Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Strong Blue Fluroescence vs. No Fluorescence

M

mskimleang

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
5
I originally had a diamond: 1.13 carats, VS1, F Color, Excellent Cut with Strong Blue Fluorescence and it was so sparkly and shiny.

I decided to change my stone and also increase the size.

Now i have a diamond: 1.30 carats, VVS1, F Color, Excellent Cut with No Fluorescence. It is sparkly, however the old diamond seemed more shinier.

My family even made the comment that my new stone wasn't as shiny as my old one! :(sad

Can someone tell me if that is possible? or are they just seeing things

I am really hoping that it's just all in my head and that they are all wrong. I cannot return this stone and to me with an F color diamond with Excellent cut, I didn't think having a strong blue fluorescence stone would be good.
 
There's nothing wrong with fluor - it's cool! As long as it has no effect on the stone (oiliness, milkiness in the sun, which is extremely extremely rare). I have a D w/ sbf and I love it.

I'd be wondering more about the cut quality of your new stone than anything else.

Who says its an excellent cut?
 
Both are GIA certified.
 
GIA Ex is not enough. Here's a little information to get you started though:

The entire purpose of faceting a diamond is to reflect light.
How well or how poorly a diamond does this determines how beautiful it is. And you need a reliable lab report which means GIA or AGS only.
How well a diamond performs is determined by the angles and cutting. This is why we say cut is king.
No other factor: not color, not clarity has as much of an impact on the appearance of a diamond as its cut. An ideal H will out white a poorly cut F. And with MODERN ROUND BRILLIANTS GIA Ex is not enough.
So how to we ensure that we have the right angles and cutting to get the light performance we want?
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut (for round brilliants)
Well one method is to start with a GIA Ex, and then apply the HCA to it.
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/holloway-cut-advisor
The HCA is a rejection tool. Not a selection tool. It uses 4 data points to make a rudimentary call on how the diamond may perform.
If the diamond passes then you know that you are in the right zone in terms of angles for light performance.
Is that enough? Not really.
So what you need is a way to check actual light performance of your actual stone. For round brilliants that's what an idealscope image does. https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/firescope-idealscope
It shows you how and wear your diamond is reflecting light, how well it is going at it, and where you are losing light return. That is why you won't see us recommending Blue Nile, as they do not provide idealscope images for their diamonds. James Allen, BGD, GOG, HPD, ERD and WF do.

The Idealscope is the 'selection tool' for round brilliants. Not the HCA.
So yes, with a GIA round brilliant you need the idealscope images. Or you can buy an idealscope yourself and take it in to the jeweler you are working with to check the stones yourself. Or if you have a good return policy (full refund minimum 7 days) then you can buy the idealscope, buy the stone, and do it at home.


Now if you want to skip all that... stick to AGS0 modern round brilliant stones and then all you have to do is pick color and clarity and you know you have a great performing diamond. Because AGS has already done the checking for you. That's why they trade at a premium.
 
I would say that it is probably the cut as well although I love, love, love my new fluoro stone. Do you have the specs to post? We especially need to see the table, pavilion, angles, percentages, etc. Maybe that could help to answer your question better and make sure that we're comparing apples to apples.
 
So here is Diamond #1:
Carat weight: 1.14
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Depth %: 61.5%
Table %: 58%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
Measurements: 6.68 x 6.71 x 4.12 m

Here is Diamond #2
Carat weight: 1.30
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VVS2
Depth %: 61.6%
Table %: 58%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.02 x 7.00 x 4.32 mm

Does that help determine why my new diamond is less sparkly?
 
do you have the crown and pavillion angles?
 
I immediately see what is happening. First off let me explain that I worked 25 years in the NY GIA lab. Now the explanation.
Not only did the previous stone have strong blue UV, but if you notice the comment on the bottom of the report; .clarity grade is based on internal training that is not shown. This is very rare to have a VS1 grade based on what is actually whitish internal gaining. This along with the strong blue would make to diamond appear whiter to the average person. The truth is f the diamond were of investment size, say 4 carats or larger it would never sell, except for a very big discounted price. Your friends are not seeing cut, they were just seeing a whiter diamond, that was a result of two characteristics.
 
So that is why the older diamond is brighter than the new one?

But characteristic wise, the new diamond is the better quality, am I correct?
 
all excellent cuts are not created equal what are the specific stats for the stones.
 
Diamond terminology and the words people use to describe what they see can be confusing. The older stone is not necessarily brithter in the real terminology of brilliance, it just Is whiter looking and so people assume it is brighter. It's the same as comparing a K color to a D color in terms of which one has more brilliance, almost everyone would say the D, just because it is whiter, but it does not mean it is more brilliant.
 
The cut of both stones is basically the same. The second stone is one grade higher in clarity. The reason the first stone appeared whiter and brighter is because 1) internal graining which made the stone appear whiter (not a plus as he explained it would be hugely discounted if it were an investment size stone) and 2) the fluorescence.

From my lay opinion, I would say that the second diamond is better because it is lacking both of those characteristics. They both reduce the price of the stone.

However, which diamond you prefer in terms of appearance is strictly up to you. If you perceived the first stone to be superior, then it was. It is not the norm in diamonds though - specifically the internal graining. Diamonds with fluorescence trade at a lesser cost too, however, some prefer the look of a stone with it.
 
Could the florescence cause a brighter effect in daylight as there is white light and UV causing a brighter stones just like a mogok ruby floresceces red
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top