Are we too elitist & doing 99% of newbies a disservice?

[MissGotRocks]

Between a great stone and a perfect one? I think it is fine to differentiate between them — but, I think it is important to know what the individual consumer is looking for. Not everyone buying a new car cares to buy a Lamborghini even if they could afford it. A lot of people would rather save some money and buy a Porsche.

A lot of people come here and say ‘here’s my budget, I want the best stone I can for that money’ and it is rightful to send them towards super ideals. But a lot of people are happy with the largest stone they can get that’s eye clean/white/sparkly and would rather not spend more than they have to.

Yes, and I do understand your point. However, the dilemma comes in trying to find what you might consider eye clean, white and sparkly within your budget. You and I might have completely different expectations of that very diamond. It is hard to recommend a stone that I am not completely sure of and I would hate for anyone to spend their money on something recommended that they wouldn't love. I traded in an AGS0 diamond for an ACA and while I could definitely say they were both white and eye clean, the ACA blew that AGS0 away in terms of sparkle. So my personal experience has been that there can be a lot of difference between a great stone and a super ideal and of course, that colors my opinion. There are many stones that could be considered great performers based on their numbers but to wholeheartedly know that they would be would take a great leap of faith on my part. I usually hesitate to do so for that reason.

 

[CSpan]

As Kenny says "people vary" I don't think we have ever diamond wise catered to the differences in these preferences well. We do it a lot better over on the CS forum ie present people with a range of cuts (including not perfectly cut stones and not top coloured stones) in a MUCH wider range of prices.

My two cents, the CS forum will alao guide you to a lab stone if that is truly the best option. The forum jumping is oftentimes incongruous but I totally get why. I do sometimes wish more CS posters would come over.

That said I am all for removing "fashion" as someone pointed out.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Would this be tied into the possibly still being considered “Pricescope Guaranty” program that was suggested earlier by admin?
Or is this a thought provoking question looking to reform current PSers participation in the threads of those looking for help in sourcing?

Thought provoking Rf. Just popped into my head as I saw several recommendations etc and of course I have thought it for a long time.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry is exploring whether it makes sense to broaden his product/service so that he can better penetrate the other 99% out there. From a business perspective, it makes complete sense that he's asking the question.

It is a business case, for sure TOD. But having spent more money than I have made from my cut quality and PS pursuits, I think I can say it is also an altruistic desire to imporve the quality of diamonds and fix some really bad structural things in how diamonds look.
Paul wants every one to buy the best cut diamonds.
I would be happy first off to stop people who want a 'good enough' diamond from buying frozen spit and dull as dishwater.
Sergey has done more than anyone I know in this field from the manufacturing side, but getting traction is appallingly hopless.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Distracts I think you captured everything I am trying to question in your post.

I think the problem is that helping the masses safely buy a diamond WITHOUT giving the over-the-top and complex advice is just not very interesting, and therefore PS won't keep people around for free to do it. We'd just be doing a quick search, picking a diamond, and sharing it - which isn't why most of us are here. If we wanted to just do a quick search, pick a diamond, and tell someone to buy it, we'd probably all be starting websites like diamondpro where we could earn money for referrals.

So yeah, I do kind of think PS is doing 99% of newbies a disservice, but I also think if PS concentrated on that 99%, they'd lose the regulars that enable the forum to continue due to whatever the forum equivalent of institutional knowledge is, which is what enables the forum to be actively useful to anyone, and interesting enough for anyone to stick around.

I also think if you are saying less than 1% of visitors sign up rather than less than 0.1% of visitors sign up, PS is doing pretty well in terms of conversion. Way, way, WAY more people will visit and leave than visit and read, and way, way, WAY more people will visit and read than visit and post, and way, way, WAY more people will visit and post than visit and stay. And that's totally normal for any internet site.

I DO think PSers could be more respectful if someone wants to work with their specific vendor/local jeweler, or wants a shape that isn't an RB, or wants something weird, or wants a specific brand that we maybe don't recommend, and could try to recommend stock settings way more than going custom. I've seen a lot of people having total meltdowns over custom lately because they jumped right into custom work when they were absolutely not ready for it, and moreover jumped right into custom work with a vendor who I love but who is really, really for those of us who want total creative control with no one else's vision interfering. And I think PS DEFINITELY did all those users a disservice, and not also those users but also the vendors, who have in several cases had to remake rings, due to what I think is no fault of their own. I don't think that if I were a jewelry maker, I would be so generous as to remake a ring for someone for no extra charge or at cost or even at a discount when the only reason the ring needs to be remade is that the customer did not know what they wanted.

AND ABSOLUTELY no one should EVER advise anyone to go outside their budget.

I spent a couple of years away from PS until coming back this summer - and honestly I found in the meantime the advice people are giving seems to have degraded. It's less personal, more technical/jargony, people are less often recommending "good enough" diamonds and instead getting increasingly dogmatic, stock settings are recommended MUCH less, the vendor pool has shrunk, and users are more frequently getting pushed outside their budgets. It is SIGNIFICANTLY more insular than it was a few years ago.

I don't know how to fix that. I think part of the cause is that a few of the posters who were most helpful and specifically most helpful in the ways that are currently missing have "gone pro." And they have not been replaced by others with that level of technical knowledge AND social skills AND empathy. Like I can help people pretty well with colored stones and fancies, I think, and with settings - but quite frankly, I don't wish to discuss the merits of Si1 over Si2 or clouds vs feathers or a 36.5 vs 36.6 crown angle or whatever all day, I'd literally rather roll myself right off the edge of a cliff because that at least would be interesting. I'm definitely more of a "good enough" person than a "it must be 100% perfect in every way" person, and PS needs more "good enough" people but also more "good enough" people WITH the technical knowledge, so that they can explain something like "this is good enough but this is why it might have decreased performance compared to a super ideal but this is why that may not matter to you."

Like I remember the day when people intentionally looked for GIA "Very Goods" that scored well on the HCA - something that we are absolutely told not to do nowadays, though I recall several very beautiful diamonds that fit that category.

I think you nailed it (and maybe Sergey agrees too)
"I spent a couple of years away from PS until coming back this summer - and honestly I found in the meantime the advice people are giving seems to have degraded. It's less personal, more technical/jargony, people are less often recommending "good enough" diamonds and instead getting increasingly dogmatic, stock settings are recommended MUCH less, the vendor pool has shrunk, and users are more frequently getting pushed outside their budgets. It is SIGNIFICANTLY more insular than it was a few years ago."

Maybe 1% registration is OK? But lurkers must think we are too passionate and too narrow about numbers.

 

[distracts]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) The main problems I see with PS that I know how to solve are 1. it's hard for newbies to find information about vendors and 2. whenever anybody has a negative review about a beloved vendor, there's a pile-on.

Both of these have an easy solution: a revamp of the little-used "Pricescope Testimonials" subsection. Change it to something like "Reviews" with a thread for each vendor (so they're easy to find), and ONLY reviews are allowed in the thread - NO replies to reviews. This way people can post something negative without a huge pile-on. I had a heck of a time finding out WHAT people's problems with CVB were when I was considering her for a custom project earlier this year, because people were afraid to post because everyone who loves her comes out of the woodwork to defend her. So this would get two birds with one stone. Reviews on vendors would be easy to find and it would be very easy to see which are more recent since they'd be at the end of the thread (and not an old thread bumped-up), you wouldn't need to go search multiple places so it would be very easy for newbies, it would be easy for PSers to link to, and we'd get more honest reviews because people would have less fear of being attacked and having their experience questioned.

The Testimonials section is pretty annoying to navigate because there's a thread for each review rather than a thread for each vendor, which would be WAY more organized and easy to understand. It seems pretty much unused.

That's my number one piece of advice for how to improve PS. I think it's pretty easy to implement, might need a bit more modding work to make sure no one inappropriately replies and remove any replies that aren't new reviews, but I think it would solve A LOT of the problems I see. And pricescopers and generally pretty good about adhering to rules when we know what they are.

I know there are private facebook groups with PSers where people discuss things more honestly but no one has invited me to one (hint hint, those of you who have my email or facebook info).

 

[yssie]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) The main problems I see with PS that I know how to solve are 1. it's hard for newbies to find information about vendors and 2. whenever anybody has a negative review about a beloved vendor, there's a pile-on.

Both of these have an easy solution: a revamp of the little-used "Pricescope Testimonials" subsection. Change it to something like "Reviews" with a thread for each vendor (so they're easy to find), and ONLY reviews are allowed in the thread - NO replies to reviews. This way people can post something negative without a huge pile-on. I had a heck of a time finding out WHAT people's problems with CVB were when I was considering her for a custom project earlier this year, because people were afraid to post because everyone who loves her comes out of the woodwork to defend her. So this would get two birds with one stone. Reviews on vendors would be easy to find and it would be very easy to see which are more recent since they'd be at the end of the thread (and not an old thread bumped-up), you wouldn't need to go search multiple places so it would be very easy for newbies, it would be easy for PSers to link to, and we'd get more honest reviews because people would have less fear of being attacked and having their experience questioned.

The Testimonials section is pretty annoying to navigate because there's a thread for each review rather than a thread for each vendor, which would be WAY more organized and easy to understand. It seems pretty much unused.

That's my number one piece of advice for how to improve PS. I think it's pretty easy to implement, might need a bit more modding work to make sure no one inappropriately replies and remove any replies that aren't new reviews, but I think it would solve A LOT of the problems I see. And pricescopers and generally pretty good about adhering to rules when we know what they are.

I love this idea.

 

[yssie]

@distracts One unsoliticited opinion: the private FB pages aren't worth your time. I left all three that I was part of several months ago. There's little technical discussion, certainly nothing that isn't represented far more thoroughly and equitably here on PS - what technical discussion there is is usually a hugely dumbed down summary of some current RT or CS thread. I found they're all mostly just gossip-mongering - there's no honesty beyond the sort of dramatic angsting that people would be embarrassed to post in public. And you're a really valuable contributor here on RT and CS, I would hate for PS to share your time with that nonsense.

I have exceedingly little patience for social media in general though. I find it generally brings out the worst in people.

 

[distracts]

@distracts One unsoliticited opinion: the private FB pages aren't worth your time. I left all three that I was part of several months ago. There's little technical discussion, certainly nothing that isn't represented far more thoroughly and equitably here on PS - what technical discussion there is is usually a hugely dumbed down summary of some current RT or CS thread. I found they're all mostly just gossip-mongering - there's no honesty beyond the sort of dramatic angsting that people would be embarrassed to post in public. And you're a really valuable contributor here on RT and CS, I would hate for PS to share your time with that nonsense.

I have exceedingly little patience for social media in general though. I find it generally brings out the worst in people.

Very good to know! I only know about them from oblique comments on PS.

Awww thank you for the compliment! I mostly feel UNhelpful but it is probably because I'm always comparing myself to Gypsy, who I consider the gold standard, lol.

 

[prs]

It would be make for a whole lot less confusion if the question asked in the title of the thread matched the question asked in the poll.

I don't know how many people answered the thread question in the poll, but those who did entered the wrong answer!!!

 

[distracts]

Distracts I think you captured everything I am trying to question in your post.

I think you nailed it (and maybe Sergey agrees too)
"I spent a couple of years away from PS until coming back this summer - and honestly I found in the meantime the advice people are giving seems to have degraded. It's less personal, more technical/jargony, people are less often recommending "good enough" diamonds and instead getting increasingly dogmatic, stock settings are recommended MUCH less, the vendor pool has shrunk, and users are more frequently getting pushed outside their budgets. It is SIGNIFICANTLY more insular than it was a few years ago."

Maybe 1% registration is OK? But lurkers must think we are too passionate and too narrow about numbers.

It's funny - I was typing my other comment as you posted this so I didn't see it until after I posted. Unfortunately these problems I'm not entirely sure how to solve - how did the people who knew the good info before gain their knowledge? I help with fancies and settings and colored stones because I feel like I have reasonable confidence with those things because I only have to use my eyes, but once it gets to a round diamond I'm like, use the PS search to filter by HCA, or go to one of the vendors directly and filter by their top cut quality (unless they're a superideal vendor, in which case filter by in-house stones), and then just pick one that fits your budget and color choice, check that there's not a big black inclusion across the face (I personally am totally fine with clear inclusions anywhere, maybe because I am more colored gemstone-oriented where inclusions are pretty normal), and you're done, and it's not really that complicated to me - but maybe I'm not super picky? I have heard from multiple vendors that I'm way more easygoing than others they work with. Which is HILARIOUS to me to hear because I am a very high-strung and anxious person in general in life. I just want pretty good-looking jewelry with interesting gems at reasonable prices and good quality.

I don't always know if my input is the kind of input people are looking for because when everyone else is recommending "this is the BEST and you WANT THE BEST" and I'm like "meh, you'd be fine with a stock setting and good enough, it'll still be better looking than 95% of diamonds you'll encounter" and I feel like the odd man out.

I remember Gypsy used to have a little questionnaire she would post for diamond-seekers to fill out about what they wanted. I'm not entirely sure but I think maybe she had a word file of her common answers to copy and paste to people, which ensured kind of consistent advice about the absolute basics got into each thread without everyone having to type it out. Literally just in the past two weeks I've been thinking that I need to do that.

I also think on the vendor side we used to get a lot of good educational videos from @Rhino but I don't see him around anymore and if he's posting educational videos like he did at GOG, I don't know about them. Things like the color comparison from the side and faceup videos were very, very good, and videos about the difference between types of cuts in different lighting. I have seen other educational diamond videos on youtube but most of them have WAY more filler and stuff I don't need than his did. He didn't usually bother with, like, sitting at a table and somberly explaining things to us - he just got to the good stuff!

 

[lissyflo]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) Both of these have an easy solution: a revamp of the little-used "Pricescope Testimonials" subsection. Change it to something like "Reviews" with a thread for each vendor (so they're easy to find), and ONLY reviews are allowed in the thread - NO replies to reviews. This way people can post something negative without a huge pile-on. I had a heck of a time finding out WHAT people's problems with CVB were when I was considering her for a custom project earlier this year, because people were afraid to post because everyone who loves her comes out of the woodwork to defend her. So this would get two birds with one stone. Reviews on vendors would be easy to find and it would be very easy to see which are more recent since they'd be at the end of the thread (and not an old thread bumped-up), you wouldn't need to go search multiple places so it would be very easy for newbies, it would be easy for PSers to link to, and we'd get more honest reviews because people would have less fear of being attacked and having their experience questioned.

The Testimonials section is pretty annoying to navigate because there's a thread for each review rather than a thread for each vendor, which would be WAY more organized and easy to understand. It seems pretty much unused.

This is an absolutely fantastic idea. It would be incredibly helpful to be able to see a full range of comments about a vendor in one place, along with the trend in those comments over time.

Maybe there could be some kind of electronic prompt pop-up if someone starts a new SMTB thread, so remind them of the testimonials section - I think part of the problem at the moment is that it feels like double-posting to do a reveal thread and a testimonial, so lots of people don’t add comments to the review section. But a more purely factual section, with no responses, would make researching vendors so much easier - like a PS pivot table, to slice the data different ways.

Great idea @distracts!

 

[distracts]

This is an absolutely fantastic idea. It would be incredibly helpful to be able to see a full range of comments about a vendor in one place, along with the trend in those comments over time.

Maybe there could be some kind of electronic prompt pop-up if someone starts a new SMTB thread, so remind them of the testimonials section - I think part of the problem at the moment is that it feels like double-posting to do a reveal thread and a testimonial, so lots of people don’t add comments to the review section. But a more purely factual section, with no responses, would make researching vendors so much easier - like a PS pivot table, to slice the data different ways.

Great idea @distracts!

I came up with this a month or so ago on a CS thread and it's been percolating in my mind ever since. There should probably be some sort of form sticked to the top like date of interaction/purchase (not every interaction that ends up with a review will lead to a purchase), guiding questions/prompts, etc, basically a guideline for people who may want to leave a review but aren't sure what to say. I'm very tired now so can't think of what exactly would be good, but I think DEFINITELY the date of the interaction(s) being discussed should be included so that, like, if someone posts a review that contains negative info, and a bunch of fans post positive reviews, if they're from, like, purchases three years ago, we know that. (I am assuming PSers are and will be honest, which is my general take on everyone here. I can see from this post and several others that some think we're all shills.) But generally I suspect that it would be pretty much chronological order for reviews, so people could quickly jump to the end to see the most recent, and PS regulars could have a better way to assess how a vendor might be changing over time, which could be useful to advice-giving.

And yeah - I feel like it's kind of unnecessary to go to Testimonials with the way it currently works, since my process posts and SMTB posts (which link the process posts) cover all that. But if each vendor had their own thread, I would ABSOLUTELY go leave a review and link my posts there.

 

[AV_]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) What is called 'good enough' is not. I agree that advised numbers are too narrow & this makes the so called great not good enough.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Paul wants every one to buy the best cut diamonds.
I would be happy first off to stop people who want a 'good enough' diamond from buying frozen spit and dull as dishwater.

Hi Garry,

You are putting words in my mouth, and I disagree. Essentially, there is little difference between what you or I want.

Despite you having brought forward education debunking specific errors in the system of the 3 C's, you essentially still are stuck in that 3C-system, when you are aiming for 'good enough'. When you wish to make PS less 'elitist' (in your words) and improve the education and advice given, that is where it starts though.

I want to call for an absolute respect for a consumer's budget. Let's face it, pushing consumers into a difficult-to-defend budget is never doing them a favor.

But I do also call for Sparkle (as in Fire and Scintillation) to be the first aim to achieve. I do believe it is the main desire of most consumers, and we (the industry at large and PS to a big extent) are delaying that desire until other matters are settled. To be clear, we first deal with the other C's, Carat weight as if it is the same as apparent size, Color and Clarity with subtle differences having enormous price-consequences. In essence, we are already determining most of the use of the consumer's budget before approaching the basic desire the consumer wants satisfied.

My point is thus that we are failing to meet consumer-desires. If we want to be more meaningful, we must respect true consumer-desires.

In that sense, I cringe when I see diamonds in analogies being compared to cars, with Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche and Chevrolet often popping up. I am sorry, but when buying a car, the basic consumer-desire probably is not owning a car, but solving a transport-need, going from point A to B, in the most efficient and comfortable way. You may have that 'perfect' Lamborghini, then have problems parking, not to mention the cost and maintenance. Automatically thinking about a car as the solution is the same as automatically thinking about Carat weight, Color and Clarity as the main first problems to tackle. The solution may just as well be no car and using Uber all the time, or a more practical, decent car like a Volkswagen, Audi or Volvo, or indeed a super-car like a Ferrari and such.

In the same way, with diamonds, looking at solving the desire for Sparkle first, the result may be a diamond with slightly lower Carat weigth, a different Color or Clarity, just as well as accepting that one is stuck in the industry-brainwashing of the 3C's and one thus accepts 'good enough' in Sparkle.

Thus, no, I do not want everyone to buy the best cut diamonds. That is never going to happen anyway. I do want them to make a better informed decision, with respect for their true consumer-desires, not for what the industry wants them to believe.

In this, I think that you and I are on the same page. You for instance years ago produced the best ever method to debunk the myth of Carat weight, and I applaud you for that. I am looking for overlap thus, not for incorrect distinction between both our desires.

Live long,

 

[elizat]

The big issue I have always had is that not everyone (shock horror) wants a triple ex cut super Ideal diamond. Some people actually prefer spready diamonds with big tables and a LOT of people that turn up here and out in the real world simply want more bang for the buck ie the biggest diamond they can get for x amount and will never shell out for a super Ideal versus something that is larger. To be blunt they don't care, and will never care about the HCA.

The only thing many people care about is having something that looks BIG and sparkly on the hand, something they can show off to everyone, rather than a triple ex cut, and that is just how it is.

As Kenny says "people vary" I don't think we have ever diamond wise catered to the differences in these preferences well.

I agree with this. I don't enjoy reading a lot of the threads on modern rounds because it is all about the numbers and if it's .05 off its not advisable, etc. I think if I was looking for a mrb, I'd be confused and frustrated.

I also do think there is a huge push for CBI and ACA stones. Most people just don't want to get hosed at Zales. I think the focus on perfection- which I wonder if the perfect numbers will change in the future with technology growth, makes picking a mrb very clinical.

 

[MissGotRocks]

But the devil is in the details of diamond cut. And the slight variances in numbers can have a major impact on diamond performance. We would probably all love to say that nah, it doesn't make that much of a difference but it does. First time diamond buyers - just as we all were at one time - don't understand this and I am sure have some difficulty wading through all of it. However, if they want a beautiful stone, it is often worth it and experienced posters here can certainly help. If folks were content choosing a diamond at the mall stores or a jewelry store, they probably wouldn't have logged on here in the first place.
We are all different and of course all have different criteria with budget being a large one. Saying that you want the biggest, sparkly diamond that your budget will allow is sometimes a hard order to fill. In taste tests, folks have been surprised by either how color/clarity sensitive or insensitive they really are when it comes to diamonds. Presuming to know exactly what will make a particular person happy is just hard to know. Seasoned posters try to ferret out some of the attributes that they want the poster to think about to help them reach a decision. It may seem boring and pointless to some but to others they welcome the chance to learn all they can.
The push for the super ideal stones often come from posters who have acquired such a thing and truly appreciate them for what they are. Often they will recommend to soften criteria on size, color and clarity to reach that pinnacle of performance. I honestly don't think they intend to 'push' them as the best or nothing as has been described here but floating them as another option is just expanding the field of choice. Many posters spend lots of time here helping and advising others; they receive nothing for it but the good feeling to see someone come back and be truly happy for the diamond they chose - regardless of what it is. I think they are getting a bad rap here as being redundant or elitist - most all of them just want to help someone with a very expensive, often lifelong item they are trying to purchase. If you don't like the advice, you can always exit with just a mouse click. Getting out of a jewelry store isn't always that easy - lol!!
I think this thread has produced lots of food for thought and we can only hope that moving forward we will all be a bit better for it!

 

[arkieb1]

@distracts - on the one hand having been involved in a pile on years ago over negative stuff I wrote about a certain vendor I agree with you, on the other some PSers are VERY hard to please, I can think of a few people that moan and whine about things that wouldn't bother others. And the vendor I had a run in with has been known to get friends and family members to post excess positive reviews and appear here under multiple names attacking anyone that doesn't like his work (the guy is a bleep) - so yes there probably should be reviews but I'm not sure that all of them will be valid.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The entire idea of “good enough” can be taken many ways.

As one example- many potential clients ask for VS or better- based on the fact that a lot of things written online suggest SI graded diamonds necessarily look “worse” than VS graded stones. But for many buyers SI is a perfect fit - as opposed to “good enough”
I find that PS has really improved in this area- to the benefit of consumers.

Discussions of cut here go way deeper than many people need. There’s little doubt that the influence of “Super Ideal” can dominate here in a way that will not allow for alternatives. I agree - Super Ideals are great. But any suggestion that other sorts of looks are equally beautiful to some observers has gotten me attacked more times than I can count. In terms of RBC, it’s a moot point.
The 60/60 train left the station many years ago. Virtually every new RBC we see is cut to mimic Super Ideal- at the expense of spread. As is pointed out here all the time, GIA “Triple Ex” doesn’t guarantee very much anymore.

But this bleeds into other shapes too.
What is “Performance” in terms of diamonds?
If we use a formula where “Sparkle” as defined above by Paul is the prime objective, the answer always points in one direction. What about emerald cut lovers?
For this reason, the term “Performance “ is really out of place in a discussion of cut.
I think this is part of what bugs Serg. How can a cutter innovate new designs if she’s handcuffed into preconceived notions of cut?

 

[oldminer]

I'd like to believe that Pricescope could be of real interest to a far larger percentage of the diamond audience than the 1% who register. My own experience in business and in speaking engagements indicates a much larger of a percentage of the public are really interested in the complexities of selecting a good looking diamond that is fairly priced. They may not appreciate the nuances of the 1% who want every bit of data and all the perfection possible, but they do want to know much more than what many retailers are able or willing to tell them. This is what I have seen as the role of Pricescope for nearly 20 years. Pricescope has evolved. The core of information has grown immensely over that time. The advice often has become more technical and precise while for many this inhibits basic communication of what consumers really want or need to understand. My own goal is to keep the advice understandable and to be a filter for good consumers who want to make good choices. Not everyone wants or is able to buy the best cut diamonds, but everyone wants to avoid diamonds which have appearance and performance problems which visually impact their beauty and utility.

Pricescope should encourage dealers to post available diamonds with all the photos, details and facts technically savvy consumers demand. Participants should help consumers who need assistance to find good deals and a diamond they will really love even if they don't want to get into the engineering side of each stone. That's the essence of this community process. Pricescope should serve a large group of people. The tiny percentage who choose to register could be greatly increased not only giving technical advice, but by giving correctly constructed, but less complex advice and assistance to the majority who can't digest the science of diamonds, but want to buy one or more for other reasons.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

....Thus, no, I do not want everyone to buy the best cut diamonds. That is never going to happen anyway. I do want them to make a better informed decision, with respect for their true consumer-desires, not for what the industry wants them to believe.

In this, I think that you and I are on the same page. You for instance years ago produced the best ever method to debunk the myth of Carat weight, and I applaud you for that. I am looking for overlap thus, not for incorrect distinction between both our desires.

Live long,

@Paul's thoughts get the to crux of my own.

While the branded diamonds are constantly used as comparison, and set as 'an ideal' on the forum, we at B2C get many customers who have used PS as a means to be educated. Our call center often gets customers who have found a diamond through the search engine - or our website - and refer to things that are 'PS-centric.'

The requests for HCA score and ASET or I-S images is at a continual increase year-over-year for us. Some of the "99%" who do not post are certainly among these customers. I am certain you would find the same trend among any of the internet vendors (and perhaps local B&Ms) world-wide.

Often-times these consumers have a specific (not necessarily small) budget and enjoy the challenge or thrill of finding the 'best deal' they could after short-listing half a dozen or more diamonds - often using the HCA & light-performance images.

Sometimes these consumers return to PS and post their chosen options, other times not. Over the past decade, the practice has gotten to be so common we have evolved many of our customer-service specialists far beyond the ability to read a lab report, and cite return and upgrade policy; they are trained to specifically talk about the HCA, ASET, I-S, Hearts and Arrows, optical symmetry etc... We never send out a diamond that has not been independently verified by a gemologist to suit costumer desires (as a matter of fact the standards for eye-clean, light-performance, and other factors, has resulted in an increasing number of calls to the consumer stating that we do NOT recommend a particular diamond they have short-listed)

To that end, while the posts and advice tends to push for the very best light performance, and purchases of the 'known quantity' of the branded stones, we find consumers - who you may never even know were here - taking that knowledge and (as Paul states here) making a better informed decision.

And to clarify: That decision is NOT always for the best ASET. It is often for an increase in carat weight even with some leakage, for an eye-clean SI that they may have otherwise ignored, for an H color when they started out wanting only D-F, etc... Though the emphasis on PS can be perceived as "elitist" or "Intimidating" - it has been my experience that the 99% of non-posters are, perhaps more than anyone realizes, benefiting from the knowledge they find here.

 

[TODiamonds]

Hi Garry,

You are putting words in my mouth, and I disagree. Essentially, there is little difference between what you or I want.

Despite you having brought forward education debunking specific errors in the system of the 3 C's, you essentially still are stuck in that 3C-system, when you are aiming for 'good enough'. When you wish to make PS less 'elitist' (in your words) and improve the education and advice given, that is where it starts though.

I want to call for an absolute respect for a consumer's budget. Let's face it, pushing consumers into a difficult-to-defend budget is never doing them a favor.

But I do also call for Sparkle (as in Fire and Scintillation) to be the first aim to achieve. I do believe it is the main desire of most consumers, and we (the industry at large and PS to a big extent) are delaying that desire until other matters are settled. To be clear, we first deal with the other C's, Carat weight as if it is the same as apparent size, Color and Clarity with subtle differences having enormous price-consequences. In essence, we are already determining most of the use of the consumer's budget before approaching the basic desire the consumer wants satisfied.

My point is thus that we are failing to meet consumer-desires. If we want to be more meaningful, we must respect true consumer-desires.

In that sense, I cringe when I see diamonds in analogies being compared to cars, with Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche and Chevrolet often popping up. I am sorry, but when buying a car, the basic consumer-desire probably is not owning a car, but solving a transport-need, going from point A to B, in the most efficient and comfortable way. You may have that 'perfect' Lamborghini, then have problems parking, not to mention the cost and maintenance. Automatically thinking about a car as the solution is the same as automatically thinking about Carat weight, Color and Clarity as the main first problems to tackle. The solution may just as well be no car and using Uber all the time, or a more practical, decent car like a Volkswagen, Audi or Volvo, or indeed a super-car like a Ferrari and such.

In the same way, with diamonds, looking at solving the desire for Sparkle first, the result may be a diamond with slightly lower Carat weigth, a different Color or Clarity, just as well as accepting that one is stuck in the industry-brainwashing of the 3C's and one thus accepts 'good enough' in Sparkle.

Thus, no, I do not want everyone to buy the best cut diamonds. That is never going to happen anyway. I do want them to make a better informed decision, with respect for their true consumer-desires, not for what the industry wants them to believe.

In this, I think that you and I are on the same page. You for instance years ago produced the best ever method to debunk the myth of Carat weight, and I applaud you for that. I am looking for overlap thus, not for incorrect distinction between both our desires.

Live long,

You've made some great points Paul and I enjoy the passion you have for your craft. It really comes out in your responses.

Having said that, I think there is a fundamental flaw in one of your assumptions that is causing you to miss the forest for the trees. You seem to think think "Sparkle" is the priority for the consumer - and your belief is that if consumer was educated about "Sparkle" they themselves would choose that over the other 3Cs (even an untrained kid - to use your words).

So there's where the rubber hits the road. I'll leave you with my own personal experience on this - and I assure you I'm thoroughly educated on cut seeing as how I'm one of the 99% who've been lurking here for years before finally registering. I spent 5 months shopping for an engagement stone. In addition to scouring the online suppliers, I saw hundreds of stones in person - independent jewelers, high end retailers, crappy malls, you name it. I needed to SEE ACTUAL STONES IN PERSON (something a shockingly high % of online shoppers have never done). Why is this important? Because only by seeing stones in person can you determine whether paying more for a "super ideal" is worth the $ to YOU.

During some of these trips I also brought several discerning, fashionable, female friends to gauge their personal tastes. Armed with all my knowledge about CUT, the internal debate that was raging on for me was whether to spend my hard earned $ on the absolute best cut (ie: "superideal" proportions as you marketers have coined them - 55-57T, <62D, 34.5C, 40.8P, etc etc), or "good enough" cut with bigger size. The latter stone was not materially bigger (that wouldn't be a fair fight), but noticeable to the naked eye.

Here's what my friends observations were - the difference "Sparkle" was noticeable most of the times. Without me educating them at all about cut, just them looking at the stones and moving them around, usually (but not always), they knew which one was better cut. They also knew which one was "good enough cut" but bigger - that was much easier. Guess which one they chose Paul? 9/10 times - guess which one they chose?

When my fiance (and practically every other woman who just gets engaged) shows off her stone to their friends, what do you think the reaction is? Do you think they say "wow look at the sparkle and cut of that stone!"... or "wow that is a HUGE ROCK!"?

You are operating on a fundamentally flawed assumption about consumer desire.

 

[whitewave]

You've made some great points Paul and I enjoy the passion you have for your craft. It really comes out in your responses.

When my fiance (and practically every other woman who just gets engaged) shows off her stone to their friends, what do you think the reaction is? Do you think they say "wow look at the sparkle and cut of that stone!"... or "wow that is a HUGE ROCK!"?

You are operating on a fundamentally flawed assumption about consumer desire.

Honestly, you underestimate what women say to other women when they show off an engagement ring. Even if it’s frozen spit, we say “wow, look how big” or things like that.

“Wow, that is a huge rock” is not necessarily a compliment (sorry). It’s an obvious statement that can be made in order to avoid negative comments said to a happy woman.

When women ask for you to take off your ring so they can look at it more closely and play with it and ask about it, that is a compliment. (Asked of me at saints game last weekend)

When they say, “tell me why your stone is so sparkly” (said to me at a party), that is a compliment.

When they say, “wow, I was just blinded by your diamond.” That is a compliment. (Said to me at an art function)

Wow, your stone is big means exactly that. She has a big stone. It isn’t necessarily a compliment, and it can be a clever way to avoid having to lie.


(Spoken in general terms and not of your fiancee’s diamond, which I am not familiar with)

 

[whitewave]

...Wanted to add, we have certainly seen women here who want large size, even clarity enhanced etc. I acknowledge some women want size above all and that is her prerogative to desire.

 

[Dancing Fire]

When my fiance (and practically every other woman who just gets engaged) shows off her stone to their friends, what do you think the reaction is? Do you think they say "wow look at the sparkle and cut of that stone!"... or "wow that is a HUGE ROCK!"?

You are operating on a fundamentally flawed assumption about consumer desire.

If that is the case then go on Ebay and buy a 6ct salt & pepper stone.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi All,

I woke up this morning knowing this would be an active thread. I didn't yet read all the new comments so if I repeat what someone else has written please forgive me.

I agree with Rock Diamond in saying that this a valuable website for consumers. In general helpers can loosen up their strict self-imposed guidelines when suggesting a diamond. I think that's the easy part. So, I'm going to proceed with more suggestions, one old one that was rebuffed, and one new one that may be rebuffed.

Admin-- I hope you have taken notice of the rewards system at Credit card companies, airlines and retail stores to draw consumers to their product. On Pricescope we have three kinds of consumers as our base. Our helpers or prosumers as you call them, which I think are also shrinking, the repeat customer, and the new member.

I propose a reward , as in a lottery type reward for new members, which could be an amazon 50.00 card each month, or a certificate to a restaurant--something a new member would enjoy--maybe with 50-100posts.

I definitely would reward our prosumers with a dinner out to show that you appreciate them==which I don't think you do. LV is certainly nice but the everyday person who helps deserves more recognition IMO. The prosumer who complains, which is why this idea was rebuffed shouldn't be making your business decisions. Perhaps the most posts in a months time could be the criteria.

For those of you who think pricescopers look down on alternatives for diamonds including MMD, you are probably right. That is baked into the culture of the US and other places. Hey, I have CZs and I like them fine. It may feel insulting, but you do have to see where you are. A leather bag may well be looked down on if you want a leather channel bag. Don't be upset with it. Its that way with many things.

Mrs B showed me that she is an expert on small cushions. She found someone a beautiful cushion cut .50-60pts for 600.00 at James Allen. You don't have to be elitist, which I don't really think PSers are. Maybe a little lazy in looking. Rewards again.

Mention my post and I will donate 50.00 each to the first two new members. Lets see if anything happens. I think I should put a time frame on this. Join by Dec1st 6PM CT
My Regards to All.

Annette

 

[Rose-gold-or-bust]

Hi All,

I woke up this morning knowing this would be an active thread. I didn't yet read all the new comments so if I repeat what someone else has written please forgive me.

I agree with Rock Diamond in saying that this a valuable website for consumers. In general helpers can loosen up their strict self-imposed guidelines when suggesting a diamond. I think that's the easy part. So, I'm going to proceed with more suggestions, one old one that was rebuffed, and one new one that may be rebuffed.

Admin-- I hope you have taken notice of the rewards system at Credit card companies, airlines and retail stores to draw consumers to their product. On Pricescope we have three kinds of consumers as our base. Our helpers or prosumers as you call them, which I think are also shrinking, the repeat customer, and the new member.

I propose a reward , as in a lottery type reward for new members, which could be an amazon 50.00 card each month, or a certificate to a restaurant--something a new member would enjoy--maybe with 50-100posts.

I definitely would reward our prosumers with a dinner out to show that you appreciate them==which I don't think you do. LV is certainly nice but the everyday person who helps deserves more recognition IMO. The prosumer who complains, which is why this idea was rebuffed shouldn't be making your business decisions. Perhaps the most posts in a months time could be the criteria.

For those of you who think pricescopers look down on alternatives for diamonds including MMD, you are probably right. That is baked into the culture of the US and other places. Hey, I have CZs and I like them fine. It may feel insulting, but you do have to see where you are. A leather bag may well be looked down on if you want a leather channel bag. Don't be upset with it. Its that way with many things.

Mrs B showed me that she is an expert on small cushions. She found someone a beautiful cushion cut .50-60pts for 600.00 at James Allen. You don't have to be elitist, which I don't really think PSers are. Maybe a little lazy in looking. Rewards again.

Mention my post and I will donate 50.00 each to the first two new members. Lets see if anything happens. I think I should put a time frame on this. Join by Dec1st 6PM CT
My Regards to All.

Annette

I think offering rewards to post will lead to a lot of people posting for the sake of posting. A lot of posts filled with short comments with no real substance

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Rosie,

Pricescope used to offer $1,000- when 10,000 post were reached. Yes, there were people who did as you say, but so many others gave good consistent advise and didn't cheat.. The amount of posts I was thinking about could be done on a monthly basis, and then into a lottery. Luck of the draw. I would like it.


Annette

 

[OoohShiny]

The entire idea of “good enough” can be taken many ways.

As one example- many potential clients ask for VS or better- based on the fact that a lot of things written online suggest SI graded diamonds necessarily look “worse” than VS graded stones. But for many buyers SI is a perfect fit - as opposed to “good enough”
I find that PS has really improved in this area- to the benefit of consumers.

Discussions of cut here go way deeper than many people need. There’s little doubt that the influence of “Super Ideal” can dominate here in a way that will not allow for alternatives. I agree - Super Ideals are great. But any suggestion that other sorts of looks are equally beautiful to some observers has gotten me attacked more times than I can count. In terms of RBC, it’s a moot point.
The 60/60 train left the station many years ago. Virtually every new RBC we see is cut to mimic Super Ideal- at the expense of spread. As is pointed out here all the time, GIA “Triple Ex” doesn’t guarantee very much anymore.

But this bleeds into other shapes too.
What is “Performance” in terms of diamonds?
If we use a formula where “Sparkle” as defined above by Paul is the prime objective, the answer always points in one direction. What about emerald cut lovers?
For this reason, the term “Performance “ is really out of place in a discussion of cut.
I think this is part of what bugs Serg. How can a cutter innovate new designs if she’s handcuffed into preconceived notions of cut?

Perhaps taking things off topic a bit, but I recall @John Pollard and @Karl_K (IIRC) have both previously mentioned that trying to find a good 60/60 nowadays is not unlike looking for a unicorn sitting in a pot of gold the end of a rainbow (or words not really to that effect, but you get the idea )

Could we use the resources available to PS to work out the 'best' or 'ideal' proportions for 60/60 stones, and then encourage them to be cut? Could Yoram or Jon, for example, take a leap and get some MMD rough cut (to reduce research / initial production costs)?



I think it could also be useful if it was possible to get some of Serg's work brought in to PS somehow? IIRC @Serg is able to calculate potential cut options from a given piece of rough and show how each option would differ in terms of quantifiable fire/dispersion/brightness/etc., so could we use that ability to create another section of the HCA tool, whereby the measurement data put into the tool would spit out quantified measurements of fire etc.?

That could help demonstrate the trade-offs of a 'good enough' stone versus a 'SuperIdeal' (or whatever) and allow informed decisions to be made, such as those suggested by TODiamonds. It could also demonstrate different flavours of 'beauty', which I believe Serg and Rockdiamond are both working so hard to push forward as an important factor.

 

[SouthernElle]

Not everyone needs a super ideal diamond. I would argue most people don’t care about upgrades, it’s not the norm. So many PSers act like if it’s not super ideal, it’s crap and try to convince people to get smaller stones at WF, BG etc. And for those who say they can see a difference in their super ideal vendor stones compared to their ‘normal’ ideal stones, guess what? Many people would never have them side by side to compare. They want a stone that is pretty and performs well, and that IS possible without going the super ideal route. When I try to offer possible stones, I try to see if I can get an ideal stone within their budget that is a little bigger than their low end, its like a fun challenge when I can’t sleep. Women notice size and usually have a specific size they desire, so I don’t agree when so many say to sacrifice size for a super ideal over a perfectly lovely ideal.

MMDs are a whole other discussion. Scaring people away from them when MANY people never plan to sell or upgrade their engagement ring is irresponsible, in my opinion. And when it’s people who are involved only in the natural mined diamond trade, it also seems disingenuous.