ImaGem Light Behavior scores for round diamonds

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bill / Michael I agree with you and here is the view that is shared by those in our little enclave.

We are designing a beauty grading system. We think some labs will use this system to grade the potential beauty of diamonds. but we are not designing a Cut Quality system.

We expect individual labs will add their own personality to our ''beauty'' system by adding:

1. Polish Quality (our system will not meausre this initially)
2. Symmetry (We will offer scanners that are more accurate than any on the market, but many labs will prefer their facet point analysis)
3. Transperency grading
4. Durability / girdle thickness and other proportion based assessments (maybe including spread)

(There are 2 similar threads running here.)

 

[RockDoc]

Really, Rock, one is left with the impression that you may eat this sort of data for lunch; you report that you collect data on stones, whether or not your client asks you to do this or not. Your comment above about individuating per diamond is convenient, but does not serve someone who wants to take advantage of the very type of tools you offer. Is it simply unknown to you about bands of data, how they present, and the percentages they fall into? You say the questions are interesting; aren''t the answers interesting, too. Mainly, the thing is...why bother to purport there is no 100% correlation, since we can guess as much. What patterns of data exist, and surely we can determine, if it is the case, that it is chaotic, or that instead there is a pattern to observe.

Well...true enough...were I shopping for a Realtor/appraiser, on the basis of data collection, there''s just not a lot of appraisers to turn to that do any sort of this sort of data analysis to speak of, anyway. That the (mostly) gents on this board who appraise, and report to us about the results of this work, is appreciated. I guess, just like the kid in the story says: "I want some more."

Regards,

P.S. Just to follow up, and for any of those appraiser/doubting Thomases, whether or not you employ these measuring devices...would you find value in having in your possession not numbers, but actual branded options, that you could show to your clients, were they interested, to give them an idea of the options for performance that exist out there, should they not purchase option (a) they came in with, but might want to explore in option (b).

And, to an appraiser''s customer...would such a feature be attractive to you...to have a branded option to look at, and compare your option to, that you''ve come in with?

Ira Z.

____________________________________

Ira...


I am not really sure what you''re asking about here. What are you referring to with the term "branded options"?

You make it sound like I am trying to "sell" someone a particular branded stone. If this is what you mean - you couldn''t be further from the facts. If this isn''t what you mean, I guess you need to clarify it for me.

Rockdoc

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/22/2005 1:59:20 AM
Author: RockDoc

Ira...


I am not really sure what you''re asking about here. What are you referring to with the term ''branded options''?

You make it sound like I am trying to ''sell'' someone a particular branded stone. If this is what you mean - you couldn''t be further from the facts. If this isn''t what you mean, I guess you need to clarify it for me.

Rockdoc

Rock,

Sorry to have been unclear. There are simply two different, but related ideas, and in neither one is it suggested you try to "sell" anything.

1) The idea reviewed here, where John most recently says:

"Hey Strm, I don’t know where you got that info on A Cut Above and BS results, but it’s incorrect. We had BS for over a year with the old software and most were vh vh h, with some trip vh mixed in. Where did you hear that? Rockdoc runs ACAs on his BS with the new software and can verify how they score. Feel free to ask him."

What is meant by branded options is what has been discussed a lot here recently: WF''s A Cut Above, 8 Star, SuperbCert, Infinity...and so...these conventionally available options, that, by their own set of guidelines, set quality standards that would suggest they intend to have repeatably excellent light performance results. The simple question might be...if a consumer were interested in getting these results, by your experience with these devices, could you confirm that that result is expected, or instead, as you insinuate, is it the case you really can''t tell until you see them? And if this is the case...then the more responsible, hoped for position, is that you would actually report the range observed.

2) The other idea, separate but related, is that you do specifically collude with one or ideally all of these branded purveyors, and on the logic that there is in fact repeatable performance, you could represent to your clients examples of these options in person, so as to help them understand they do have options, before making the final decision to keep the option they walk in with. Call it a public service, since you would not be selling them...just providing information. My personal hope is that the companies represented would take you to dinner once in awhile for doing so. The idea is simply to help the buyer understand better the options available to them...and as the last guy at the gate available to get advice from, before that purchase is made....wouldn''t you imagine that colluding in a process where your customer is served with substantive information about the options available to them...rather than particularly the infinitely nuanced details of the option they haven''t even committed themselves to yet...that that wouldn''t be consistent with your job as an independent appraiser available to serve your customer''s needs?

With regards,

 

[RockDoc]

Good morning Ira,

Ill replay after each of the paragraphs you wrote.
______________

"Hey Strm, I don’t know where you got that info on A Cut Above and BS results, but it’s incorrect. We had BS for over a year with the old software and most were vh vh h, with some trip vh mixed in. Where did you hear that? Rockdoc runs ACAs on his BS with the new software and can verify how they score. Feel free to ask him."

I have images from the B Scope for a wide variety of stones. I really am not sure about the background of Storm''s posting which you wrote about, but I will make an attempt to clarify it. If the thrust of Storm''s comment is that the ACA stones do not get as high a B Scope "score" as other stones (cut/proportioned really well regardless of the brand name) I will disagree. Is there a variance between stones? Yes. I will say in the case of ACA stones, that the differences relate to how the stone appears in different light environments. ACA cuts two different "types". The ACA Classic and the ACA New Line. The B Scope seems to show with almost a 100% consistency in the images and the ratings, the differences between these two cuts. The difference in the ratings in the B Scope Analyzer and the appearance to the eye in the B Scope "sister" unit, the B Scope Viewer show the intended results very accurately. Over the past 6 years that I''ve had the avaiilability of the developing technology I have seen changes in the cutting of several of the branded manufacturers/sellers/cutters. Over the years I have seen the changes that the various cutters have done to improve their stones. When I do notice a difference, I have usually questioned them about it, and they are all usually amazed that someone actually knows and see the changes. I do know what the cutters have done when they change certain characteristics of their cutting.
What is meant by branded options is what has been discussed a lot here recently: WF''s A Cut Above, 8 Star, SuperbCert, Infinity...and so...these conventionally available options, that, by their own set of guidelines, set quality standards that would suggest they intend to have repeatably excellent light performance results. The simple question might be...if a consumer were interested in getting these results, by your experience with these devices, could you confirm that that result is expected, or instead, as you insinuate, is it the case you really can''t tell until you see them? And if this is the case...then the more responsible, hoped for position, is that you would actually report the range observed.

Here, if your talking about sub-classifiying the almost best from the best of the best, yes I do in many cases see a difference. I am of the opinion that I have yet to see an absolute 10. My definition of a stone having a "10" potential to my standards I believe is impossible to acheive. I anticipate that the actual appearance to the eye would be barely perceptable, as I routinely see stones that I would put in the 8 1/2 to 9 1/2 area. This opinion, of course I do report to my clients. I also discuss the reason that my opinion is based on.

2) The other idea, separate but related, is that you do specifically collude with one or ideally all of these branded purveyors, and on the logic that there is in fact repeatable performance, you could represent to your clients examples of these options in person, so as to help them understand they do have options, before making the final decision to keep the option they walk in with. Call it a public service, since you would not be selling them...just providing information. My personal hope is that the companies represented would take you to dinner once in awhile for doing so. The idea is simply to help the buyer understand better the options available to them...and as the last guy at the gate available to get advice from, before that purchase is made....wouldn''t you imagine that colluding in a process where your customer is served with substantive information about the options available to them...rather than particularly the infinitely nuanced details of the option they haven''t even committed themselves to yet...that that wouldn''t be consistent with your job as an independent appraiser available to serve your customer''s needs?

In my services, I spend a considerable amount of time, talking with the buyer of a stone, to determine what it is that he wants. The service that I provide goes much further than telling someone that the report is or isn''t correct from the major lab. While the representation of a diamond is an important consideration, I feel that to best serve those who do take advantage of what I provide is that I intensely and intimately know through extensive conversation of what they want and what they expect the stone they are sending in to be. Those who have done this, learn that I am totally dedicated and passionate about this, as I believe it is far more important that the client gets the stone he wants and expects, than merely just being graded correctly by GIA/ AGS etc.

Recently one of the internet sellers told several customers that they wouldn''t send their stones here, because I was "too tough". I asked each of these potential customers if they objected to me being that way, and each of them, said "that they appreciated that I would be tough, and were impressed that I would be that way. As far as suggesting a particular brand, I would ONLY do that if the client tells me he wants a stone with the unique characteristics that a particular brand has. I will say however, that just about every client that comes to me wants me to ediucate them as to what the "best" is and how their selection criteria relates to this. They want to know that their selection is the best for them. If that means showing them an example in order to inform them, then I do it. I do it upon their saying they want me to provide them with this information and what the differences are and how they relate the cost they might have to pay to achieve that.
It is sort of difficult to word this, and maybe I''ll come back later and edit this reply better. ( It''s early here for me as I exist on West Coast time and even though its 11am ish, I am face down in the coffee cup).

I will write more about this later on. I just received a swarm of pet rocks to do. Some of them I didn''t even know were going to arrive. Also today a client is flying in to see his pet rock and spend the better part of today with me reviewing the stone sent in by the seller. In fact I am going to pick him up at the airport early this afternoon. We''ll be "playing" with his potential pet rock most of the day and early evening.

So I''m gonna get back to the best part of my work, and pay attention to do what I do best.

More later

Rockdoc



With regards,

Ira Z.