Reflectance Meter
Reflectance Meter
The mid-twentieth-century surface-reflectivity instrument now superseded by modern gemmology
A reflectance meter is a gemmological instrument that measures the percentage of light reflected from a polished gemstone surface, used historically as a non-destructive screening tool for distinguishing diamond from common simulants. The Hanneman reflectance meter, introduced in the mid-twentieth century by John R. Hanneman, is the canonical example of the type. The instrument exploits the relationship between a gemstone's refractive index and its surface reflectance: at normal incidence, a stone of higher refractive index reflects a greater proportion of incident light, with diamond's reflectance distinctly higher than that of glass, synthetic spinel, and most other common diamond simulants of the period. The reflectance meter is now largely obsolete in modern gemmology, displaced by more discriminating instruments and by the much greater diagnostic power of laboratory-grade microscopy and spectroscopy.
Principle of operation
The Fresnel equations describe the proportion of light reflected at an interface between two media as a function of the refractive indices of the two media and the angle of incidence. At normal incidence (perpendicular to the surface), the reflectance R for a gemstone in air is given by R = ((n−1)/(n+1))², where n is the refractive index of the gemstone. For diamond (n ≈ 2.42), this yields R ≈ 0.172, or about 17 percent of incident light reflected at the polished surface. For glass (n ≈ 1.50), R ≈ 0.040, or 4 percent. For synthetic spinel (n ≈ 1.72), R ≈ 0.07, or 7 percent. Diamond's reflectance is therefore distinctly higher than that of common simulants of the era, and a measurement of surface reflectance can in principle distinguish diamond from these substitutes.
Dreaming of a custom pendant? Our Toronto, Canada workshop builds it around a diamond you choose.
The Hanneman reflectance meter implemented this principle with a simple light source, a calibrated photodetector, and a mechanical fixture for positioning the stone in a known geometric relationship to the instrument. The reading was given as a number on a calibrated scale or as a pass/fail against a diamond reference; the instrument's output indicated whether the stone tested likely was or was not diamond.
Limitations
The reflectance meter has substantial limitations that have driven its replacement. Reflectance is sensitive to the polish quality of the stone — a poorly polished stone, an oily surface, or a surface contaminant can suppress the reading and produce a false negative for diamond. The measurement is also sensitive to geometric alignment; small angular errors at the stone's surface change the apparent reflectance and reduce the instrument's reliability. Most consequentially, the instrument cannot distinguish diamond from other materials of similar refractive index. When synthetic moissanite (silicon carbide, n ≈ 2.65) entered the market in the late 1990s, reflectance meters could not distinguish moissanite from diamond, since moissanite's higher refractive index produces an even higher reflectance reading that the instrument's calibration would interpret as confirming diamond.
See our diamonds with Canada's coloured-gemstone specialists — Toronto, since 1967.
The reflectance meter was therefore effective only in a specific historical context: the mid-to-late twentieth century, when the principal diamond simulants in commercial circulation were glass, synthetic spinel, synthetic rutile, and (later) cubic zirconia, all with refractive indices well below diamond's. With the appearance of moissanite and the development of laboratory-grown diamond, the reflectance meter's diagnostic value collapsed.
Modern replacement
Modern diamond screening uses several alternative instruments that address the reflectance meter's limitations. Thermal-conductivity testers exploit diamond's exceptional thermal conductivity to distinguish it from most simulants, although moissanite has thermal conductivity comparable to diamond and requires additional testing. Electrical-conductivity testers (the so-called moissanite testers) complement thermal testing by exploiting moissanite's electrical conductivity, which differs from diamond's. Ultraviolet-fluorescence screening distinguishes natural diamond from many laboratory-grown specimens that show different fluorescence patterns. Refractive-index measurement using a refractometer remains the gold standard for many materials, though diamond and other very-high-RI materials require specialised instruments.
For sophisticated identification, modern laboratories combine these screening tools with photoluminescence spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, and microscopy to identify natural and laboratory-grown diamond reliably. The screening pipeline now used in any serious laboratory operation has substantially greater diagnostic power than the reflectance meter ever provided, and the older instrument has been retired from active use except as a teaching example.
Position in the trade
For the practising bench gemmologist or retailer, reflectance meters appear principally in older trade tool kits and as historical artifacts of mid-twentieth-century gemmology. The instrument has minimal practical value for current diamond screening — the laboratory-grown and moissanite identification requirements that dominate today's screening agenda are precisely the cases the reflectance meter cannot handle. Trade educators sometimes use surviving reflectance meters as teaching tools to illustrate the Fresnel principle and the historical evolution of gemmological instrumentation.
Turn this diamond into a bespoke jewellery: made in Toronto, Canada.