Strong blue flo - the real deal

[noor]

Hi, I am considering a couple different diamonds from an on line site. One that I like has Strong Blue Flourescence. I see the topic covered in another section, but here is my exact question:

I don''t care how it looks under a black light, but I don''t want it to look weird in regular light or office light. What is your experience with this - can you tell that a stone is blue looking or something funny in normal light?

I had this stone viewed by someone on the other side of the internet sales site and they said it had, "faint to no effect". I don''t know - Do they actually look different than any other diamond in *regular* light. Any opinions?

The stone is F color 2.12 ct. Any help I really would appreciate - it is drivng me nuts - I cannot make the purchase decision!!!

 

[ndnyhagen]

Noor,
Not sure what shape diamond you are considerfing. I will say that my Emerald Cut, which is F VS2, is truly enhanced by it''s strong blue fluorescence. I know from my research that EC''s are a very particular shape as far as your cut, color and clarity are concerned. I couldn''t be happier with the effect of the fluorescence on my stone. It has a unique personality and recalls the days when blue-white stones were much sought after. My stone looks as crystal clear as the most perfect of colorless diamonds in almost any light. The fun, for me anyway, is getting this baby outside in full sunlight. That''s when the blue-white magic really happens. My stone is a show stopper. I highly encourage you to take a look at the stone you like in person, and under various light conditions. Only then can you be sure about your choice. You might search through the pictures I''ve posted for a look at my EC. Best of luck in your search and please let us know what you decide.

 

[glitterata]

I have a small (.29 ct) F colored diamond with strong blue fluorescence. It looks like any other F in artificial light. However, in daylight it turns distinctly purple. You could pick it out from a bunch of nonfluorescent F colored diamonds in daylight with your bare eyes, no problem at all. And that''s true even on a cloudy day in the shade. On a bright day, in the sun, it shouts at you.

I love this effect--so much so that I''m looking for a bigger diamond with even stronger fluorescence so I can enjoy it even more. But you might not agree that it''s desirable. You should make sure you see the diamond you''re considering in natural light before you commit to it.

By the way, not all "strong blue fluorescence" is equally strong. In my search for a larger fluorescent diamond, I looked at a GIA E with "strong blue fluorescence" that didn''t turn nearly as purple as the one I have. It still turned purple, but not half as dramatically. That was one of the reasons I decided not to keep it. I wanted more purple.

 

[RockDoc]

Outside light has the presence of UV.

TO tell just how much fluorenscence affect there is in a stone, buy a small 1/4" piece of clear lexan.

Hold the lexan over the stone in the sunlight then compare without the lexan.

In the trade, noticeably blue stones are not considered to be as desireable as those don''t appear bluish or purple in daylight.

Many times fluorescence is accompanied by a hazy appearance, which many times the novice eye, can''t see without some guidance. It affects the transparency of the stone, but this is a stone by stone call, as to how severe this is.

With all respect to Glitters preferences, some people do like this, but you need to decide for yourself.

Rockdoc

 

[glitterata]

Thanks, Rocdoc.

I wasn''t trying to tell Noor that diamonds with visible fluorescence are better than ones without--just that strong fluorescence can be quite obvious to the eye, so he (she?) should make sure to take a look and see what he (she) thinks before committing to this particular diamond.

I''m weird. I like strong fluorescence and interesting inclusions. Luckily for me, that makes the diamonds I like cheaper. Too bad I don''t like warmer colors better too.

 

[noor]

Both of these answers are very helpful - thanks very much.

The stone is a round brilliant and the GIA cert says "strong blue". I am getting the idea, based on your comments, that when the person did a visual inspection of the stone they were looking for any haziness that UV light might cause. On this the result was "faint to none". Maybe my best bet now is to ask them to look at it again and tell me if it turns blue or purple in daylight. Hopefully this request will be understandable to them, since they already did the visual.

I guess this is the big drawback to a online purchase - certain unique things are hard to imagine. I do have a 30 day return period so I guess if it freaks me out I can send it back.

I''ve seen a medium blue oval 2.09ct that didn''t look the least different than any other diamond in regular daylight. That stone was a G.

What is "lexan"? I"ll get some and test it, if I buy this stone.

 

[JulieN]

Lexan is a plastic (?) that holds charge and apparently also acts as a UV filter.

 

[noor]

NDNY - I did locate your emerald cut stone on the forum - totally beautiful!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/30/2006 12:31:38 AM
Author: RockDoc
Outside light has the presence of UV.

TO tell just how much fluorenscence affect there is in a stone, buy a small 1/4'' piece of clear lexan.

Hold the lexan over the stone in the sunlight then compare without the lexan.

In the trade, noticeably blue stones are not considered to be as desireable as those don''t appear bluish or purple in daylight.

Many times fluorescence is accompanied by a hazy appearance, which many times the novice eye, can''t see without some guidance. It affects the transparency of the stone, but this is a stone by stone call, as to how severe this is.

With all respect to Glitters preferences, some people do like this, but you need to decide for yourself.

Rockdoc

Roc you know that is a great exaggeration.
In the only serious study ever undertaken - here http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf
The GIA found that 1/3rd of diamonds fluoresce, and of that 1/3rd - only 2% exhibited cloudy or oily hazy appearance.
So that means about 1/2% - and they were all Very Strong as i remeber.

Many people in the industry own fluoro diamonds for personal use. Drena''s 3ct F is Very Strong, my manager asked me to buy her a D Strong.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/29/2006 10:56:00 PM
Author:noor
Hi, I am considering a couple different diamonds from an on line site. One that I like has Strong Blue Flourescence. I see the topic covered in another section, but here is my exact question:

I don''t care how it looks under a black light, but I don''t want it to look weird in regular light or office light. What is your experience with this - can you tell that a stone is blue looking or something funny in normal light? An F color strong blue can be an amazing looking stone but still can have a difference of appearance in different lighting..., i personaly think its all about the judgment of your eyes..., not someone else''s
If you have a return policy, you should be safe...

I had this stone viewed by someone on the other side of the internet sales site and they said it had, ''faint to no effect''. I don''t know - Do they actually look different than any other diamond in *regular* light. Any opinions?

The stone is F color 2.12 ct. Any help I really would appreciate - it is drivng me nuts - I cannot make the purchase decision!!!

 

[marvel]

Fluorescence

 

[RockDoc]

Garry wrote

Roc you know that is a great exaggeration.
In the only serious study ever undertaken - here http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf
The GIA found that 1/3rd of diamonds fluoresce, and of that 1/3rd - only 2% exhibited cloudy or oily hazy appearance.
So that means about 1/2% - and they were all Very Strong as i remeber.
Many people in the industry own fluoro diamonds for personal use. Drena''s 3ct F is Very Strong, my manager asked me to buy her a D Strong.
The Holloway Cut Adviser & Ideal-Scope Cut Crusader!
www.ideal-scope.com
www.preciousmetals.com.au



Garry....

Please read Marty''s site about fluroresence. Almost every diamond has some trace of fluorescence. It just depends a lot of the intensity of the UV to be able to see it. Marty''s fluorecsence studies, changed AGS to use Negligible instead of none.

I have personally seen stones with even faint fluorescence to exhibit some degree of haziness in their face up appearance but under the microscope. It isn''t blue, but just a bit less transparent in some stones, and when I see this they almost always exhibit some fluorescence.

This isn''t an opinion to make it seem bad, just an observation that I''ve been seeing, and when I''ve seen this 100% of the time, the stone has been fluorescent, and not just strong ones either. I am not saying every stone that is fluorescent affects transparency, but in every case where I see a "less" than perfectly transparent diamond, it is fluorescent.

RocKdoc

 

[RockDoc]

What is "lexan"? I"ll get some and test it, if I buy this stone.

Lexan is a brand name for clear plastic glass like stuff. You''ve seen it in banks..... when it is thick it is bulletproof.
It''s used to make the thick clear tellers windows in some banks.

You don''t need the thick stuff, just 1/4" thick piece may 4x4 inches. I think most people that sell it would give you a piece as it might be scrap for them.


Rockdoc

 

[atroop711]

Noor...

I have a strong blue RB H/SI2 1.77 stone and it is gorgeous. It is set in a halo and side stone and in outside my center stone looks just as white and sparkly as my other stones surrounding it. There is no haziness at all in my stone. This was a worry of mine when I was ordering the stone from WF. I had them inspect it for me inside and outdoors. The strong Blues can be real find! (IMO)

Just wanted to tell you of my personal experience.

Annette

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/30/2006 3:11:29 AM
Author: RockDoc

Garry wrote

Roc you know that is a great exaggeration.


Garry....

I have personally seen stones with even faint fluorescence to exhibit some degree of haziness in their face up appearance but under the microscope. It isn''t blue, but just a bit less transparent in some stones, and when I see this they almost always exhibit some fluorescence.

This isn''t an opinion to make it seem bad, just an observation that I''ve been seeing, and when I''ve seen this 100% of the time, the stone has been fluorescent, and not just strong ones either. I am not saying every stone that is fluorescent affects transparency, but in every case where I see a ''less'' than perfectly transparent diamond, it is fluorescent.

RocKdoc

Still sounds like scaremongering - send all your diamonds to me and pay me 200 bucks to be sure to be sure that they have no martians inside them, or aids.

What % of diamonds do you see that have "haziness" - and how come the GIA surveys were not able to see what you can?

Even though I debunk GIA''s cut surveys - I do not question the veracity of their results (only that they asked people to look at the diamonds in a really dumb lighting environ).

For example a scientific explanation of what you ar seeing is fluoro graining - bands of fluoro material inside a predominantly non fluoro diamond. But in this case the graining is the primary cause of poor luster.

BTW some of the leading Indian manufacturers (who do not believe in certifying their goods) declare the luster of the goods they sell. Probably because India got the dregs from De Beers for many years - the Indians saw more of this grainy material - knaats etc - and honest firms (who grade better than any lab I ever saw) call it as it is.

Here is a screen shot that shows that most stones with poor luster are indeed fluoro. (note the beautiful clarity grading system too - listing SI1-, SI1 SI1+ and type and nature of inclusions. And this grading is free and far more accurate than any lab).

 

[noor]

Hmmm, studying the cert more on the F color, Strong blue RB, I see "internal graining not shown" on the comments. This is an eye clean SI1. Is that internal graining perhaps related to the floures. graining you are talking about?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/30/2006 2:36:20 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/30/2006 12:31:38 AM
Author: RockDoc
Outside light has the presence of UV.

TO tell just how much fluorenscence affect there is in a stone, buy a small 1/4' piece of clear lexan.

Hold the lexan over the stone in the sunlight then compare without the lexan.

In the trade, noticeably blue stones are not considered to be as desireable as those don't appear bluish or purple in daylight.

Many times fluorescence is accompanied by a hazy appearance, which many times the novice eye, can't see without some guidance. It affects the transparency of the stone, but this is a stone by stone call, as to how severe this is.

With all respect to Glitters preferences, some people do like this, but you need to decide for yourself.

Rockdoc

Roc you know that is a great exaggeration.
In the only serious study ever undertaken - here http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf
The GIA found that 1/3rd of diamonds fluoresce, and of that 1/3rd - only 2% exhibited cloudy or oily hazy appearance.
So that means about 1/2% - and they were all Very Strong as i remeber.

Many people in the industry own fluoro diamonds for personal use. Drena's 3ct F is Very Strong, my manager asked me to buy her a D Strong.

Garry: Read http://www.adamasgem.com/giafluor.html

A strong blue blue MIGHT be overgraded by as much as 3 color grades...

GIA's "serious" study was full of it... a direct contradiction to what they had been saying for 50 years, which is so easily shown.. READ MY ARTICLE..

I'll send you an article published in a Color science journal about the same time by GIA that, in effect, says just the opposite of what GIA's fluorescence article said, that fluorescence didn't have an effect on color(grade)

It also appears that their are a lot higher percentage of fluorescent stones getting D's than non fluorescent stones, put two and two together...

Now there is NOTHING WRONG with an potentially (and probably) overgraded fluorescent stone, IF IT IS PRICED correctly for what it really is, as a "NEW D", and not as a "TRUE D".. OR IF IT IS CORRECTLY COLOR GRADED..

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/30/2006 1:58:05 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 5/30/2006 2:36:20 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/30/2006 12:31:38 AM
Author: RockDoc
Outside light has the presence of UV.

TO tell just how much fluorenscence affect there is in a stone, buy a small 1/4' piece of clear lexan.

Hold the lexan over the stone in the sunlight then compare without the lexan.

In the trade, noticeably blue stones are not considered to be as desireable as those don't appear bluish or purple in daylight.

Many times fluorescence is accompanied by a hazy appearance, which many times the novice eye, can't see without some guidance. It affects the transparency of the stone, but this is a stone by stone call, as to how severe this is.

With all respect to Glitters preferences, some people do like this, but you need to decide for yourself.

Rockdoc

Roc you know that is a great exaggeration.
In the only serious study ever undertaken - here http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf
The GIA found that 1/3rd of diamonds fluoresce, and of that 1/3rd - only 2% exhibited cloudy or oily hazy appearance.
So that means about 1/2% - and they were all Very Strong as i remeber.

Many people in the industry own fluoro diamonds for personal use. Drena's 3ct F is Very Strong, my manager asked me to buy her a D Strong.

Garry: Read http://www.adamasgem.com/giafluor.html



A strong blue blue MIGHT be overgraded by as much as 3 color grades...
True, GIA untill not to long ago used to grade Strong Fluo. "usually" with a significant upgrade in colors. my most personal experiances were in the "H" color range getting G's or even F's..
Most recently GIA made a switch, they are being super-strict with Strong to V. Strong Blue's

GIA's 'serious' study was full of it... a direct contradiction to what they had been saying for 50 years, which is so easily shown.. READ MY ARTICLE..

I'll send you an article published in a Color science journal about the same time by GIA that, in effect, says just the opposite of what GIA's fluorescence article said, that fluorescence didn't have an effect on color(grade)

It also appears that their are a lot higher percentage of fluorescent stones getting D's than non fluorescent stones, put two and two together...

Now there is NOTHING WRONG with an potentially (and probably) overgraded fluorescent stone, IF IT IS PRICED correctly for what it really is, as a 'NEW D', and not as a 'TRUE D'.. OR IF IT IS CORRECTLY COLOR GRADED..

 

[noor]

I went ahead and ordered this strong blue stone. The cert is done very recently, Feb 06, so hopefully it is in the time range where the GIA got "very strict" about not overgrading the color on strong flo stones cause it is an F.

I can return it if it fails. I think I made the sellers really crazy asking them to look at it again and again. They tell me it is beautiful so we''ll find out.

I appreciate all the discussion and information. There is so much to diamonds!

 

[pricescope]

references:

The Alexandrite Effect of the Tavernier Diamond Caused by Fluorescence under Daylight, by Yan Liu, James Shigley, Tom Moses, Ilene Reinitz, Color Res Appl, 23, 323–327, 1998

Abstract: The 56.07-carat Tavernier pear-shaped gem diamond not only has an important historical provenance, but also shows a substantial color change between incandescent light and daylight. This famous diamond exhibits a very strong blue fluorescence when exposed to longwavelength ultraviolet (UV) radiation. It appears light (an orange hue) under incandescent light, and light pink (a purple hue) under daylight. This change in color, or ‘‘alexandrite effect,’’ is caused by its very strong
blue fluorescence resulting from the long-wavelength ultraviolet component present in daylight.

GIA GTL''s Color Grading Of Fluorescent Diamonds. Consumer Deception? : 35% Of Diamonds Graded Will Now Potentially Get A Better Color Grade By Fiat Of The Gemological Institute Of America - by Martin D. Haske GG, NGJA, MS

 

[noor]

That Haske article looked pretty unprofessional to me. I don''t know all about diamonds, but I can read rather well.

I found the addition of captions such as "Oh a strong blue, let''s get a better color grade" to look very strange in something that seems to be positioned as an academic text.

Most of the references were years old, so I imagine that maybe there was some sort of an issue in years past. In any case, the concept of color mis-marking for a strong blue seems so obvious that you would think GIA would take pains to be precise. Maybe I assume too much there. But since GIA has taken it on the chin recently for the misrepresentation of some stones, I am hoping they have control of themselves at this point.

We''ll see if this is a dreadful stone when it finally arrives!

 

[Lynn B]

I''ll bet you adore the stone when you see it! I wish my diamond had some flourescence in it. If I ever upgrade again, I''m sure going to look for it. I think it is *WAY COOL*!

Lynn

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Noor Marty''s point is GIA changed their methodology without notifying (coming clean?).

Personally I think it is reasonable to have a little fluoro in the grading environment - about as much as is present in ''typical'' environ''s (whatever that is - another debate?).

because that is haow the diamond will look.

But as we know - face up grading is really the best approach - but too hard.

Recently we heard from Marc Bruner - director of IGI - and on border line calls they include a face up assessment - so a painted or well cut stone would get upgraded. A dog or radiant / princess / emerald cut etc would get dropped a grade.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

I''m using "negligible" instead of "none" in my appraisal reports. I agree with AGS using "negligible."

plain and simple....well maybe not so simple

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[ladykemma]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-strong-blue-fluorescence-diamonds.42423/=

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I've started assigning two color grades on strong blue or greater stones using the SAS-2000's removable UV filter and visual confirmation. I feel this will arm the consumer with more information to better make their purchasing decision.

For example, I just graded a stone which had an EGL-Antwerp color grade of "G". The stone had very strong blue fluorescence, which was designated by the EGL-Antwerp lab as "slight".

With the UV filter, the stone graded out as a "mid I" on the SAS-2000 (2.79 on the 2.50 to 2.99 I range), confirmed by visual grading.

With the UV filter out, the stone graded as a "mid G" (1.76 on the 1.50 to 1.99 G range), two full grades better. The stone had no haziness, but did show a slight blue "overtone" in daylight.

I graded the stone as an "I" color, "with an improvement of up to two color grades (G color) in daylight, and listed the SAS's numerical designation (2.79 vs 1.76).

The client was very comfortable with this grading, and purchased the stone, as the vendor had it priced appropriately for what it really was. It was a substantial purchase, and the client appreciated the full reporting of how the fluorescence affected the body color.

It varies, but the general pattern of color improvement I've noticed so far in blue fluorescent stones is:

Very strong blue: usually 2 grade improvement
Strong blue: usually 1 grade improvement
Medium blue: usually 1/4 to 1/2 grade improvement

 

[RockDoc]

RE: Scaremongering...............I am simply making a statement of what I am observing. Not scaremongering. My intent is not to be self promoting, but rather comment on what I am noticing. I doubt I am the only person seeing this. But like strain I am the person who is bringing this to light.

I looked over the grading chart, from the Indian source, and while interesting that it subdivides clarity grading, it is rather lacking in many other characteristics. It in reality doesn''t say much.

I am talking about transparency not LUSTER. Two totally different properties. Luster is surface consideration. What I am talking about is internal within the stones.

I believe this is a characteristic that has some bearing on the differences between stones. I am sort of surprised that this has not been discussed in all the years of gemology. And it should be. This is not rocket science, it is simply a difference in stones that is being ignored.

Is no one else observing this?????

Rockdoc

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/30/2006 10:05:18 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
I''ve started assigning two color grades on strong blue or greater stones using the SAS-2000''s removable UV filter and visual confirmation. I feel this will arm the consumer with more information to better make their purchasing decision.

For example, I just graded a stone which had an EGL-Antwerp color grade of ''G''. The stone had very strong blue fluorescence, which was designated by the EGL-Antwerp lab as ''slight''.

With the UV filter, the stone graded out as a ''mid I'' on the SAS-2000 (2.79 on the 2.50 to 2.99 I range), confirmed by visual grading.

With the UV filter out, the stone graded as a ''mid G'' (1.76 on the 1.50 to 1.99 G range), two full grades better. The stone had no haziness, but did show a slight blue ''overtone'' in daylight.

I graded the stone as an ''I'' color, ''with an improvement of up to two color grades (G color) in daylight, and listed the SAS''s numerical designation (2.79 vs 1.76).

The client was very comfortable with this grading, and purchased the stone, as the vendor had it priced appropriately for what it really was. It was a substantial purchase, and the client appreciated the full reporting of how the fluorescence affected the body color.

It varies, but the general pattern of color improvement I''ve noticed so far in blue fluorescent stones is:

Very strong blue: usually 2 grade improvement
Strong blue: usually 1 grade improvement
Medium blue: usually 1/4 to 1/2 grade improvement

A few months ago i submited a stone to one of the EGL affil., my opinion was as follows:
A 5 carat Cushion Shape Brilliant, was J color in my opinion and had Very Strong Blue (that was a fact.)

EGL graded it G Color!!!, i went into a meeting with their Lab Supervisor and disputed their color grade..., they took me in to the Lab and showed me that they color-graded the stone on a (grayish color-plate, due to the V. S. Fluo.) and they informed me they were even thinking about issueing the stone an F color...

i understood where they were coming from, since once they placed the diamond on the "gray colored color plate" it indeed showed a much higher color, looking on the profile side of the stone, not to mention how white the stone looked facing up.

I did though strongly disagreed with them on the grade, since as i graded the stone in my office in my light, i concluded that the stone should have been graded for the most an I color.

I resubmited the stone for a fresh check-up, and it came back with a changed grade to an H color.

I have noticed quite a lot of confusing on this issue, it doesnt matter which Lab report is being issued ( i have noticed it plenty on GIA/HRD etc, etc. reports)...., the Strong to Very Strong blues is confusing the graders quite a lot....

Personally, my opinion is that most graders today are well educated, but they lack of "experience", and in this industry, experience has a heavy weight.
Its very hard to be objective on theoretical knowledge alone...

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Dia Gem

For grading color, cut and fluorescence is an issue but not an insurrmountable one.

Also, mother nature doesn't color stones evenly. She isn't standing there with a spoon stiring the stone as it crystalizes, making the color evenly matched or blended.

The color grading report results, sometimes confuses me, as there are stones that are borderline between 2 color grades. If that is what is determined, why not just say so in the report? All the labs have a standard of picking just one grade, when in some stones this is not totally factual. I don't understand why they simply just state that if that is their true opinion.

Split grades do exist. My GIA / AGS master set has some split grades in them.

The other issue is the acuity of the grader's eye. Are the graders at EGL color vision tested? Are yours? AGS requires this every four years, if you're below age 50 and every two years if you are older than 50. I just did my latest color vision test at the AGS conclave three weeks ago. It is not time consuming, or painful and if there is a problem, it can be corrected, and not expensive either.

Another astounding fact is that GIA claims that they teach color grading, but don't require their students to have this examination, when in fact some students may have color vision deficiencies and not able to grade at the same level that someone with out these defincies is able to.

The AGA requires this of their more advanced members as well.


Rockdoc

 

[windowshopper]

i have posted this before but my stone was GIA graded as faint and the appraiser graded it as moderate and showed me and it was definitely there and not faintly so................my stone is a D color too ...........makes you wonder