When the stone was unset, it only did this in photographs.Question: does it do this only in photographs, or is it purple to the naked eye, as well?
I will try to explain this more clearly... What you're seeing in this instance is a side effect of how the diamond's dispersion index is refracting the light from the flash of the camera, which is brighter than outside natural light. The flash has to make up for the lack of light around the subject by shining ridiculously bright to illuminate the subject, right? Well the subject in this case happens to be a tiny prism. When the light enters that prism, and from this particular angle, only one part of the spectra is being captured by the camera, which happens to be a blue/purple shade. It's not always blue/purple, because I've had my stone capture green, yellow, red, and blue from the flash from various angles, where the stone just lights up one color of fireball from that particular part of the spectra. A flash cannot bring out the fluor in a stone usually, and since she doesn't have a stone with that characteristic, that's not the case here. Being in a stone holder vs a full setting makes only a little difference, because more light is getting into and around the prism from the flash. Once it's set that will decrease a little.
Also not the case here is the misconception that her stone is treated, filled, or a CZ/other. I happen to be educated and have anecdotal evidence behind me, which is why I am so bent out of shape about this accusations of this stone being in any way treated, filled or somehow not authentic, I am not just saying this out of thin air to be an a$$hole. If this stone were any of those, it would not reflect the color in the photograph the way that it has and would do it from more angles than it has, besides that, the OP would almost certainly see it with a loupe and probably naked eye, depending where the stone was tampered with, fracture filling is not usually easily hidden on an unset stone. Since she doesn't see it in other lighting conditions, it's clear that it's not related to treatment.
This color is simply an effect of the flash and the diamond's prismatic effect on light.
I will try to explain this more clearly... What you're seeing in this instance is a side effect of how the diamond's dispersion index is refracting the light from the flash of the camera, which is brighter than outside natural light. The flash has to make up for the lack of light around the subject by shining ridiculously bright to illuminate the subject, right? Well the subject in this case happens to be a tiny prism. When the light enters that prism, and from this particular angle, only one part of the spectra is being captured by the camera, which happens to be a blue/purple shade. It's not always blue/purple, because I've had my stone capture green, yellow, red, and blue from the flash from various angles, where the stone just lights up one color of fireball from that particular part of the spectra. A flash cannot bring out the fluor in a stone usually, and since she doesn't have a stone with that characteristic, that's not the case here. Being in a stone holder vs a full setting makes only a little difference, because more light is getting into and around the prism from the flash. Once it's set that will decrease a little.
Also not the case here is the misconception that her stone is treated, filled, or a CZ/other. I happen to be educated and have anecdotal evidence behind me, which is why I am so bent out of shape about this accusations of this stone being in any way treated, filled or somehow not authentic, I am not just saying this out of thin air to be an a$$hole. If this stone were any of those, it would not reflect the color in the photograph the way that it has and would do it from more angles than it has, besides that, the OP would almost certainly see it with a loupe and probably naked eye, depending where the stone was tampered with, fracture filling is not usually easily hidden on an unset stone. Since she doesn't see it in other lighting conditions, it's clear that it's not related to treatment.
This color is simply an effect of the flash and the diamond's prismatic effect on light.
I will try to explain this more clearly... What you're seeing in this instance is a side effect of how the diamond's dispersion index is refracting the light from the flash of the camera, which is brighter than outside natural light. The flash has to make up for the lack of light around the subject by shining ridiculously bright to illuminate the subject, right? Well the subject in this case happens to be a tiny prism. When the light enters that prism, and from this particular angle, only one part of the spectra is being captured by the camera, which happens to be a blue/purple shade. It's not always blue/purple, because I've had my stone capture green, yellow, red, and blue from the flash from various angles, where the stone just lights up one color of fireball from that particular part of the spectra. A flash cannot bring out the fluor in a stone usually, and since she doesn't have a stone with that characteristic, that's not the case here. Being in a stone holder vs a full setting makes only a little difference, because more light is getting into and around the prism from the flash. Once it's set that will decrease a little.
Also not the case here is the misconception that her stone is treated, filled, or a CZ/other. I happen to be educated and have anecdotal evidence behind me, which is why I am so bent out of shape about this accusations of this stone being in any way treated, filled or somehow not authentic, I am not just saying this out of thin air to be an a$$hole. If this stone were any of those, it would not reflect the color in the photograph the way that it has and would do it from more angles than it has, besides that, the OP would almost certainly see it with a loupe and probably naked eye, depending where the stone was tampered with, fracture filling is not usually easily hidden on an unset stone. Since she doesn't see it in other lighting conditions, it's clear that it's not related to treatment.
This color is simply an effect of the flash and the diamond's prismatic effect on light.
Very well said. And I resemble that remark!The only thing that really matters is that you love it! Some people get obsessed with their stone, to the OCD extent of being terrified of wearing it, or cleaning it a hundred times a day. It's a symbol of your marriage, not the fetish object that Western culture had made it out to be. And it's beautiful, so wear it in good health & enjoy it's uniqueness!
I couldn't have explained this or even knew this info, but I trust ame's opinion and i'll +1 what she said
AGS is a major player with credibility and they need to be taken very seriously. What they've done in relation to cut grading and cut quality standards is simply incredible, it's made the entire industry better as a whole, they've changed the way diamonds are cut, graded, sold, etc. They are the reason we have IDEAL cut stones and finer guidelines for them. And having AGS on the scene has made GIA better as a side effect, and that's something I am immensely grateful for. If a jeweler doesn't know of them, or discounts them as a player at all, I pretty much know then and there that I can't work with or trust this particular jeweler because they're not keeping up with what is going on in their industry and that's to their own detriment as a business. AGS is here to stay.Ame, thank you for explaining this so clearly. I've seen enhanced and filled diamonds before, and through the loupe, the treatments can be easily seen and even sometimes with the naked eye if one looks at the enhanced diamonds closely. I'm also surprise some people never heard AGS, they've been around for so long now.