Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.162.246.148 (talk) at 18:51, 27 February 2005 (hoax - BPM 37093). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.

Folklore

If the folklore section is not corroborated by some kind of reference I or someone else can check, I'm removing it in a few days. I am not an expert at the occult, but I do know a bit, and it doesn't jive with this stuff. It may be the belief of some group somewhere, but it's not general occultist belief, so it needs context or I'm erasing it. --Dmerrill

It was written by Corvus13. When asked, he said it came from notes he's collected over the years. He appears to come from a tradition of crystallomancy. See his home page at http://members.tripod.com/Corvus13/ — maybe that will give some insight into his POV. <>< tbc

thanks for the help!!!!

I logged onto this site to search Diamond realated industries in & around South India, I must say that I had a very good SouthIndian tour. Very informative as to the culture,music,regions etc. Well, I was totally lost in going through the very minute detail. Can somebody help me in providing the details of the Diamond related industries/research institutes.

Thanks & Regards

Keshava

hi im ashley a 15 year old freshman high school. i had to pick an meneral for a science project and i chose diamonds. ure site was very imformative. thanks for ure help!!!!! i got almost everything i needed for my 3 page report!

thanks again!
                                           ~oooohhhhhhbaby@aol.com

Mostly minor corrections, additions and copyediting.

1. Added bit on nyf, additional common forms
2. Added step-like to fracture description and elaborated on conchoidal
3. Added info on Australian blues coloured by hydrogen, qualifying instances of "natural blue" with "most"
4. Elaborated on Type IIa diamonds
5. Changed "play of color" to "fire." The term play of color correctly refers to opal, not diamond.
6. Added to Symbolism subsection with a bit on LifeGem (I think it's interesting enough to mention).

This article could be expanded tremendously, but I'm ignorant as to exactly how extensive an article Wikipedians desire. Hadal 12:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What would you add? I'm no expert, but how about giving a list of suggestions here on the discussion page? Also, you could include extra details on different pages and link the main article to them. If it is generally felt they deserve to be in the main article someone will paste them across. --/Mat 03:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is clarity grading done using a standard distance from eye-to-stone?

Diamond clarity is graded on a scale from FL (flawless) to I (imperfect). The standards for each grade are based on how "obvious" or "difficult" it is to see imperfections at various magnifications, such as 1x (with the naked eye), 10x, or 30x. While on-line brochures give the magnification, they do not specify the distance between the eye and the stone. Is this 3"? (Probably not -- many people cannot focus this close.) Is this 6"? (Similar problem.) 14"? 15"? 21? Note that there is 3x magnification between 7" and 21".

Do any of the major grading labs (such as GIA, AGS, or HRD) have a standard on this? For that matter, several U.S. Military specifications (such as for surface defects in ceramics) have similar wording. Do the mil specs have a standard eye-to-object distance?

As far as I know, no. While I don't work for any of the labs you mention, I think I would have heard about such a standard. Nowadays most labs use custom microscopes for grading stones, so "distance to eye" doesn't come into play. A grader has to be careful not to scratch the objective lens with the stone, of course.

When a loupe is used, both it and the diamond are usually held fairly close to the eye as a matter of practice. When checking the stone with the naked eye (especially in unclear cases to judge whether an inclusion justifies a grade of I1 as opposed to SI2) a grader's astigmatism (or lack thereof) will determine distance from the eye. Although I'm fairly myopic and therefore I might be able to see closer, if I can see the inclusion the stone is automatically graded at least I1. (Visible to the eye means visible to the eye.) Some labs may assign an SI3 grade in debatable cases, but of course not everyone recognizes this grade.

Some labs are looser than others when grading stones, but that's not something I should get into here. I try not to be a mudslinger. ;) -- Hadal 04:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

A few web sites address this question. They give various answers.

• Bellman Jewelers states that "I-1 I-2 I-3 (Imperfect)" diamonds "have inclusions that are eye-visible, viewed from the top (6 to 8 inches away)."

• One post at PriceScope mentions 18 inches (for viewing the culet with the naked eye).

• In a contentious 2002 thread on DiamondTalk, an appraiser is quoted as saying, "Examining the stone loose for seeing unaided eye visible inclusion require the stone only being examined in the face up position approximately 15 inches from the eye and held in such a way that the table is perpendicular to the viewer's eye."

Many microscopes have distances of 14-24 inches from eye-to-stone. Each microscope has a consistent distance for best viewing.

Heh, well.. as you can see, nobody can agree and there is no standard. I personally think both 18 and 15 inches is ridiculous. In the contentious DiamondTalk thread you linked to above, the buyer was clearly cheated. I can't believe someone would try to pass that stone off as anything better than an I1. (I can believe it, but you know what I mean.) I might have been meaner and went to I2, as a feather that large could conceivably affect the integrity of the stone itself.

Of all the links above, Bellman's would come closest to reason. There can't really be a standard, as human eyesight is so variable. That said, I did chuckle at this line from their site:

"Without the proper instruments and education on what to look for, consumers can easily misread a diamond’s clarity."

That may be true of the upper grades, but a savvy consumer should have no trouble spotting an I1, as the fellow in that DiamondTalk thread did. In my rather cynical opinion, I think sellers who use half a yard stick (for crying out loud!) to determine "eye visible" are trying to pass inferior stones off at higher prices than should be paid for them. And that bit about the culet was misinformation. A "medium" culet will detract from the final grade of the stone, or at least it should. As would a lack of culet in a large stone.

As for your comments on the microscopes, of course there is a consistent distance for best viewing. I don't think I understand what you're asking; maybe I'm daft, but how can a standard distance be applied to microscopes in this case? There are no great differences in the length of the optical train in the various models used (I've used at least three different makes). The distance from the stone and the objective lens would be determined by the magnification level. The only feature a microscope must have is a 10x setting (and, to be thorough, overhead lighting and darkfield illumination). Or am I missing something? -- Hadal 14:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, thank you for your straight answers. And no, you're not daft -- indeed, you have helped me clarify my thinking.

"Or am I missing something?"

I am trying to get at -- "What is 10x relative to?"

• If you look through the microscope without the 10x lens in place, you will see the stone at 1x at a distance equal to the length of the optical train.
• If you look through the microscope with the 10x lens in place, you will see the stone at 10x at the same distance.
• Although I do not have access to a microscope, I remember the 10x-20x-30x microscopes used in several applications having very similar lengths of their optical trains. I remember it being somewhere between 14-24 inches, but cannot remember more exactly:
  • High school biology classes
  • Inspection of ceramics per U.S. Military specifications
  • Jewelry stores

A couple of tangents:

The current debate about cut-grading standards involves explicit assumptions about lighting and the distance at which a diamond is viewed. The choice of 10 inches versus 14 inches explains some significant differences between two proposed grading standards, according to this PriceScope thread.

By the way, the stone in the contentious DiamondTalk thread was graded by the AGS as an SI2. Perhaps large SI2 stones do not need to be eye-clean?

-- Jasper 20:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

To anyone who cares to sort such things out:

The Diamond article seems to have three sections on color:

• Optical properties
• Composition and color
• Color (in Diamond industry)

Is "nyf" a word or an acronym? "gg:nyf mineral" turns up lots of mentions of NYF (niobium-yttrium-fluorine) pegmatite. -phma 05:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is diamond a Chemical element?

This article is recently added to the catagory of Chemical Elements. Carbon is an element, but are Diamond, Fullerene, Graphite elements???

Diamond, fullerine, graphite etc. are not chemical elements. They are allotropic forms of the element carbon. I've deleted the flase category. Thanks for bringing this up.

Acegikmo1 01:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

various facts - insurance specific?

I'd add more, but the article being broken up into chunks and the slowness of my connection, in addition to wikipedia slowness makes this an issue.

Needs: points (.01) as subsets of carats - plus add in a differentiation between karets and carats - plus carob bean reference.

Carat weight,

Cut (table, pavilion depth, crown angle)

Diamonds take a high polish which enhances its scintillation.

You can also test a diamond's light responsiveness

Round brilliants are the most resistant to breakage, but a princess cut will give more caret weight per rough. A modified princess cut called the Arctic Empress (by Sirius) clips the vulnerable corners. Girdles on brilliants may be cut too thin as well. Pear cut and Marquise cut diamonds have sharp points which are vulnerable to damage.

Most jewelry has a manufacturer/style number, since they are non-unique.

Or to assure in writing that the stone is untreated.

Many of these reports and serial numbers can or will be inscribed on the girdle, and some trademarks are making it to girdles (like the polar bear (under legal dispute) and the maple leaf).

"Appraisal Reports" and "Identification Reports" offered by retail outlets are sales tools, and don't accurately reflect value, especially if they're selling you the item at significantly less than the appraised price.

Treatments (and non-Treatments)

• Laser Drilling (not required to disclose before 2001) - and interior acid washing of inclusions, sometimes filled with epoxy which can be damaged by repairing of the mounting when leaving the stone in place.
• Coating - cleaning, recutting may damage the coating
• Fracture Filling - heating, cleaning, resetting, recutting, can break down the treatment, exposing the original flawed stone. Often easy to detect.
• Yehuda (Clarity) Treatment - a fracture filling treatment that injects resin. Not readily detectable by most jewelers, and not often disclosed (prior to 2001, it still may not be, depending on the honesty/knowledge of your jeweler).
• Irradiation - Greens may breakdown on heating (cleaning, remounting).
• Pegasus color treatment (Monarch) - General Electric inscribes the girdle of their treated stones with GE-POL, but some people have attempted to polish these off. Currently makes colorless diamonds, but they're moving toward fancies. No independent verification on how durable the treatment is.
• EGL/NovaDiamond color enhancement - uses pressure and temperature to make fancies. No independent verification on how durable the treatment is.

New FTC regs on treatments and disclosure to buyers

Investment 'gems' and 'discounted' jewelry scams

Dreseden Green Diamond, historical record to 1726, is being used to compare natural versus lab-produced irradiation in hopes of being able to devise a test to differentiat between the two.

Lab Diamonds:

(A process) developed by Gemesis, makes diamonds that may contain impurities in about 100 hours, by mimicing the natural process.

CVD, chemical vapor deposition, builds diamonds by precipitation from carbon plasma and builds up at half a millimeter a day, and has a theoretical limit of several inches.

Fake Diamonds:

Cubic Zirconia - $5/carat - can get scratched, over time loses it's lustre, doesn't fool experts.

Moissanite - $600/carat - almost as hard as diamond, more brilliant

Beware of shipping items via mail, sometimes (US government, anthrax scare) irradiation is used, which can affect gems - most dramatically, cultured pearls, kunzite, and sapphire. Cumulative effects were also noted, even for the low level of irradiation used.

Jewelry is routinely over-priced and then listed for 'discount', and it is buyer and insurer beware. Often the buyer pays for over-insurance, and the insurer is only obligated to pay for the replacement value - thus generating ill-will in all directions.

Jewelers are anyone who sells jewelry. A jeweler can become a gemologist via a correspondence course. A graduate gemologist (GG) must take 6 months training, and includes hands on practical experience in a gem lab. Not all GGs know how to write an apprasial useful to insurance.

~ender 2004-09-04 MST 19:22

some statements that should have citations

Ender, these statements are interesting, and I would like to see references to learn more about them. -- User:Jasper Jasper

Color (graded on D-Z, but composed of: Hue (31 gemstone grades), Saturation (9 grades), Tone (9 grades))

An ACORD (a non-profit organization for the insurance industry) 78/79 form certifies that the appraiser is a graduate gemologist of the Gemological Institute of America, has completed formal insurance appraisal training, examined the piece in a lab, all the qualities are as stated, there are no non-normal handling treatments of the stone, and that the appraiser is a professional who takes legal liability and responsibility for the apprasial, giving the insurer first party legal rights in the event of an error.

• Does ACORD have a website?

GIA reports are about $100 for a 1 carat diamond (minimum .23? carats)

• The price information is subject to change without notice. Does it belong in the encyclopedia article?

• If the GIA only grades stones above a minimum size, that might be worth including in the article.

• Many vendors do not certify most of their small stones, especially under 0.50 carats.

some statements where reasonable people may disagree

Clarity (IF,VVS1,VVS2,VS1,VS2,SI1,SI2,,I1,I2,I3)

• As mentioned in the article, the SI3 grade is used by EGL-USA. Although it is not used by all laboratories, it is used enough in the diamond industry to appear on Rappaport price lists.

(Various cuts with points or very thin girdles) may be uninsurable, or require much higher payments. should have issues with insurance due to inherent vice (legal term).

• This depends on the insurance company, legal jurisdiction, and the fine print of the policy.

A treatment which has broken down is not something for which an insurer is liable.

• This depends on the insurance company, legal jurisdiction, and the fine print of the policy.

AGS Diamond Quality Report (different from the AGS Diamond Quality Document) is considered the most complete and desirable report, contains all the information in the GIA report. It also includes information from the Sarin report, like the crown angle and pavilion depth, which are missing from the GIA report.

• Unfortunately, the AGS' overall cut grade (e.g., AGS 0, AGS 1, etc) is still in its first draft, and is the subject of considerable controversy.
• A number of discussions on PriceScope, DiamondTalk, and the first international cut conference are about possible improvements to the AGS cut grade.
• The AGS has announced major changes to its cut grading. Many (perhaps most) stones that currently grade as AGS 0 will not grade as AGS 0 under the new standards. Many other stones that currently get lower cut grades will grade as AGS 0 under the new standards.
• The new standards more closely align with computer simulations of cut quality, and with Tolkowsky's model of the crown. Unfortunately, the new standards have not been described in detail yet.
• The AGS' new cut grading standards for round brilliants take effect in the first quarter of 2005.
• The AGS also plans to issue cut grades for some fancy-cut diamonds.

The Kimberley process has no independent verification, and is currently just a fig-leaf to cover the industry.

• What is this "fig-leaf" trying to cover?

(CVD diamonds) are said to be flawless in clarity.

• Many industrial CVD diamonds are quite cheap. (About $1 per carat, for diamonds that are a few centimeters long and a fraction of a millimeter thick.) Unfortunately, many of these diamonds are golden-brown, like a well-done cake.

(Cubic Zirconia) doesn't sparkle as much.

• Perhaps some brands of cubic zirconia don't sparkle as much as ideal cut diamonds. Other brands cut to different proportions, or to more precise proportions, to make sparkly CZs.

Branding is not considered worth insuring, and you can typically pay over 20% more for a conflict-free diamond. Insurers will not insure this extra value paid. The Insurer is responsible for repair or replacement of the actual stone, not the stone the customer may have thought he bought.

• This depends on the insurance company, legal jurisdiction, appraisal, and the fine print of the policy.

• Although most jewelry insurance policies are replacement policies, some insurance companies offer declared-value policies.

• A few brands of diamond have special-enough cuts that some insurers have been convinced that a "like kind and quality" replacement should be made on a brand-name basis. In these cases, it was important that the brand-name information (or cut parameters) was disclosed to the insurance company in the appraisal. This has been discussed on PriceScope.

• The price premium for conflict-free diamonds is questionable. Part of the question is, "Which diamonds are really conflict-free?"

(Moissanite) fools many professionals.

• The gem laboratories have offered training to teach the differences between moissanite and diamond.

Even judgements by the courts and the BBB have found it unfair to single out one retailer when deceptive practices are so widespread in the industry (JC Penny vs. NC)

• A link to the ruling would be nice. Also, this depends on the jurisdiction.

HTHP, developed by Gemesis

• HTHP stands for High Temperature High Pressure. This adjective is used in other contexts (such as color treatments), besides lab-grown diamonds.
• Many lab-grown gems (such as sapphires) are subjected to HTHP color treatments in addition to the process(es) used to grow the gem.

Old Mine cut

what is?

Pud 09:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Length

This article has gotten to be kind of an indigestible monster. I'm inclined to think that the "diamond industry" part would make a useful cutting point, or perhaps moving the fine points of quality to a sub-article. Stan 13:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Purchasing a diamond

I'd like to add a "Purchasing a diamond" section, to debunk some myths about diamonds and to help people into making a wise decision when shopping for a diamond. Do you think it should be part of this article, or a separate one? Anyone willing to pitch in? Reply here... MDesigner 23:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. I added the orignal "4C's" material and that should be moved to your new article/section. Samw 04:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hardest Naturally Occurring Mineral?

I may be wrong, but is buckminsterfullerene not harder than diamond...?

It would help if you could provide a source.

In general, the strength or hardness of a material depends on the size of the sample, and the temperature and pressure. If you measure the hardness of a sample with only 60 carbon atoms, you may get very different results than if you measure the hardness of a 1 carat sample (containing 10^22 carbon atoms). For instance, a collection of molecules (each of which has 60 carbon atoms) may be a liquid. Whereas diamond is solid at Standard Temperature and Pressure.

By the way, what is the melting point of buckminsterfullerene?

Unfortunately i am unable to find an Internet based source for this, but i have heard this from many sources, although they may be inaccurate. If anyone can help...

The sources provided in the article presents a modified form of a fullerene, ultrahard fullerite, it may not be naturally occuring. What it does link to is an academic paper, which provides infromation that shows that the engineered substance can under these circumstances, scatch diamond. Though it is physically harder than diamond, Ultrahard fullerite is not made in meaningful enough quantities or avaible in these quantitis in order to be considered a naturally occuring material, if even a mineral. When larger quantities are avaible, we can learn if the microscopic hardness translates to a macroscopic hardness harder than diamond, something meaninful given the current industrial usages of diamonds. --02:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HOAX

Will the page administrator do something about the following hoax, or shall I?

BPM 37093, a degenerate star in the constellation Centaurus, which contains the largest known diamond in the universe: 1×1034 carats (2&1033 grams) and 4,000 km in diameter.