- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,725
Karl- I never said conspiracy.
I do feel that when I first started here, years ago, I created a stir- that people on the other side of this discussion did not like.
Have a look at the 60/60 tutorial here on PS- it's basically a heavy handed response to my presence, many years back.
I represent an "old school" approach.
I know of no other PS trade member who has my length of time as a grader, trained the '70's, in a super active market ( NYC)
So I'm bringing a different, more traditional approach to the table.
When we had 60/60's back in the day, GIA reports did not include PA/CA- you had to look at the diamond and judge.
That same practice is still in force here in NYC when seasoned dealers are trading diamonds.
Plus, at the time I realized that this discussion was not going to be restricted to RBC's.
I knew that sellers would start to use the same methods on fancy shapes.
They're not wrong- but neither is my method.
Yet, here on PS- and on much of the internet, we have sellers encouraging folks to "look where the light is" ( re- the story I used as an example above) as opposed to looking at the reality of the diamond.
Then we got devotees of the new methodology to fiercely defend it ( CCL et al)- yet I was the only sane voice on the other side.
Remember, many of the "traditional" diamond people are not internet mavens. This left me standing alone here on PS. But not in the "real world"
Fast forward to today, and this discussion had real world impact on the way RBC's are cut.
Stones cut to hit GIA EX and look like "ideal cut" are simply cut too deep, to my eye.
The resultant loss of spread can be easily correlated.
6.5 was the minimum spread for a super well cut one carat stone in the '90's
I do feel that when I first started here, years ago, I created a stir- that people on the other side of this discussion did not like.
Have a look at the 60/60 tutorial here on PS- it's basically a heavy handed response to my presence, many years back.
This is exactly the point too.
I represent an "old school" approach.
I know of no other PS trade member who has my length of time as a grader, trained the '70's, in a super active market ( NYC)
So I'm bringing a different, more traditional approach to the table.
When we had 60/60's back in the day, GIA reports did not include PA/CA- you had to look at the diamond and judge.
That same practice is still in force here in NYC when seasoned dealers are trading diamonds.
Plus, at the time I realized that this discussion was not going to be restricted to RBC's.
I knew that sellers would start to use the same methods on fancy shapes.
They're not wrong- but neither is my method.
Yet, here on PS- and on much of the internet, we have sellers encouraging folks to "look where the light is" ( re- the story I used as an example above) as opposed to looking at the reality of the diamond.
Then we got devotees of the new methodology to fiercely defend it ( CCL et al)- yet I was the only sane voice on the other side.
Remember, many of the "traditional" diamond people are not internet mavens. This left me standing alone here on PS. But not in the "real world"
Fast forward to today, and this discussion had real world impact on the way RBC's are cut.
Stones cut to hit GIA EX and look like "ideal cut" are simply cut too deep, to my eye.
The resultant loss of spread can be easily correlated.
6.5 was the minimum spread for a super well cut one carat stone in the '90's
300x240.png)