![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
| Diamond Jewelry Forums
|
|||
|
| |
||
» Diamond Prices and Grading »
» RockyTalky
» |
|
![]() |
Cut/Color/Carat...where's the balance |
![]() |
| P: 11/17/2004 12:53:10 AM | |
UGACHL Rough Rock Total Posts: 13 Last Post: 11/29/2004 Member Since: 11/14/2004 |
Hello All, Ive been giving more sway to "cut" quality, but dont know on compromising carat/color sizes. Just looking for opinions on these: http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=3099755 http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-695991.htm http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2746263 Thanks in advance for your help! |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 12:53:10 AM | |
![]() |
There are 6 replies to this message. There are 6 replies on this page. |
![]() |
| P: 11/17/2004 2:16:43 AM | |
|
Regular Guy Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,327 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 7/7/2004 |
It's still a learning process for me. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to the theory I've presented myself...that with table and depth data in hand, consistent with what seems to pass for good enough info for most jewelers, you can make a good enough judgement about most diamonds. On the other hand, until I have more experience to go against what I've affirmatively learned here, I'd say that with the options you've suggested above, if you plug a range of .90 to 1.05 for carat weight into the search by cut quality search routine here, leaving the range of D - E for color and SI 1 for clarity, it would seem with your first choice from White Flash, you've optimized, and by some $1500. On the other hand, this ignores the two other options you'd found, and which the search by cut quality search engine doesn't pick up, because that crown & pavillion data is missing. Perhaps you can push the envelope and ask Jim at DCD if he can get that data for you, so you can compare apples to apples. Best wishes, Ira (Ruffles have Ridges) Z. |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 2:16:43 AM | |
| P: 11/17/2004 3:22:52 AM | |
|
Garry H (Cut Nut) Ideal Rock Total Posts: 11,584 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 8/16/2000 |
Better yet - if you can compare ideal-scope images - they are better final aribiters. HCA is great for rejecting known bad stones - but should not be used for 'selectiong'. Even if Jim can get you a verbal opinion of an ideal-scope image. Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 3:22:52 AM | |
| P: 11/17/2004 7:41:57 AM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Date: 11/17/2004 2:16:43 AM Author: Regular Guy I'm sympathetic to the theory I've presented myself...that with table and depth data in hand, consistent with what seems to pass for good enough info for most jewelers, Well, I am not sure about this. Aside this info on the cert, they SEE the diamonds and have a TON more experience on what to look for. The GIA cert may be suficient as sales instrument, but I bet it ain't as a buying one for the retailers... Surely jewelers look at stones and pay according to what they see. They have their experience, and us... a computer screen ![]() Besides, look at those prices. If GIA stats would be enough, why on Earth do you have 100% price variation from one stone to the other? With that range at hand, I would not jump to the conclusion that it is all in the shops' premiums and nothing about untold quality details. This would be insulting to the sellers to assume, and then... it is just the price range for a set of stats, not for each stone that goes heywire. So whoever makes the price DOES evaluate consistently some other aspects of qualty: brilliance, eye clean clarity for SIs, fluorescence, size for weight - are all accounted by both testimonies here and by price stats. Do would anyone tel you all this? Only if you ask ![]() Hope some of this makes sense... Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 7:41:57 AM | |
| P: 11/17/2004 2:26:04 PM | |
|
Regular Guy Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,327 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 7/7/2004 |
with some regrets to UGACHL (you did get my 2 cents, which I'll add to here), and not wanting to hijack this thread, this is a bit juicy.... Ira (Ruffles have Ridges) Z. |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 2:26:04 PM | |
| P: 11/17/2004 7:03:01 PM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Date: 11/17/2004 2:264 PM Author: Regular Guy Ana says: 'They have their experience, and us... a computer screen...' Well... "they" would be professional diamond buyers. The type of retailer that would buy diamonds for their stock based on what they think looks good and is sellable by obvious visual appeal. I have two reasons to imply that "experience" (= critical judgement based on visual memory of hundreds of diamonds, nothing else) is different and better than "computer screen" (= lots of technical detail, but very limited experience): For once, models are not perfect - there is always a limit to what a model can convey about it's subject. The very opperation of analysis prior to modeling limits tremendously (if not supresses) the possibility to discover new details and build a personal impression on the subject, different than what the maker of the model had in mind. And second, it seems to take quite a bit of time, attention and technical inclination to read through the various ways of presenting diamonds online. And much as I'd wish for the contrary, virtually no method conveys anything close to the visual impression of these stones. All in all, I did not have a drop ship operation in mind. Even then, I would sincerely expect anyone with the above-mentioned type of experience to outrun guessing by some basic rule of thumb (remember that "table < depth" ?) and GIA stats alone. Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 11/17/2004 7:03:01 PM | |
| P: 11/18/2004 1:01:25 AM | |
|
Regular Guy Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,327 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 7/7/2004 |
Appreciate your reply, Ana; it appears we are perhaps talking, then, at cross purposes, and not in disagreement. In fact, upon first seeing your tag line, " 'The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen.' [Souren Melikian]," I thought that was quite thoughtful. In the case of this thread, and the originator of it...UGACHL apparently used some criteria to identify these 3 diamonds to compare, and it looks like 2 of them are from virtual lists, both DCDs at this point. And, so, unless we have our wires crossed, where you say above: "...The type of retailer that would buy diamonds for their stock based on what they think looks good...," that simply doesn't apply to the circumstance at hand. They've not been chosen by a retailer for their stock, but have been identified from a list, made available through, in this case, DCD. Otherwise, the theory, as originally presented by me above ("with table and depth data in hand, consistent with what seems to pass for good enough info for most jewelers, you can make a good enough judgement about most diamonds...") while being reaffirmed here, and earlier brought forward by me here at point #3, I really do just put it up as a paper tiger, and that is the point I originally tried to make, I think....probably without the success I intended. Thanks, Ira (Ruffles have Ridges) Z. |
| Posted: 11/18/2004 1:01:25 AM | |
|
|
Next Page |
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives