Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Strong Fluorescence - Opinions on Engagement Purchase Please!

Advancetec

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
23
I just received my James Allen ring yesterday for my engagement tonight at Disney World!

I guess I'm just looking for reassurance.

It rated a 0.9 on the HCA. To maximize size w/ budget J was the best color I could get and was hoping fluorescence would help the color.

Do you think the strong fluorescence added any Milkiness or cloudiness to this particular diamond?

I don't personally see any but I don't trust my eyes. Guess I just want to make sure I should keep it.


 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
21,037
You need to take it out in bright sunlight and see if it turns milky. That being said, Strong Fluorescence being an issue is very rare.
I seriously doubt it is an issue.

According to a study GIA performed, only about 1% of diamonds exhibit a negative effect from SF. Matter of fact, Brian Gavin has
a line of stones with called Brian Gavin Blues with SF because people are fascinated by the glow under black lights (plus there is
an ever so slight discount on the stones).

Congratulations on your upcoming engagement! Have fun!!!
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
3,795
Agree with @tyty333, most stones aren't an issue but when buying it's a good idea to inspect each and every stone as if it could be an issue.

Is there a reason you are asking this? Does the stone give you a particular look you don't like, or are you just nervous?

I might add a minor correction, the BGD Blue collection includes medium+ levels of blue fluor. At least my wife's BGD Blue has medium. That said, they also offer other stones with higher intensity fluor levels.

The point remains, fluor is a good way to maximize dollars as the stones trade for slightly less dollars and have a high rate of not being problematic.

And in the right UV conditions, the stone will get excited and fluorescence creating a very minor improvement in color, assuming fluor is blue and the diamond undertone is yellow. Different colors of fluor and diamond undertones may respond differently.
 

Advancetec

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
23
I think I'm just nervous . The little time I brought it in the sunlight it looked a little dark?
Not sure what milky would look like in sunlight.
I feel like on the site and in person it looks pretty clear ( not cloudy)
 

Wink

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,365
Trust me, if it is an overblue, it will be all oily looking and you will know instantly. You will not have any question in your mind that it looks "wrong".

If it just exhibits a slight bluish color in the sunlight, then enjoy the view. ;-)

Wink
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
30,523
The stone on the right is med blue and the on the left is graded none

IMG_2737.jpg

Same two stone under a UV light

IMG_2727.jpg
 
Last edited:

foxinsox

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
2,858
I think I'm just nervous . The little time I brought it in the sunlight it looked a little dark?
Not sure what milky would look like in sunlight.
I feel like on the site and in person it looks pretty clear ( not cloudy)
If it looks dark in bright light that’s pretty common for well cut stones - I’m on mobile so can’t search so easily but if you search “diamond goes dark in sunlight” you’ll find threads about this.
I think if your diamond is going milky in sunlight, you will know it when you see it. Make sure it’s clean especially the pavilion when you’re looking at it. Trust your eyes to tell you if it’s not right.
looking at it on JA, it looks like it has a very appealing pinky-brown tint rather than yellow. It’s a lovely stone!
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,031
The probability of observable haziness or milkiness due specifically to fluorescence is proportional to the strength of the fluorescence, such that strong or very strong might exhibit this effect whereas medium or faint are extremely unlikely to do so. It is not necessarily a binary “yes/no” effect, but rather a continuum.

The important thing to understand is that in order for a diamond to fluoresce, it must be in a lighting environment that has a sufficient intensity of UV and VV wavelengths. The required intensity is rarely reached in indoor lighting environments, unless you are holding the diamond within inches of a fluorescent light source or sitting next to a window with direct sunlight hitting the diamond. Therefore, even if your diamond has some degree of fluorescence-driven haziness, it will not be a problem in a majority of viewing environments you are likely to experience in the real world. (unless you are a lifeguard or park ranger :)).

By the same logic, you will rarely derive any benefit from color masking due to blue fluorescence, so it is a mistake to make a purchase decision based on the idea that the stone will look whiter than its color grade.

Haziness can be caused by other factors that are sometimes present in conjunction with strong fluorescence such as graining and twinning wisps. These are independent factors that might be mistaken for the effects of fluorescence, though it is possible that in certain cases they could aggravating factors. Haziness due to clarity factors (or because the diamond needs to be cleaned) will persist under all lighting environments.
 

Advancetec

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
23
So in the sun would it not really sparkle and look hazy if it has milkiness? Also under a black light the same look?
 

Wink

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,365
So in the sun would it not really sparkle and look hazy if it has milkiness? Also under a black light the same look?
It has been over 30 years since I have seen an overblue. To my recollection, it looked substantially different (worse) in the sunlight than under an ultraviolet light, but I reserve the right not to be remembering correctly. Perhaps someone here has an overblue and can tell us their opinion.

Wink
 

moneymeister

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,343
My first diamond (pre PS) was a hazy UV stone.
See the odd hazy cast? I bought this at a mall store in 2008.

lc22801.jpg

I now have a strong UV stone, but it's just fine outside (but dark like most well-cut stones in sunlight)
 

TODiamonds

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
182
According to a study GIA performed, only about 1% of diamonds exhibit a negative effect from SF.
Most dealers I've talked to say this old GIA study is either completely bogus or taken out of context. General consensus seems to be strong/very strong flo will exhibit milkiness/haziness in at least 20% of diamonds.

People online often quote the study... but me... I'll trust the dealers and the actual markets prices. There's a reason strong flo stones trade at a significant discount... dealers aren't dumb.
 

foxinsox

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
2,858
Most dealers I've talked to say this old GIA study is either completely bogus or taken out of context. General consensus seems to be strong/very strong flo will exhibit milkiness/haziness in at least 20% of diamonds.

People online often quote the study... but me... I'll trust the dealers and the actual markets prices. There's a reason strong flo stones trade at a significant discount... dealers aren't dumb.
Fluorescent diamonds used to trade at a premium (blue-whites) - were we having this conversation then, you'd be stating the opposite on the same assumption. Dealers aren't dumb, it's in their best interests to help break the market up even further if they can given that fluorescence is rare.
 

gregchang35

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
2,471
Here's A video in the Florida sun.... Opinions on milkiness or haziness?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/4312xafi49jr3kw/Video Nov 10, 2 11 13 PM.mov?dl=0
I for one like fluor stones/ diamonds. I have 3mm studs of BGBlue stones specifically to get the fluorescence. I like the fact that some of my stones in my collection have fluorescence. It adds a little 'difference' to the other stones that ppl 'normally' have.

In your video - it shows the stone to have a slight blue hue to the stone compared to the halo (beautiful ring, BTW). so, I dont see it as milkiness at all. All i see is a beautiful blue hue.... it could be seen as a faint "blue" diamond!!!

Does this blue hue change the optics- not to my eye. however, if you can get the camera closer to the diamond (which can be hard unless you have DSLR), it may help with further assessment.

How does the stone/ ring look in normal office and home lighting? Do you have a similar type of video- slow moving of the ring to show the effect of the fluor.
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
21,037
Most dealers I've talked to say this old GIA study is either completely bogus or taken out of context. General consensus seems to be strong/very strong flo will exhibit milkiness/haziness in at least 20% of diamonds.

People online often quote the study... but me... I'll trust the dealers and the actual markets prices. There's a reason strong flo stones trade at a significant discount... dealers aren't dumb.
Per the GIA site...

"In many instances, observers prefer the appearance of diamonds that have medium to strong fluorescence. In rare cases, some diamonds with extremely strong fluorescence may appear hazy or oily; fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect"
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,031
Per the GIA site...

"In many instances, observers prefer the appearance of diamonds that have medium to strong fluorescence. In rare cases, some diamonds with extremely strong fluorescence may appear hazy or oily; fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect"
I have enormous respect for GIA, but count me among those trade people who @TODiamonds referred to as not buying into those figures, based on my observations over several decades in the business. However, the devil is always in the details and the design of the studies that GIA bases these statements on may be at the root of the disagreement.

If the surveyed diamonds are not viewed in direct sunlight, then haziness due to fluorescence will rarely be apparent because indoor light has insufficient intensity of UV wavelenghts to stimulate the fluorescent effect and any associated positive or negative ramifications. So, if the GIA statement read "fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect when viewed in typical lighting conditions" I would have an easier time with their estimates.

If you were to do a study that tested strong fluorescent diamonds in direct sunlight, I believe you would find significantly higher percentages and you would see variations that would indicate the effect occurs along a continuum.

Regarding the discounting in the market, and the fact that certain fluorescent stones historically were sold for premiums, that is a more complex amalgam of truth, myth, science, and lab grading practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

TODiamonds

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
182
Fluorescent diamonds used to trade at a premium (blue-whites) - were we having this conversation then, you'd be stating the opposite on the same assumption. Dealers aren't dumb, it's in their best interests to help break the market up even further if they can given that fluorescence is rare.
The reason for that is because wayyyy back in the day, that was the primary method people used to confirm a diamond's legitimacy. Obviously with today's technology the value of fluorescence for legitimizing a diamond is no longer relevant (and no it won't make a comeback unless hazy diamonds suddenly start becoming fashionable).

Those of you quoting that ancient GIA study in order to convince people to buy flo diamonds are unknowingly doing people a disservice and potentially misleading them towards buying milky diamonds.
 
Last edited:

Wewechew

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 8, 2017
Messages
1,944
I have enormous respect for GIA, but count me among those trade people who @TODiamonds referred to as not buying into those figures, based on my observations over several decades in the business. However, the devil is always in the details and the design of the studies that GIA bases these statements on may be at the root of the disagreement.

If the surveyed diamonds are not viewed in direct sunlight, then haziness due to fluorescence will rarely be apparent because indoor light has insufficient intensity of UV wavelenghts to stimulate the fluorescent effect and any associated positive or negative ramifications. So, if the GIA statement read "fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect when viewed in typical lighting conditions" I would have an easier time with their estimates.

If you were to do a study that tested strong fluorescent diamonds in direct sunlight, I believe you would find significantly higher percentages and you would see variations that would indicate the effect occurs along a continuum.

Regarding the discounting in the market, and the fact that certain fluorescent stones historically were sold for premiums, that is a more complex amalgam of truth, myth, science, and lab grading practices.
Could this figure be based on the sample size GIA had to work with? In my mind the diamonds that had a milky appearance due to florescence may have never made it to GIA to be graded because they were already seen to be inferior stones. Or am I reaching?
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
7,842
then haziness due to fluorescence will rarely be apparent because indoor light has insufficient intensity of UV wavelenghts to stimulate the fluorescent effect and any associated positive or negative ramifications
Not to re-open an old can of worms- but many in the trade- myself included- have indeed noticed effects of fluorescence indoors. Both positive and negative.

I frequently see "over blue" stones in fancy colors.
Yellow diamonds, in particular, have a higher percentage of negativity associated with fluorescence.In many cases, the dullness is immediately visible under normal fluorescent lighting.,
 

foxinsox

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
2,858
The reason for that is because wayyyy back in the day, that was the primary method people used to confirm a diamond's legitimacy. Obviously with today's technology the value of fluorescence for legitimizing a diamond is no longer relevant (and no it won't make a comeback unless hazy diamonds suddenly start becoming fashionable).

Those of you quoting that ancient GIA study in order to convince people to buy flo diamonds are unknowingly doing people a disservice and potentially misleading them towards buying milky diamonds.
Give that we're all also saying use your eyes and look at it, don't just buy sight unseen, I don't think that people pointing out that the risks of a milky diamond are overblown are doing anyone a disservice.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
7,842
The reason for that is because wayyyy back in the day, that was the primary method people used to confirm a diamond's legitimacy.
I disagree.
Based on my experience in the NY Diamond market in the late '70s- 90's the reason for a premium was that such stones ( Harry Winston called them "Premier") just looked whiter than white.
Such high color fluorescent diamonds have a tendency to look a bit blue. The term"Blue White" comes to mind.....
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,031
Could this figure be based on the sample size GIA had to work with? In my mind the diamonds that had a milky appearance due to florescence may have never made it to GIA to be graded because they were already seen to be inferior stones. Or am I reaching?
This is one possible critique of the study. The authors state it was a relatively small sample size due to the difficulty of culling sets of stones with similar attributes but differing fluoro levels. And although they did use multiple lighting environments, none was direct sunlight.

It is interesting to me that this study is regularly cited to support two notions: that blue fluorescence can make diamonds appear whiter than their color grade, and that transparency issues due to fluorescence are exceedingly rare.

Yet there are seemingly contradictory statements such as this in their conclusions:

"Nor did we see different relationships between color and fluorescence in stones viewed table-up with fluorescent overhead illumination as compared to external window light (environments 3, 4, and 5). In other words, there did not appear to be any difference among the light sources we used in their effect on perceived color relative to fluorescence."

It suggests to me a validation of the idea that in the absence of intense UV comparable to direct sunlight, diamonds do not emit enough blue to noticeably mask color. And for this reason also do not create transparency deficits that would be noticeable.
 

AV_

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 5, 2018
Messages
2,562
@Wink These things are junk until one asks ,(
 

Jimmianne

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
5,242
Ditto! Enjoy! And for fun maybe buy a little fluorescent flashlight??? If you haven’t already.

Congratulations on your engagement! I absolutely love fluorescence and wouldn't hesitate to buy a diamond with it as long as the clarity is high like yours is!
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top