lenses for its cameras on phones.
The company that eventually does it and in that volume is going to make a lot of money.

 

[DejaWiz]

Apple has a very high interest in diamond lenses for its cameras on phones.
The company that eventually does it and in that volume is going to make a lot of money.

Can't wait to see Apple's jewelry lineup: iBling

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It just surprises me that no expert has said, the really good ones are like Golcondas. Do you think the really really good ones are whisked off for technology and no one gets to see them?

There are plenty of companies selling LGD's that mention type II as being the bees knees. But they rarely mention that most CVD producers need to treat the diamonds to get rid of the brown that is very common.
The fact there is no nitrogen is simply that they keep it out of the reactor.
The nitrogen in natural diamonds results in lots of them fluorescing and that means that any fluorescent diamond is almost certainly natural.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Garry, thank you! You answered two of my questions.
Maybe three. Most of my diamonds have some degree of fluorescence and it might be one reason I find them so enchantingly "real."

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Can't wait to see Apple's jewelry lineup: iBling

Outdo everyone else’s luxury watch with one big diamond face. (How very Apple to use the hipster trendy portrait cut, too.)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) that is silly. Traveling at the moment so I will need to elaborate later.

Short story, Type IIa have no measurable nitrogen or boron impurities. Among all diamonds they are chemically the most pure.

They are celebrated among natural D color collectors as “Golconda” stones, referring to the region in India where Tavernier sourced the first “finest water” stones that blew away European royalty - and their court Jewelers - in all lighting conditions. Trees and candles notwithstanding.

Among naturally occurring diamonds Type IIa specimens are usually colorless. They can also have hints of other colors - including light yellow, brown, pink or gray - but those were not emblematic of what Tavernier and his people celebrated as “Golconda” stones.

Are you ensconced at home yet John?
I recall at a GIA symposium about 1999 that GE and Lazar Kaplan were spinning a line that type II brown diamonds treated with HPHT were the bees knees of all diamonds, and the fact that they had sent dozens of very large stones thru GIA GTLab undetected meant that they should not need to declare the treatment because it was the same as natural earth HPHT treatment.
LK CEO was at the time the Chair of GIA and gave the symposium opening speech. If it was not so serious it would have been hilarious.
As other have said during your jetting about - synthezied diamonds and type II is a great marketing spin, but has little to do with "this type of diamond is best" IMO.

 

[John Pollard]

Are you ensconced at home yet John?
I recall at a GIA symposium about 1999 that GE and Lazar Kaplan were spinning a line that type II brown diamonds treated with HPHT were the bees knees of all diamonds, and the fact that they had sent dozens of very large stones thru GIA GTLab undetected meant that they should not need to declare the treatment because it was the same as natural earth HPHT treatment.
LK CEO was at the time the Chair of GIA and gave the symposium opening speech. If it was not so serious it would have been hilarious.
As other have said during your jetting about - synthezied diamonds and type II is a great marketing spin, but has little to do with "this type of diamond is best" IMO.

Nice story, but how is that relevant Garry? My prior post wasn't about LGD. It was about Golconda stones and your allegations regarding 'candles/trees' and Tavernier's skills as a diamantaire.

It sure will be a shame if, in the year 2322, some gemmo from Mars in a holo-chat says the same thing about you, shallow diamonds and the HCA.

For the record, I'd stand up and defend you then - as I'm sure the moguls of India, Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIII, among others, would do for Tavernier and Golconda today.

Or we could just consult Sotheby's

 

[Karl_K]

a good story adNice story, but how is that relevant Garry?

A good story adds 30% to the price

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A good story adds 30% to the price

Exactly Karl.
It's just a story.
There is no evidence.
Hawking never got a Nobel Prize because there was no evidence (maybe he will get one now as they took a photo of a black hole in our galaxy).
No one has ever proven the link between lack of nitrogen in a diamond and Type II diamonds with D color being better looking.

It is a story until there is a proof.