Verragio Warranty

[pebbles]

Date: 6/7/2006 11:35:01 AM
Author: dimonbob

I apologize for the ‘little friends’ comment.

This diamond is brand new. The customer asked me for it and I did my job. Someone said I was behaving improperly and that’s not true. Someone else keeps saying this diamond is not a carat. That is not true either: The Federal Trade Commission classifies this as 1ct. Most other labs list it as a ct but AGS reports to 3 decimal places. That’s why the price is good.

I’ve been working for 40 years in the trade, previously as a diamond grader and instructor with GIA. I enjoy helping people so I am now in sales. There is a reason I chose to work at Whiteflash. No brand I’ve seen in 40 years has the consistency of ACA and I have seen most. That does not mean others are ‘lower quality’ as someone says I meant (I did not). It means ACA are special, which is what I did say.

I apologize if my comment offended anyone. It is hard to watch meanings that get twisted and I was admittedly frustrated.

Apology accepted.

I didn''t realize that the FTC classifies the 0.998ct as a 1ct stone. I guess that is why at mall jewlers a ct can be anywhere between .95 and 1.10, or whatever the specifications are. I apologize for stearing Mike wrong in that direction. For me, I guess I was so personally hung up on having 1ct that it would bug me to have something just below it, even if it is on paper. (again, a mental thing!)

And Bob, you are right - that is a great price for that stone. That never was in question - it was whether or not Mike wanted to up his budget for it. I think DiamondSeeker and I were just trying to work within the parameters that Mike set.

If that stone wasn''t snapped up by Mike, I am sure someone else will very soon! Good stones don''t stick around very long!

 

[MikeM]

everyone selling jewelry reading these threads,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other areas, isn't the use of inside information, to gain an advantage illegal? For example, the Martha Stewart case.

pebbles, diamondseeker2006,

I probably should have said it sooner, but I would have been willing to up my budget a little if both of you saw something really great.

BTW, I think that Good Old Gold will send the G SI1 to Sisters this afternoon.

I also spoke with Sam today in the personal jewelry department at Jewelers Mutual, and she told me that they will insure the diamond and the setting, while they are being shipped, and while the diamond is being set. She said that all I need is an appraisal letter from Good Old Gold for the diamond and from Sisters for the setting. She also said that my coverage will begin as soon as I finish the application.

Finally, she told me that they will also insure items shipped back to the retailer, they were purchased from, for inspections.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 2:16:59 PM
Author: pebbles

I didn''t realize that the FTC classifies the 0.998ct as a 1ct stone. I guess that is why at mall jewlers a ct can be anywhere between .95 and 1.10, or whatever the specifications are. I apologize for stearing Mike wrong in that direction. For me, I guess I was so personally hung up on having 1ct that it would bug me to have something just below it, even if it is on paper. (again, a mental thing!)

I remember your journey through your several stones.....we talked a lot then, and I know it was really a marker for you.

I can absolutely respect that it was terribly important to you what the paper said......but I have to candidly say that I don''t think it''s that critically important to most folks as it was to you.

Most folks care about size, not about numbers. The same way that they eye couldn''t see a diff between VVS1 and VVS2, there isn''t an eye out there that will see the difference between .998 and 1.00 *other* than on paper.

Since it was so important to you, I think it was completely relevant to focus on that as a key element in your selection process. I don''t think it''s as relevant, though, to focus so heavily on it in the average situation. I know it''s hard to keep our personal hang-ups and biases out of the equation, but sometimes those biases can really skew the objectivity of what''s important to someone else.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 6/7/2006 3:25:31 PM
Author: MikeM
everyone selling jewelry reading these threads,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other areas, isn't the use of inside information, to gain an advantage illegal? For example, the Martha Stewart case.

Ever watch the movie "Wall Street?"

Anyway, this is a public forum, so it is not inside information... and even if it were, it wouldn't have been relevant. I would have been frustrated if I were WF, too. They haven't done anything wrong.

 

[Mara]

haha wow this thread was really long!!!! it was like a conversation between three friends. DS and pebbles were SO helpful to mike in helping him choose a stone!

the one thing that popped out at me continuously in reading the posts one after the other (and i was crying this out in my head) is that .998 IS considered 1c! it doesn't have to be 1.00 to be 1c. i would be JAZZED to get a .998c stone because typically it represents a great deal, however in this case i'd go for a 1c+ G SI1 over a F VS just because i don't need higher color or clarity...and esp since the F VS was more. but this miscommunication does convey to me that while, often times it is helpful to get advice from people here on the forums, consumers/shoppers should still talk to their vendor re: confirming information etc. us consumers may know a good amount, but we don't know it all.

one other thing was DS you mentioned that you'd be irritated if a vendor emailed you after you told them you bought elsewhere to tell you about a new stone that came in...would you be more irritated if it was a comparable stone in every way and they DIDN'T tell you about it because you had already bought elsewhere, and then you found out later that you could have considered it? i'd want to know about ALL the options while shopping, even a day or two after purchase, and then made an educated decision, esp since all of these stones have return policies.

anyway, mike it looks like you got a great stone, please post pictures when it's all said and done!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 3:25:31 PM
Author: MikeM
everyone selling jewelry reading these threads,

Correct me if I''m wrong, but in other areas, isn''t the use of inside information, to gain an advantage illegal? For example, the Martha Stewart case..

OK......you''re wrong.

In this one instance.

It''s important to remember that PS is a public forum, so your communications here aren''t "private". If you stand on the street corner talking on the cell phone, do you expect that communication is "private"? If you discuss your financial difficulties with someone on the phone and do so from an open cubicle at work, do you expect that is private?

None of that even comes close to insider trading or even anything remotely illegal.

It''s also no secret to most folks who post here that the vendors do frequent the forums, too.....and that''s one of the huge benefits of being here. They add a lot in terms of knowledge and expertise. So it should be the expectation that they are able to see/read anything too.

Congratulations on your stone, though, Mike....it looks like a real winner, and a nice choice!

 

[aljdewey]

Something else has been bothering me on this thread, too, and I have to get it off my chest.

It is the customer''s choice who they decide to bring their questions to, who they elect to listen to, and who they put their trust in. Sometimes it''s a trusted friend who knows nothing about jewelry. Sometimes it''s an expert in the industry. Sometimes, it''s the vendors they are dealing with. And sometimes, it''s a few helpful souls on a jewelry forum who took time to try and help someone.

For those on the vendor end....it''s not compulsory for any customer to run all his questions by you. That''s a privilege you enjoy IF you''ve built the client relationship...it''s not an automatic right. Yes, you may know more, but if you haven''t established a rapport that makes him/her feel comfortable coming to you with questions, that''s your shortcoming, not his/hers. And even if you have developed a good rapport, you shouldn''t find fault in his need to seek opinions from non-vested sources.

If the customer decides to query three gorillas on the street......that''s his right. Granted, he may come away with crappy information, and he may be misled, but it''s his mistake to make. If he seeks counsel from someone who''s knowledge on the topic is weak, that''s his right, too and he''ll ultimately pay consequences from it. Yes, it can be frustrating for vendors, but that''s part of the equation.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 6/7/2006 3:25:31 PM
Author: MikeM
everyone selling jewelry reading these threads,

Correct me if I''m wrong, but in other areas, isn''t the use of inside information, to gain an advantage illegal? For example, the Martha Stewart case.

pebbles, diamondseeker2006,

I probably should have said it sooner, but I would have been willing to up my budget a little if both of you saw something really great.

BTW, I think that Good Old Gold will send the G SI1 to Sisters this afternoon.

I also spoke with Sam today in the personal jewelry department at Jewelers Mutual, and she told me that they will insure the diamond and the setting, while they are being shipped, and while the diamond is being set. She said that all I need is an appraisal letter from Good Old Gold for the diamond and from Sisters for the setting. She also said that my coverage will begin as soon as I finish the application.

Finally, she told me that they will also insure items shipped back to the retailer, they were purchased from, for inspections.

This is ridiculous, it was not even solicitation as in isaku''s case. You were Bob''s 6 Months customer!

 

[pebbles]

Date: 6/7/2006 7:29:15 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/7/2006 2:16:59 PM
Author: pebbles

I didn''t realize that the FTC classifies the 0.998ct as a 1ct stone. I guess that is why at mall jewlers a ct can be anywhere between .95 and 1.10, or whatever the specifications are. I apologize for stearing Mike wrong in that direction. For me, I guess I was so personally hung up on having 1ct that it would bug me to have something just below it, even if it is on paper. (again, a mental thing!)

I remember your journey through your several stones.....we talked a lot then, and I know it was really a marker for you.

I can absolutely respect that it was terribly important to you what the paper said......but I have to candidly say that I don''t think it''s that critically important to most folks as it was to you.

Most folks care about size, not about numbers. The same way that they eye couldn''t see a diff between VVS1 and VVS2, there isn''t an eye out there that will see the difference between .998 and 1.00 *other* than on paper.

Since it was so important to you, I think it was completely relevant to focus on that as a key element in your selection process. I don''t think it''s as relevant, though, to focus so heavily on it in the average situation. I know it''s hard to keep our personal hang-ups and biases out of the equation, but sometimes those biases can really skew the objectivity of what''s important to someone else.

I think all of us as consumers tend to put our biases in our posts, even if we don''t mean to.

I wasn''t just trying to focus on the fact that the GOG stone was 1ct, it was more than it was in his budget AND it was 1ct. The fact that it was 1ct was a bonus as far as I was concerned. Now if that stone wasn''t out there and he was focusing on a lot of stones that were near 1ct, I would never tell him to hold out for a stone that was exactly 1ct or larger.

Maybe it''s not as important for some people to focus on the carat weight. I can''t help my feelings about it and I never did try to steer him away from the 0.998ct WF stone. I just said personally I wouldn''t consider it until I saw an IS image, and for $6800 I would probably consider something else. And Mike never really was clear in his previous posts that the $6,000 budget was flexible - I got the impression that he had $8,000 total and since about $2,000 was used for the setting that left $6,000 firm for the stone.

And FWIW, I usually don''t get too involved in threads where people are trying to choose a stone. I am not sure why I got so involved in this one. And yes, it is up to Mike whether or not he listens to me or anyone else.

Mike, hope your happy with the stone, and if you''re not, well, there is always the refund period!

 

[strmrdr]

te:[/b] 6/7/2006 11:35:01 AM
Author: dimonbob

I apologize for the ‘little friends’ comment.

This diamond is brand new. The customer asked me for it and I did my job. Someone said I was behaving improperly and that’s not true. Someone else keeps saying this diamond is not a carat. That is not true either: The Federal Trade Commission classifies this as 1ct. Most other labs list it as a ct but AGS reports to 3 decimal places. That’s why the price is good.

[/quote]
Bob I have a lot of respect for you I have helped literly dozens of people buy asschers from you when you were their sales rep.
While I didnt always agree with you I always respected you and felt you did your best for WF clients.

But I cant read this and stay quiet.
It may be legal to call that a 1ct diamond but that does not make it right.
I never expected those weasel words to come from you :{
It is something that the chains use on their marks not something Iv expect from you or WF.
You and them are better than that.
Im going to write it off to you being frustrated but I can not let it go unchallanged that diamond will never be and never was a 1ct diamond.

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/7/2006 9:19:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/7/2006 11:35:01 AM
Author: dimonbob

I apologize for the ‘little friends’ comment.

This diamond is brand new. The customer asked me for it and I did my job. Someone said I was behaving improperly and that’s not true. Someone else keeps saying this diamond is not a carat. That is not true either: The Federal Trade Commission classifies this as 1ct. Most other labs list it as a ct but AGS reports to 3 decimal places. That’s why the price is good.

Bob I have a lot of respect for you I have helped literly dozens of people buy asschers from you when you were their sales rep.
While I didnt always agree with you I always respected you and felt you did your best for WF clients.

But I cant read this and stay quiet.
It may be legal to call that a 1ct diamond but that does not make it right.
I never expected those weasel words to come from you :{
It is something that the chains use on their marks not something Iv expect from you or WF.
You and them are better than that.
Im going to write it off to you being frustrated but I can not let it go unchallanged that diamond will never be and never was a 1ct diamond.



_______________

Do you see WF classifying that as a 1c stone? NO. Bob just said that AGS rounds to 3 decimal places which is why it's NOT a 1c for them. Other labs would have made it a 1c. However, WF is selling this as a .998. That's WHY it's such a good deal (he also said that as well). So how is him saying that FTC would call this a 1c stone a weasel tactic? PLEASE. Also I'm not even in the industry but I thought the same thing the whole thread...*I* would call a .998 a 1c if I bought it because HELLO it basically IS. If that .002 really matters to people then by all means be sure to get a 1.00001 stone and pay the extra for it too. But no one was trying to SELL this like a 1c.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 9:29:47 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 6/7/2006 9:19:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/7/2006 11:35:01 AM
Author: dimonbob

I apologize for the ‘little friends’ comment.

This diamond is brand new. The customer asked me for it and I did my job. Someone said I was behaving improperly and that’s not true. Someone else keeps saying this diamond is not a carat. That is not true either: The Federal Trade Commission classifies this as 1ct. Most other labs list it as a ct but AGS reports to 3 decimal places. That’s why the price is good.

Bob I have a lot of respect for you I have helped literly dozens of people buy asschers from you when you were their sales rep.
While I didnt always agree with you I always respected you and felt you did your best for WF clients.

But I cant read this and stay quiet.
It may be legal to call that a 1ct diamond but that does not make it right.
I never expected those weasel words to come from you :{
It is something that the chains use on their marks not something Iv expect from you or WF.
You and them are better than that.
Im going to write it off to you being frustrated but I can not let it go unchallanged that diamond will never be and never was a 1ct diamond.




_______________

Do you see WF classifying that as a 1c stone? NO. Bob just said that AGS rounds to 3 decimal places which is why it''s NOT a 1c for them. Other labs would have made it a 1c. However, WF is selling this as a .998. That''s WHY it''s such a good deal (he also said that as well). So how is him saying that FTC would call this a 1c stone a weasel tactic? PLEASE. Also I''m not even in the industry but I thought the same thing the whole thread...*I* would call a .998 a 1c if I bought it because HELLO it basically IS. If that .002 really matters to people then by all means be sure to get a 1.00001 stone and pay the extra for it too. But no one was trying to SELL this like a 1c.

Gee......thank goodness it''s not a GIA stone! Given their propensity to round up, I''d have to imagine they''d SELL it as a 1 ct stone.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 9:32:46 PM
Author: aljdewey


Gee......thank goodness it''s not a GIA stone! Given their propensity to round up, I''d have to imagine they''d SELL it as a 1 ct stone.

For clarification, and if memory serves me right, it would be a .99ct on a GIA Report.

Kind regards,

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 10:13:38 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/7/2006 9:32:46 PM
Author: aljdewey


Gee......thank goodness it''s not a GIA stone! Given their propensity to round up, I''d have to imagine they''d SELL it as a 1 ct stone.

For clarification, and if memory serves me right, it would be a .99ct on a GIA Report.

Kind regards,

Ok........

1) it was said tongue-in-cheek.

2) it was a reference to crown angle (and a few other things) being rounded UP from 34.6/.7/.8/.9 to 35.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think if you read closely, I said that if the stones were the same price, then the F stone would obviously be a good deal. But as we have said repeatedly, Pebbles and I were trying to respect Mike''s price limit of $6000. I repeatedly asked him if he wanted to raise his diamond budget, and if he did, then we''d be glad to compare what was available in that price range. The size difference was not really an issue in my eyes, but the price was. The wedding ring was priced at $2300 which was already going to take him above his $10,000 total budget. In addition, Mike is getting MARRIED at the end of July and he doesn''t have the engagement ring yet. It will have to be sent to Sister''s and then on to Verragio and we need to hope and pray he gets it in time as it is. He just really didn''t have a couple of extra weeks to see what else might come up.

For the record, I love stones that are just below magic numbers! But I did not want to tempt Mike into buying a stone that was above his budget unless he indicated that it was flexible. And that was not indicated until 3:35 this afternoon after all those other posts had taken place and the other stone was paid for and possibly already sent to Sister''s.

Mara, you asked if I wouldn''t be irritated if a vendor did not email me if they got something in that met my parameters after I had told them I bought a stone elsewhere. This is actually a very interesting question. I''ll tell you how I think I''d feel. After waiting for months to find the right stone in an uncommon size and I FINALLY choose one and am really excited about it, I think I would really be very stressed to receive subsequent emails telling me about other diamonds that meet or exceed my parameters (except that they are higher priced). Then I''d have doubts about the stone I had ordered. I''d feel very uneasy about contacting that vendor and telling them I was uncertain again after paying for the stone, which likely would make them a little frustrated with me as well. I wonder how Bob would feel if he made a sale and the day the stone was shipped the person said they had been told about another diamond by another vendor who knew he had bought a stone from him? In my own situation, I had decided I would avoid looking at the other vendors'' sites (the diamond search part) after we buy my diamond so I wouldn''t have that problem. But it didn''t occur to me that one would still get emails about new stones after a vendor was told a stone had been purchased. So I guess I am now forewarned!

But Mara, I did appreciate your comments that Pebbles and I were helpful to Mike. I know faaaaaaar less than Bob and many on this forum about diamonds, but what I could offer Mike was a totally unbiased opinion on H&A stones that were all in the AGS0 or GIA Excellent category within his budget and that would go with the G sidestones. I think that''s why all of us ask questions on here. We want opinions from someone in addition to the vendor as they aren''t exactly completely unbiased!

 

[MikeM]

pebbles, aljdewey,

I don''t mind if pebbles talked highly about the 1 ct. stone. I know she had my best interest at heart.

JulieN, Administrator, aljdewey,

Don''t misconstrue what I said. I didn''t mean that legal action should be taken.

BTW, I know it''s a public forum, but he could have said something. I would have really liked to have heard his comments too in regard to everyone elses.

strmrdr,

I hope you don''t mind if I borrow one of your lines.

"It is something that the chains use on their marks...": If any of us here do seem to be mistrustful, it is only because of the maze of chain jewelry stores we have wondered through before we found pricescope, and hence WhiteFlash, Good Old Gold, etc.

Mara,

DS and pebbles

Thanks for the compliment. I''ll definitely post pictures of it.

aljdewey,

Thanks for the compliment.

diamondseeker2006,

Thanks for sticking up for me.

Thank you for all of your help.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mike,

You''re very welcome! As I said a few pages back, you''re clearly a nice guy wanting to get the perfect ring for the girl you love. Anyone would want to help someone like you! I can''t wait to see the beautiful ring! Please don''t forget us!

 

[pebbles]

Hey DiamondSeeker -- We can become a tag team for recommending 1ct stones.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''ve very much enjoyed your company on this project, Pebbles! We did get along well!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 10:16:48 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/7/2006 10:13:38 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/7/2006 9:32:46 PM
Author: aljdewey


Gee......thank goodness it''s not a GIA stone! Given their propensity to round up, I''d have to imagine they''d SELL it as a 1 ct stone.

For clarification, and if memory serves me right, it would be a .99ct on a GIA Report.

Kind regards,

Ok........

1) it was said tongue-in-cheek.

2) it was a reference to crown angle (and a few other things) being rounded UP from 34.6/.7/.8/.9 to 35.

1) I know

2) I also understand how one could think that based on the latest info with the rounding in cut grading Alj.

I guess I kinda threw that in there in case there was any confusion on the issue of carat weight.

Kind regards,

 

[MikeM]

Date: 6/8/2006 6:50:53 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Mike,


You''re very welcome! As I said a few pages back, you''re clearly a nice guy wanting to get the perfect ring for the girl you love. Anyone would want to help someone like you! I can''t wait to see the beautiful ring! Please don''t forget us!

DS, after all of this I think a few people may disagree with the nice guy part. Actually, the people here in this forum are truely the nice ones -- willing to give a complete stranger help with nothing to gain.

I promise I won''t forget.

 

[MikeM]

If its ok, I''d like to ask just two last questions:

I spoke to Peter at Sisters the other day, and I asked him if he could send the ring (setting with set diamond) to Good Old Gold after Verragio finishes setting the diamond, just to be certain that the diamond wasn''t accidentally switched. He didn''t think that it would be necessary, since the girdle is laser inscribed.

I have a pretty good binocular microscope and a 20x loupe. If the diamond was accidentally switched, would Verragio believe me?

In the Diamond Shopping List thread, Mara said (see below) to use a prong to hide any inclusions along the edges.

Knowing all of this, would it be better to have the diamond set with a prong hiding any inclusions along the edges, or would it be better to ask to have the laser inscription visible? (I was thinking about future appraisals, etc. -- whenever the ring would be out of my sight).

Jon at Good Old Gold said that the diamond looked pretty good, as far as inclusions go (see below), I think.

Am I worrying for nothing?

Thank you in advance.
-------------------------------------------------
Diamond Shopping List thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-shopping-list.45773/

Make sure no feathers or similar protrude and reach the surface or any girdles. If there are inclusions along the edges but not surface reaching, you may be able to hide them with a prong.

-----------------------------------------------------
I spoke to Tim on Saturday, and I asked him if the diamond was eye-clean when it was viewed from the side; I was rushing to the Pre Cana meeting, and I only caught part of what he said. When you saw it (the G SI1), do you remember seeing any inclusions when you looked at it from the side?

[Rhino@GoodOldGold] Nope. You’re safe. It happens to be a pretty darn clean Si1 as I loupe this.

 

[Mara]

Yes you are probably worrying for nothing...

I would not worry about sending the ring back to GOG for them to check the stone. Just take it to an appraiser when you go to get your insurance appraisal anyway and they should match the stone to the certificate. When you are there, ask the appraiser to show the inclusions to you so that you can pick them out yourself in the future. This is a great way to ensure in the future that this IS your stone, aka after dropping it off to be cleaned locally or something. And this way it doesn't matter if the inscription is visible or not. But honestly diamond switching is not common at all. And I'm sure Verragio does QC checks before they ship which assumedly would include 'yes we set the right stone into the setting' checks too. Of course you could always ask.

In terms of the inclusions on the edge, did you ask if there are any or does the cert show any? I'd see if you could speak to Verragio or ask Sisters to speak to them on your behalf on what their suggestions are on setting your stone. Also as GOG if they still have the stone in their possession what their suggestion is as well. Sometimes they say setting girdle reaching inclusions right NEXT to a prong protects it but does not put prong pressure on it, but if you don't even have any inclusions reaching the edge, then don't even worry. I'd ask the experts who are looking at the stone what their thoughts are.

It's fabulous that you are here asking us these questions, but many of this can be solved if you just ask your vendors directly as well. They are the ones looking at the stone and the ones best to advise you on many things. Good luck.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mike, Mara has given you good advice. I forgot that stone has a laser inscription. That is a great security feature! Also, looking back at the cert, it does not look like you have any significant inclusions to even try to cover with a prong anyway.

 

[MikeM]

Mara,

Thank you very much for your advise. Your posts in this thread and in others have been very informative and helpful.

diamondseeker2006,

Thanks for looking at the cert for me, and for all of the other times you went out of your way to help me.

BTW, your posts here (especially) and in other threads have been very informative and helpful too.

Also, thanks again for being there for me throughout this whole process. I couldn't have done it without the help of you and pebbles.

 

[MikeM]

I just wanted to thank everyone again for all the help.

I also spoke with Sister's Jewelry today, and they said that they shipped the ring and the band using overnight delivery, so that it should arrive tomorrow. I'll post pictures on the "show me the ring" forum soon.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Wow, that is exciting news, Mike! I''ll be travelling tomorrow but will do my best to check in here at some point! I can''t wait to see the pictures!

 

[MikeM]

Daimondseeker2006,

The UPS driver just dropped them off. They really look nice. Thank you so much for your help.

I put a few pictures in the Show Me the Ring Forum.

It's interesting, I took them outside for the pictures and where the light reflected, it looks like they have a bluish tinge. Would that be fluorescence?

Mike

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, boy...I''ll have to go right over to SMTR!!!

The blue may be a reflection of the sky, your shirt, or possibly flourescence. I remember your stone VERY well, but I didn''t recall it having flourescence...did it?

 

[MikeM]

Diamondseeker,

I always thought that blue flouresence was kind of neat; however, my fiancee might not agree. Anyways, I feel kind of foolish for not thinking of that sooner, it must have been coming from the light reflecting from the blue box.