A Big Thanks, and A Big Why

[Regular Guy]

Just a quick note to say a few (4) things:

1) First, thanks, to all of you who do really make the effect of performing something of a public service, taking the time out of your day to help those of us who try to bring into form the love and affection we have for our partner, frequently taking the form of something like a diamond purchase. I’ll name especially 5 gentleman (though, hey, where are the women!) who work hard in their livelihoods to our benefit…Garry Holloway, David Atlas, Leonid Tcharnyi, Richard Sherwood, and more recently, Neil Beatty, for whose help we do substantively benefit from on this forum.

2) Regarding the clever recent comment picked up here, regarding the famous female measurements of 36, 24, 36, with feverish efforts at foot to modify this to specify 24.1, I can only say this is probably very good humor…almost as good as the one where the joke was that…probably car dealers made diamond analogies to get their point across (vis..a…vis the “who owns the diamond question).

3) Regarding the big why….really, the question that was original for me for me now months ago is….why is cut the hidden “C.” Of course, maybe that will be corrected and specified in the coming months, and we’ll enter a new age of enlightment. But, for the past oh so many years, why does it become common and understandable knowledge to most diamond consumers that….first of all….there are 4 Cs, second of all, you can learn pretty quickly about 3 of them, and come to judge with good “relative” sensitivity which of those other Cs you want….But, when it comes to cut, there is such a lack of education?

4) Since this forum does help to supply this missing education….many thanks again!

 

[quaeritur]

To answer your #3, I think it's because the concept of cut quality is more complex, and requires more education. The other Cs are easy to explain -not so the interplay of crown and pavilion angles to someone who thinks the first is something you wear on your head and the second a place for a picnic...

I work in academia, trying to communicate climate change to the public. It's a similar dilemma. People can understand "the world is getting warmer," but good luck explaining the feedback mechanisms that cause some parts of the globe to actually get cooler!

In short, it's a relative minority that really wants this level of information. And an even smaller minority of diamond suppliers (vendors, sales associates) who are "edumacated" enough about cut themselves to be able to adequately explain it to anyone else. When your audience doesn't want that much knowledge, it becomes impractical and expensive to acquire it and pass it along.

Thanks goodness for the goodness of the knowledgeable few on PriceScope!

 

[Rank Amateur]

I think the answer to #3 is that most diamonds are pretty to the novice, even if the cut is somewhat poor. Couple that with the opportunity to attain bigger profits from selling a porly cut stone, and voila, cut becomes shape rather than quality.

 

[JohnQuixote]

RegularGuy, that’s a great “why” question.

I think quaeritur and rank give different answers which are in harmony: Yes, selling poorly cut stones for profit is rampant, but I also believe the public-at-large is comfortable operating on a “need to know” basis as regards many products.

Consider home stereos: Business is booming for large electronics chains. However, the average consumer never hears reproduced music in *true* mix and balance. If you go to a professional studio and listen to digitally mastered tracks on reference-standard equipment there is a range of frequency, depth of tone and ambient musical color that transcends description. Most consumers are not aware that this level of sound reproduction exists, and the salesman at the large electronics store will not inform them of anything other than the products in which he deals.

Now, just like well-cut or superideal diamonds, these “superideal” brands of high-fi equipment (brands like Bang & Olufson and McIntosh) are only available in specialty shops. And, just like well-cut diamonds, they may command a higher premium than the average joe wants to pay.

For most, an “average" stereo is fine. Serious audiophiles seek out sound equipment of the most superb quality. Similarly, many couples will be happy with commercial diamonds - but for those happily obsessive or studious folks who wind up reading Pricescope, this level of education and high quality would seem the only way to go.

 

[Regular Guy]

The question of why certainly inspires analogies of all kinds. The galling thing to me is the extreme level of the irony concerning this fourth C.

It’s as though all these hardware stores are selling hammers of different varieties and price points, and there is a literal misperception of the function of the item. As a result, vendors spend time detailing the varieties of graining on the wood of the handle, and shoppers become savvy about whether they are investing in oak or mahogany or pine, with no appropriate attention given to the ability of the tool to drive a nail. Likewise, with diamonds, although clarity and color effect the beauty of a diamond, it is the beauty of a diamond that makes it the item to be valued that it is, and the cut will effect its beauty more than any other characteristic.

Associated with this, I see: A) contributing elements, and B) implications

A) Contributing elements:

1) The tools for measuring. This becomes extremely important, and allows the shopper to have an influence in the process. While securing my first diamond, I had the language of ideal, knew what I wanted, but without either the knowledge that crown & pavilion angles were so important, and the ability to do my own proof testing, using some appropriate tool, like HCA, or perhaps an idealscope, I had both no control nor any substantive insight to bring to bear on choices I was making.

2) Changing technology: John, you use the analogy of music. I’ve noted in the last 15 years one thing…the cost of watts per channel coming way down. Gary Holloway has talked about improvements in cutting of diamonds over a similar period of time.

3) Availability of information: Pricescope, just like the news media in general, when being able to shine light and make known what was unknown previously, will help to catalyze understanding to a good purpose.

4) The priesthood: these are the graders, the appraisers, gemologists, who do make the decision to become experts in this field, and study extensively. As with many similar disciplines, where experts have an opportunity to go in one direction rather than another…I don’t think it is out of ill intent, usually….but somehow, the choice of direction to go in….can give one pause….for the missed opportunity. Apparently, for example, although you can spend many thousands of dollars for a color grade set, with the intent of, for example, proofing what may be documented on a cert, and this is seen routinely as of value among appraisers, the equivalent investment in related technology for measuring crown and pavilion angles is not only not always appreciated and assumed by appraisers….it is foreign sounding to so many sales people, where the rubber really meets the road.

B) Implications

1) Proofs for Anthropology….what they say is true, that the tools a caveman had allowed him to become us
2) Implications for PublicPolicy, and a vote for benevolent government: If GIA’s description of the paradigm sets up the rules of the game, look what a decision by them (and, aka, the implication of the value of of a benevolent government altogether) could have for the quality of life for the man on the street
3) The value of the media, and entitites like Pricescope: Really, I guess it’s laid down in the history (which I’m not a student of), but why GIA has not done this already with respect to cut is something of a puzzlement. In institutions of all kinds, from grocery stores to department stores, buyers understand the idea of price point, and that you have to pay more to get higher value. So, the existence of an accepted and widely used grading system for cut, instituted by GIA, will have a profound effect on many people. Perhaps it is only entitities like Pricescope, and public attention, which is successfully pushing GIA to do this.

 

[Hest88]

What Quaeritur said. It's easier to sell someone on something as simple as color, clarity, and carat than it is to go through the intricacies of cut. Thus, the industry goes the easy route.

I'm in the process of looking for my 2nd digicam right now. Before I bought my first one I did a ton of research and discovered that anyone who knew anything about digicams knew that greater pixel size was basically meaningless unless you were planning on blowing up something to poster size. When it comes to super small sub-compact cameras the greater pixel size can even be a detriment to picture quality. Yet, the concept takes some explanation, so what are camera manufacturers doing? Touting camera with greater and greater pixels because most consumers who *don't* bother researching think that a 5 megapixel camera *must* give better pictures than a 3. It's just like how most consumers think that you need a VVS1 when in many cases a SI1 works just as well because it's *easy* to understand.

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
2) Changing technology: John, you use the analogy of music. I’ve noted in the last 15 years one thing…the cost of watts per channel coming way down. Gary Holloway has talked about improvements in cutting of diamonds over a similar period of time.
----------------

Regular Guy,

Excellent correlation. The relentless advance of solid-state and digital technology (replacing tube and analog in many cases) has caused wattage to be used more efficiently,just as advanced measuring tools like Sarin and analysis like IdealScope/HCA provide acute feedback on diamond cut to consumer and cutter alike.

Appreciate your comments.