after searching for a diamond for several months.....

[windowshopper]

I am amazed at the garbage that is out there. I really am so shocked by some of the numbers I see on listed diamonds and it appears that the majority of diamonds of any shape would probably be defined as mediocre to poorly cut. Why?

and i am not criticizing the e vendors or anyone else but really the market I guess. Why isnt there greater impetus for the manufacturers to cut better stones?

 

[strmrdr]

weight is king.
There are magic numbers that no one will cut below if they can help it.
.25,.33,.5,.75,1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75,2.0 and so on.
The value drops a lot if the stone drops down one catagory so if a stone is being cut and its dropping below on of those points slop will be added to keep it above that weight.
If the rough will yeild a well cut 1ct or a crappy 1.25ct it will almost always be cut to 1.25.
On the other hand rough that will cut into a 1.05 ct super-ideal or a 1.15 sloppy cut might be cut as a super-ideal.

 

[windowshopper]

i do realize all of that but--if no one bought those mediocre and poor stones, wouldnt they, the cutters or manufacturers, say we better make a better product

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/4/2004 11:27 PM
Author: windowshopper
i do realize all of that but--if no one bought those mediocre and poor stones, wouldnt they, the cutters or manufacturers, say we better make a better product

Perhaps, but again, perhaps not. These guys also buy their rough by weight... It''s just easier to keep the same pricing criteria throughout the chain

sparkle, or no sparkle.

As far as I know, it''s not only one of three (weight, size or brilliance) by itself that makes these prices but yield.

With rounds only being talked about, perhaps the subject is not too interesting. Especially since the ''tradeoff'' between brillance and yield has been touted for so long.

Remember that "these ideal diamonds are that much more expensive because more material was wasted to make them brilliant" ... yada, yada...? The argument is valid, but does not say the entire story, as far as I can tell. Branded fancies are designed to reconcile yield and brilliance. Why not, actually ?

There wasn''t much talk about such things here aside a couple of Garry''s posts, but once the topic is opened I am pretty sure more will follow.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/4/2004 1

1:27 PM
Author: windowshopper
i do realize all of that but--if no one bought those mediocre and poor stones, wouldnt they, the cutters or manufacturers, say we better make a better product

Yes they would.
With the increased light being shined on cut lately a lot of them will be forced to change how they cut diamonds.

You cant really blame the cutters they buy the rough based on the potentual diamond that can be cut from it.
Their profit margins are too low to eat cutting down to the next weight class.
The rough supplier is taking the lions share of the wholesale price of diamonds leaveing little room for the cutters to move.

 

[JohnQuixote]

First, the public would have to be able to recognize mediocre or poor cut quality.

Much education on carat wt, color and clarity is available - even in the stores - but not on cut.

(we're working on it here)

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 12/4/2004 11:52:14 AM
Author:windowshopper
I am amazed at the garbage that is out there. I really am so shocked by some of the numbers I see on listed diamonds and it appears that the majority of diamonds of any shape would probably be defined as mediocre to poorly cut. Why?

and i am not criticizing the e vendors or anyone else but really the market I guess. Why isnt there greater impetus for the manufacturers to cut better stones?

windowshopper,

the reason being is that the average consumer walks into a mall jewlery store knowing nothing about cuts or doesn''t care. all they care about is the other 3 C''s. so as long as they can sell poorly cut stones, the manufacture will keep making them.