"Beauty" as it pertains specifically to diamonds.

[oldminer]

Can we define this relatively narrow subject? Are we really stuck with beauty always being completely subjective? Are there no attributes of beauty specific to diamond which can be agreed upon with a high level of confidence?

I often admit that beauty, as a general subject, is highly subjective. We have rarely focused on diamonds specifically naming their beautiful attributes.

We can agree that diamonds are only beautiful when seen in lighted environments. In the dark, they have no particular beauty. Therefore, beauty in diamonds has something to do with the way they handle or alter ambient light. Is this some element we do agree upon?

Diamonds come in many outlines, shapes.
We may agree that many of them are of relatively equal beauty.
Are there any which are especially beautiful for a large percentage of Pricescopers?

Can we agree that eye-visible symmetrical shape is an attribute of beauty?

Since diamonds come in a rainbow of colors, I doubt beauty agreement can be reached on specific colors of diamonds.
Can we agree that diamonds which are eye-clean are more attractive then diamonds which are not eye-clean?

Is there any agreement that attributes of diamonds which are too fine for the naked eye to detect have no effect on judgments of beauty?


What are your thoughts? Are there other less apparent attributes of beauty that we might consider?

Can a scale of "beauty" be created for diamonds that could be applied to all diamonds without regard to the end user? Even if incomplete, yet another screening tool, could it be a possibility created by consensus?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 10/29/2009 3:11:42 PM
Author:oldminer
Can we define this relatively narrow subject? Are we really stuck with beauty always being completely subjective? YES Are there no attributes of beauty specific to diamond which can be agreed upon with a high level of confidence? NO

I often admit that beauty, as a general subject, is highly subjective. We have rarely focused on diamonds specifically naming their beautiful attributes.

We can agree that diamonds are only beautiful when seen in lighted environments. In the dark, they have no particular beauty. We have spoken to folks that like the feel of diamonds- which can be detected without light Therefore, beauty in diamonds has something to do with the way they handle or alter ambient light. Is this some element we do agree upon?

Diamonds come in many outlines, shapes.
We may agree that many of them are of relatively equal beauty.
Are there any which are especially beautiful for a large percentage of Pricescopers?

Can we agree that eye-visible symmetrical shape is an attribute of beauty? NO- not to all observers

Since diamonds come in a rainbow of colors, I doubt beauty agreement can be reached on specific colors of diamonds.
Can we agree that diamonds which are eye-clean are more attractive then diamonds which are not eye-clean? Again NO. We''ve had people specifically wanting diamonds that had visible imperfections

Is there any agreement that attributes of diamonds which are too fine for the naked eye to detect have no effect on judgments of beauty?


What are your thoughts? Are there other less apparent attributes of beauty that we might consider?

Can a scale of ''beauty'' be created for diamonds that could be applied to all diamonds without regard to the end user? Even if incomplete, yet another screening tool, could it be a possibility created by consensus?

Great post David!
Relevant and thought provoking.

It would be easy to dismiss a seller''s point of view- after all, we need to sell to eat.
BUT- I would say painting with too broad a brush is dangerous there too. Not all sellers try and shove their products down the throats of buyers.

IN fact, it''s probably more beneficial for the seller to leave their opinion at the door,


Imagine that your job is to sell.
What should your goal be?
If your goal is connecting a buyer with a product that they most prefer, what does the seller''s taste have to do with it?

I remember having a client come in to see a few stones.
One was, well...I''d call it a dog.
Although it was priced very well, it was quite deep, and had imperfections visible to the naked eye.
I was just about to point out the "problems" with the diamond when the lady shrieked- "WOW- I LOVE THAT ONE!"

I then pointed out that it looked a bit smaller than other stones of similar weight, that were not as deep in their cut.
I made sure she was able to identify the imperfection.
None of that mattered to her. The general characteristics of the diamond won her over.
I have been in contact with her, and she LOVES that stone.
Who am I to tell her "It''s a dog"

By saying that one stone is prettier than another we are taking our own opinions and imposing them on others.

 

[Cehrabehra]

When looking at faces, symmetry is considered more beautiful - however faces are not generally symmetrical and can still be things of beauty.

I have seen diamonds that are beautiful without perfect symmetry so I''m not sure that can be held as an absolute or constant.

 

[oldminer]

The success of Internet selling depends on the ability to describe characterisitics to the extent that a picture is painted accurately enough for people to make a strong enough committment to try a purchase. Diamonds are capable of being well described and we see the difficulty colored gems face in sales due to the more complex description set required and so far, not found.

Your method of argument uses the most far from center thinking. It is entertaining once I get past the surprise of seeing it in print. People liking the feel of a stone in the dark is a good example of this, but nearly laughable in thinking it applies to even just a tiny minority. People selecting a non-symmetric stone, yet another tiny minority of buyers. What kind of buyer wants an eye-imperfect stone in preference to an eye-clean one except some sort of minority individualist? All may be very true examples of the lunatic fringe or the rugged individualist, but I doubt you actually believe these folks are thinking as the mojority would think. As experts, we have rights to set fair, reasonable and agreed upon standards. Consumers are very free to ignore them, but consumers and non-experts surely do not set standards in any field, especially diamonds.

I do agree that our own opinions are sometimes, most of the times, best kept to ourselves. When someone is making a great choice, I often second their decision. The few who make strange choices don''t get my second, but I work with them to make them pleased with their choice and make them fully aware of how unusual or unexpected it might have been. Sales remain the goal, but grading standards are not prevented by salesmanship considerations. As experts we have a responsibility to inform and aid customers and clients so that their goals, not just our own, are fully met.

It is my belief that more sales will be made as better standards are created, agreed upon and then used. Cutters have vastly improved the quality of cut over the past ten years. WIth better standards, even more might be done. I know there is limited agreement on why diamonds are beautiful and what attributes count, but surely it is not beyond all description.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I see what you''re saying Dave- there is probably a "norm" , although I would stop short of calling people who have tastes differing from the "average" as "lunatic fringe"
I believe the example of those who like the way diamonds feel is, as you say, quite a small minority.
But the point is valid as it relates to standardizing beauty.
The lighting varies widely from place to place. Every diamond looks different in different lighting. Some people prefer bright lighitng, others prefer dim lighting.

The problem in using the "norm" to standardize beauty is that each of us gets joy from things that please us personally.
If a vegetarian goes into a restaurant and is handed a plate of the world''s best Steak, they won;t care what the "norm" is, or what other people think.

The wild popularity of old mine, antique diamonds ( which are usually far from symmetrical) proves that being symmetrical and many people''s ideas of beauty in a diamond do not always walk hand in hand.


About five years ago, when I was screaming that 60/60 could be just as beautiful as an "Ideal" cut, I was fighting an uphill battle...if you consider the opinions of PS. I was probably termed "part of the lunatic fringe" at that time for standing up and saying I preferred the slightly larger table.
Of course after BOTH GIA and AGS started including 60/60 in the top cut grades, I felt vindication.

Maybe it''s the fact that the buyers coming to you are generally buying more traditional stones, and we get a lot of folks with more individual taste.
Rugged Individualist, as you put it.

 

[Karl_K]

My definition of Beauty in diamonds is:
1: returns light
2: when moved shows scintillation aka life
3: it sparkles and isn''t just a mirror on the finger.
4: Has a pleasing outline and contrast patterns.
5: shows fire in the right lighting.

To me the ones that do that better across multiple lighting conditions are more pleasing to me.
If I was in one lighting condition all the time I would design a diamond for that lighting but I am not.

The thing is that 2,3 and 4 are contrary to 1 but 2,3,4 without 1 is dull.
So you make some trade offs.
That is what makes different diamonds unique, where they place those trade offs.
When those trade offs are made for the right reasons the diamond is still pleasing but when it is done just for weight retention and any one area suffers because of it then it is not pleasing.

 

[ct-appr]

I think you have to consider the cost of the diamond in the analysis. What PS seems to be all about is getting the best value. If the client happens to like a stone that has eye visible inclusions and/or it is an L color, that is their choice and preference. Counseling them so that they get a fair price is our charge.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Excellent point Paul!!

it brings up part of my motivation regarding this subject.

32 years ago, when I first saw "cape" diamonds, I was totally in love with them. To this day, I love seeing yellow in a diamond.

I know for a fact, many other lovers of diamonds share this infatuation with "Silver cape" diamonds.
Of course, not everyone does.
Here's a typical exchange.

Shopper: "I'm looking for a two carat diamond"
Sales clerk: "Excellent! We have this lovely G/VS1 over here for $29,000"
Shopper: "Wow, I was hoping to spend only about $12,000. What about a J color?"
Clerk: "Oh, J color diamonds are junk. We don't carry low qualities"

This type of thing happens frequently.
Here on PS, it sometimes happens regarding cut.

Karl- that's a very good point too.
It's important to define what one is looking for in a stone.

 

[bgray]

IMO the main factor in the perception of "beauty" in a diamond is light and volume. I think symmetry and all that may impact the light and volume but not necessarily. Old mine cuts (even L color, si)--can have that Wabi Sabi quality. Uneven and lumpy yet nearly glowing like some organic mass of light and energy.

I prefer stones with high crowns because you get that feeling of volume and the projection of the light and scintillation.

Incidentally, I can see my stone in the dark and it is still beautiful in quiet way. Unless you are truly in complete darkness you will see something.........

 

[ericad]

Wow. Ok, I have lots of thoughts about this. Get ready for it

I think the term "beauty" can't ever be quantified, nor should it. Beauty is a feeling, an emotional response, and varies by individual. I would personally run from any vendor who tried to push a majority view of beauty on any consumer unless they first obtain (from said consumer) a detailed description of what is beautiful to him/her, then did their job as vendor to find stones that meet the CONSUMER'S criteria for beauty.

There are already so many things one can quantify about diamonds, I guess I don't get the point. What's the benefit of saying a more symmetrical diamond is more beautiful than a less symmetrical diamond? Isn't it enough to simply say one is more symmetrical than the other (a quantifiable fact) and allow the consumer/beholder to translate that into her unique definition of beauty?

Lord knows I have fallen for many visually non-symmetrical diamonds, so call me a lunatic too. David and I can start a club - his 60/60's and my happy little crooked OMC's will be in good company.

And where does the beauty scale slide for those who adore rough/raw diamond jewelry? Rose cuts? Wonky OMC's? I once looked at an OMC with a culet so far off center it looked like it was punched in the nose, but know what? The lady selling it thought it was beautiful, and she had sentimental attachments to the stone that elevated its beauty above any precision cut diamond. I felt nothing but happy for her and happy for the diamond. Wasn't beautiful to me, but it didn't need to be.

Add them to the minority lunatic fringe club too, I suppose...along with those of us who love other misfit stones in low colors, with inclusions shaped like funny things (I've even seen them lovingly referred to as birthmarks and beauty spots - clearly a term of endearment, no?) - all of a sudden the minority fringe group isn't so small.

In all seriousness, while I am being a little flip and sarcastic (for me it's like breathing) have I ever told a buyer that I think one stone is prettier than another? Yep, sure have. But I always qualify that as being based on my personal preferences and I always encourage buyers to consider the stones that speak to them, whatever the reason. In my specific line of work, there would be waaaaaay too many exceptions to the rules that would define beauty - it just wouldn't work.

Stone A is way too shallow to be considered beautiful, but dang, it's lit from within like a Christmas tree, gorgeous little sucker...stone B is way to deep and a little crooked, nope can't be beautiful, but dang it glitters like a disco ball, purty little thing...

Oh, and for what it's worth, I love fondling my diamond in the dark...

Oops, I've said too much!

 

[ericad]

Oh, and one quick anecdote (note that I found this exchange humorous, charming and totally non-offensive).

My L, VS2 asscher gives me great joy. It's the most beautiful diamond I've seen, that's why I wear it. When I sent it to the jeweler for the setting I called him to discuss and he said (in the context of making a setting recommendation), "Ummm, I don't want to hurt your feelings, but your stone...well...it's not perfectly straight. It's a little crooked." So I laugh and say, ok, what are we gonna do about that, etc.

Another day I called and spoke to his assistant and told her my name, she said, "Oh yes, I know exactly who you are, you're the asscher that's a little yellow, hold on please..." I actually laughed out loud and Grace and I will forever refer to my asscher as Erica's Crooked Yellow Asscher. I actually would introduce myself on every subsequent call as, "Hi, it's Erica, the crooked asscher that's a little yellow..."

But, lo and behold, when the ring was completed, the jeweler told me that a client of his fell so in love with it (he showed it to a client considering the same setting) he wanted to buy it. So my crooked yellow asscher was maybe less beautiful to the jeweler (based on his own biases and personal preferences), but very beautiful to me and this other person who looked at it. Who's assessment of beauty is correct?

As a consumer, if an online jeweler had told me this asscher was less beautiful than other stones based on symmetry and color, I may have missed out on owning the diamond that's the most beautiful in the world TO ME.

Told you I had lots of thoughts about the quantification of beauty...

 

[glitterata]

I''m with Erica and David DbL on this one. Yes, we really are stuck with beauty being subjective.

Sure, there may be qualities most people find beautiful. Do you agree with most people about everything? I sure don''t.

--Glitterata, member of the lunatic fringe, who unlike most people dislikes Dan Brown''s novels, Coca-cola, and Disneyland, and finds eye-clean diamonds boring.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 10/29/2009 11:30:50 PM
Author: ericad
Oh, and one quick anecdote (note that I found this exchange humorous, charming and totally non-offensive).


My L, VS2 asscher gives me great joy. It''s the most beautiful diamond I''ve seen, that''s why I wear it. When I sent it to the jeweler for the setting I called him to discuss and he said (in the context of making a setting recommendation), ''Ummm, I don''t want to hurt your feelings, but your stone...well...it''s not perfectly straight. It''s a little crooked.'' So I laugh and say, ok, what are we gonna do about that, etc.


Another day I called and spoke to his assistant and told her my name, she said, ''Oh yes, I know exactly who you are, you''re the asscher that''s a little yellow, hold on please...'' I actually laughed out loud and Grace and I will forever refer to my asscher as Erica''s Crooked Yellow Asscher. I actually would introduce myself on every subsequent call as, ''Hi, it''s Erica, the crooked asscher that''s a little yellow...''


But, lo and behold, when the ring was completed, the jeweler told me that a client of his fell so in love with it (he showed it to a client considering the same setting) he wanted to buy it. So my crooked yellow asscher was maybe less beautiful to the jeweler (based on his own biases and personal preferences), but very beautiful to me and this other person who looked at it. Who''s assessment of beauty is correct?


As a consumer, if an online jeweler had told me this asscher was less beautiful than other stones based on symmetry and color, I may have missed out on owning the diamond that''s the most beautiful in the world TO ME.


Told you I had lots of thoughts about the quantification of beauty...

lol @ calling it "Erica''s Crooked Yellow Asscher"
*Grin* I know the feeling there are some diamonds that are just so charming that the sum is better than the parts.

 

[justginger]

Maybe, like in a many sciences, it''s easier to definite what is NOT the most beautiful, versus what IS the most beautiful? Most people would agree that some areas of color/clarity are fairly undesirable. Of course you''ll get people who will disagree (the fringe), but many will only tolerate certain characteristics for the sake of saving money and/or increasing size. If size and cash elements were equal, most people would not elect to get a Q/I2 over a G/VS1, would they? Nor if all other things were equal, would they prefer a very asymmetrical stone versus one with nice symmetry?

As a lover of antique stones, I guess technically I''m with Erica - I like lower colors and bit of asymmetry, some character and individuality. I can''t define what beauty IS, but most of us can agree that an offcolored piece of frozen spit is not a beautiful diamond. The only way it can have "beauty" is to posess sentimental beauty, which is priceless in its own right.

 

[oldminer]

Well, we have some components of beauty in several responses. We also have a better understanding that it may not be the best thing to "grade" beauty, but it might be good to be able to list attributes and let consumers make their own judgments. Having a stone with several beauty attributes makes it more likey pretty to a larger majority of shoppers, but shoppers are definitely individuals.

Maybe someone will create a "Beauty assessment diamond profile questionnaire". A construct sort of like finding that "perfect match for you" such as EHarmony.com does with some degree of success. Maybe sellers could do a better job of matching stones to consumers if they knew more about what the shopper was like and what they liked in terms of beauty. Just a thought.

The idea is to create still better communication between shopper and merchant, not to make diamonds into a commodity.

 

[Lula]

I like that E-Harmony idea, David. I do think it would be possible to construct some sort of "matching criteria" for individual preferences.

I own an Infinity, cut for performance across a broad spectrum of lighting conditions.

I also own two smaller OEC stones, family diamonds, cut at a time (early 1900s) when lighting conditions were much different.

According to Karl, I'm going to have to think about buying a diamond that will perform well under those unattractive, but environmentally friendly, eco lights he's posted about.

The two types of diamonds -- precision cut RB and OEC -- could not be more different, but that is not to say one is more beautiful than the other.

In fact, I am always amazed how well the under .50 carat OEC's do in candelight or firelight - the flash they shoot off belies their small carat weight. I think Glitterata has noted this, too, in some of her posts.

It is hard to predict what customers will be drawn to, but I do think retailers can provide the consumer with enough eduction so the consumer doesn't think the diamond's beauty is just due to some random magic process. There is a science here, albeit a nascent one.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/30/2009 9:48:39 AM
Author: oldminer
Well, we have some components of beauty in several responses. We also have a better understanding that it may not be the best thing to 'grade' beauty, but it might be good to be able to list attributes and let consumers make their own judgments. Having a stone with several beauty attributes makes it more likey pretty to a larger majority of shoppers, but shoppers are definitely individuals.


Maybe someone will create a 'Beauty assessment diamond profile questionnaire'. A construct sort of like finding that 'perfect match for you' such as EHarmony.com does with some degree of success. Maybe sellers could do a better job of matching stones to consumers if they knew more about what the shopper was like and what they liked in terms of beauty. Just a thought.


The idea is to create still better communication between shopper and merchant, not to make diamonds into a commodity.

re:The idea is to create still better communication between shopper and merchant, not to make diamonds into a commodity

Dave,
I am agree what communication level between consumer and merchant is very weak now and what weakness in communication reduce confidence and improve drift to commoditization

what is reason of such weakness in communication ? Could be reason what merchant try to sell mainly emotions instead product which can generate such emotion more and more after you bought it?

 

[oldminer]

There is no doubt that creating an environment suitable to make impulisive or emotional purchases has always been the romantic way for shopping. This fits nearly all luxury purchases in regular stores. On the Internet, the emotional content level is lowered and facts take precendence. We don''t want to lose emotion and romance, but we must work in the environment we have created which is digital, not spiritual.

My concept is to formulate a way to save the fun, emotion, and romance of the purchase, but make it factually correct and digitally repeatable like we are used to in science. I don''t have the knowledge to make it happen, but the thought has run through my mind several times about how to make the process more emotionally engaging while making it more accurate from a long distance.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/30/2009 11:47:31 AM
Author: oldminer
There is no doubt that creating an environment suitable to make impulisive or emotional purchases has always been the romantic way for shopping. This fits nearly all luxury purchases in regular stores. On the Internet, the emotional content level is lowered and facts take precendence. We don't want to lose emotion and romance, but we must work in the environment we have created which is digital, not spiritual.


My concept is to formulate a way to save the fun, emotion, and romance of the purchase, but make it factually correct and digitally repeatable like we are used to in science. I don't have the knowledge to make it happen, but the thought has run through my mind several times about how to make the process more emotionally engaging while making it more accurate from a long distance.

re:There is no doubt that creating an environment suitable to make impulisive or emotional purchases has always been the romantic way for shopping. This fits nearly all luxury purchases in regular stores

I have not respect for most Marketing researches what push Luxury stores to Emotional and Impulsive purchases.
from my private experience when I were buying my last watch ( not cheap one) , my main emotion was Doubt, Doubt and again Doubt
But in next morning when I touched my new watch , I had only positive emotion and feeling. I like touch my watch, it do me happy each morning, I like see very contrast dial( excellent antireflection coating)
I found a lot of small details what I like in my watch AFTER I bough it. And I am thinking about second( even much more expensive watch from OTHER Brand )I become watch bias .
How often could diamond shopper say something similar about diamond?

It is pity what I had not ability to receive more information about Luxury watches, touch models from different Brands, compare different models in same shop before I bought my last watch.

 

[oldminer]

My understanding of what you are saying, Serg, is that you wished you had been more able to appreciate the emotional content before and during the purchase rather than just having it come on afterwards. You enjoy the emotional content, but did not find the act of buying the watch enjoyable as it might have been if the right elements had been shown to you during the sale or if alternative choices, also filled with interest and emotion might have been shown to you then, as well.

Some of the best web sellers do provide a ton of bells and whistles now to their customers. These same vendors are the people who would do even more if they had the right tools to create a heightened emotional, romantic, content, too. Getting people excited about what they are about to buy BEFORE they actually buy it and get it home, would be valuable tools for sellers and very much enjoyed by potential customers.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/30/2009 12:20:34 PM
Author: oldminer
My understanding of what you are saying, Serg, is that you wished you had been more able to appreciate the emotional content before and during the purchase rather than just having it come on afterwards. You enjoy the emotional content, but did not find the act of buying the watch enjoyable as it might have been if the right elements had been shown to you during the sale or if alternative choices, also filled with interest and emotion might have been shown to you then, as well.


Some of the best web sellers do provide a ton of bells and whistles now to their customers. These same vendors are the people who would do even more if they had the right tools to create a heightened emotional, romantic, content, too. Getting people excited about what they are about to buy BEFORE they actually buy it and get it home, would be valuable tools for sellers and very much enjoyed by potential customers.

Dave,
No.
I want select watch which will produce maximum emotions during possession instead emotions during shopping process
I need emotions from watch, I do not like emotions from merchant. I prefer merchant what just create conditions when watch ( product) create my emotions
I do not like if merchant are trying create my emotions which does not come LATER from product itself. I have not plan to buy watch with merchant who will each morning try create same my emotions what he sold me in shop. I do not need merchant in my home, I need watch which stimulate emotions .

do you see difference?

I think it could explain why internet become more popular for selection even luxury products ( of course other reasons are present too, less time costly, price,..)

 

[Regular Guy]

Well, I don''t see how anybody''s reframing here is throwing much light (pun only marginally intended, since the original intent maps just fine, thank you very much).

Serg, aren''t you just saying it''s the diamond, stupid?

But, isn''t that also basically what David is trying to get at? And what about it that whichever merchant should target?

But, without re-stating the question, isn''t that what Pricescope has, by and large, already been about? And, before Pricescope, what better dealers, and virtually all diamond cutters (with allowances for both greed and the profit motive) been more or less focused on all along.

Yes, we''re trying to emphasise the point. But...what marginally extra information is being really sought after here...

 

[oldminer]

My experience has been that women develop a close emotional attachment to their engagement diamond. The guys, on the other hand, attack the problems associated with buying the diamond like it was a thesis or a term paper. Many, though not all, are fact driven and don''t get too emotionally invested until near the moment of showing the ring to their intended. If something could be communicated which would excite buyers more, which would invest them sooner with motivation and direction, the sellers would be happier and so would the buyers.

Sorry if I misinterpreted Serg''s comments. I''m not so certain why he wants to have his watch thrills after the purchase and not just as well during the purchase, but a complex watch is something which is rarely fully understood during the purchase anyway. You have to read the instruction manual and handle it sveral times until it reveals its secret tricks. A diamond can be fully understood during purchase if one wants to get into it.
Most Pricescopers do want to get into their diamond purchase and would welcome more assistance to select correctly, or as best as they could.

I thought finding some keys to beauty in diamonds might aid in the selection process and in a secondary way, make the process more personal and emotion filled, too.

 

[dimonbob]

Hello Dave,

A very good subject and difficult one to put into words that would have real meaning to a potential consumer. Beauty boils down to the customer.

I think part of the problem is who the consumer is. There are more, but the three big ones, in my opinion would be:
A – Emotional
B – Visual
C – Perfection

The emotional buyer sees something that they have to have and buys it on the spot. She went into the jewelry store to get her ring cleaned and saw something and purchased it. Another would be a guy on 24 December and needs to get something for his lady today and needs it gift wrapped. Jewelry stores love both of those customers. No selling skill here. Just break out the credit card and pay for it another day.

The perfectionist needs to have an IF or maybe a VVS1 diamond, D or E color and one with “Perfect” Hearts and Arrows. Some folks just want to understand every number that relates to the diamond. They do not want ‘eye-clean’ but ‘mind clean’. They do not push very easily. They take time and need answers. If you do not have the knowledge to satisfy them they will move on.

The visual needs to have a diamond that is just as pretty as the H&A without the price, is white in color, eye-clean and is not willing to pay for that little extra over what they want. Lots of ‘show for little dough’.

In the past when I worked in jewelry stores I had to sell what was available in the store if at all possible and only ordered in a diamond as a last resort. I now have the luxury of selling only fine cut diamonds that are white and nothing lower than an SI2. That leaves a very large number of potential customers out but I feel better about what I do at the end of the day. I pride myself on having never sold any laser drilled or filled diamonds or “frozen spit”. My answer to diamond beauty is what I get to sell every day.

This may not have given you the exact answer to your question but more food for thought on who decides what beauty is.
.
Dimonbob

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dave this is a timely topic - I like the idea of H&A's as a means of demonstrating a type of quality.

Beauty is after all generally measured also in standards of quality - -subjective or objective.

If you watch this movie this movie
you can count the number of big flashes from each diamond.
You can also decide if the dark zones in some diamonds would annoy you.
I think I might make a poll to have people vote on their order of favourites to least fav.

Dimonbob I have a client who fits your emotional mode - but for that reason alone he is a D Flawless buyer because of the emotional symbolism.

Here is a comment from a person who knows of but has never met either Dave or Sergey"

"Sergey is an intelligent, rational shopper.

There are lots of lazy, not so intelligent shoppers out there who just buy on emotion.

Dave is right – have to cater to both segments i.e.

1.Smart, well informed, rational
2. Not so smart, lazy (wont do research), impulsive, emotional.

I’m not sure Sergey makes allowances for No. 2 shopper."

 

[ericad]

Garry, I'm not sure I understand your comment about emotional buyers being unintelligent, lazy and impulsive. Are you quoting someone else or are those your words? I'd like to know who to direct my response to, and I'm hoping it's not you.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/30/2009 8:45:01 PM
Author: ericad
Garry, I''m not sure I understand your comment about emotional buyers being unintelligent, lazy and impulsive. Are you quoting someone else or are those your words? I''d like to know who to direct my response to, and I''m hoping it''s not you.

If you read my post carefully Erica you will see I was quoting someone else.

I can also add however that I have a D Flawless client who buys that grade because of pure emotion (he loves his wife and nothing less will do). I can asure you he is neither unintelligent or lazy. He may however be impulsive

He is also a very nice guy (or bloke as we say downunder).

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/30/2009 8:01:52 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dave this is a timely topic - I like the idea of H&A''s as a means of demonstrating a type of quality.


Beauty is after all generally measured also in standards of quality - -subjective or objective.


If you watch this movie this movie

you can count the number of big flashes from each diamond.

You can also decide if the dark zones in some diamonds would annoy you.

I think I might make a poll to have people vote on their order of favourites to least fav.


Dimonbob I have a client who fits your emotional mode - but for that reason alone he is a D Flawless buyer because of the emotional symbolism.


Here is a comment from a person who knows of but has never met either Dave or Sergey''


''Sergey is an intelligent, rational shopper.


There are lots of lazy, not so intelligent shoppers out there who just buy on emotion.


Dave is right – have to cater to both segments i.e.


1.Smart, well informed, rational

2. Not so smart, lazy (wont do research), impulsive, emotional.


I’m not sure Sergey makes allowances for No. 2 shopper.''

re:Sergey is an intelligent, rational shopper.

I doubt what my watch experience was and is intelligent and specially rational.
I sure it is irrationally to spend such sum to buy watch. rationally I can not buy any such expensive thing .

My point is different: diamond market ( and sum Luxury markets) lost understanding what positive emotion should come from Luxury PRODUCT during possession .

Merchant creates bigest part of emotions during diamond shopping, diamond itself produce minor part. It is main problem

if you drive sport car , emotion come from direct communication between You and Car. will you buy car mainly depends from this communication between you and car.
It is irrationally for most shoppers and me too.
I want pay for emotions which are caused by product , i do not like pay to much for emotions which are caused by merchant ( yes , it is rational part during my shopping)

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:06:14 PM
Author: oldminer

Your method of argument uses the most far from center thinking. It is entertaining once I get past the surprise of seeing it in print. People liking the feel of a stone in the dark is a good example of this, but nearly laughable in thinking it applies to even just a tiny minority. People selecting a non-symmetric stone, yet another tiny minority of buyers. What kind of buyer wants an eye-imperfect stone in preference to an eye-clean one except some sort of minority individualist? All may be very true examples of the lunatic fringe or the rugged individualist, but I doubt you actually believe these folks are thinking as the mojority would think. As experts, we have rights to set fair, reasonable and agreed upon standards. Consumers are very free to ignore them, but consumers and non-experts surely do not set standards in any field, especially diamonds.

Can I be part too?

I guess I too belong to the ''lunatic fringe'' club as I am one lunatic who has been cutting these non-symmertic cuts for over a decade..., and purposly too

.

There must be something wrong with me...

 

[Gleam]

Date: 10/29/2009 6:05:32 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Excellent point Paul!!


it brings up part of my motivation regarding this subject.


32 years ago, when I first saw ''cape'' diamonds, I was totally in love with them. To this day, I love seeing yellow in a diamond.


I know for a fact, many other lovers of diamonds share this infatuation with ''Silver cape'' diamonds.

Of course, not everyone does.

Here''s a typical exchange.


Shopper: ''I''m looking for a two carat diamond''

Sales clerk: ''Excellent! We have this lovely G/VS1 over here for $29,000''

Shopper: ''Wow, I was hoping to spend only about $12,000. What about a J color?''

Clerk: ''Oh, J color diamonds are junk. We don''t carry low qualities''


This type of thing happens frequently.

Here on PS, it sometimes happens regarding cut.


Karl- that''s a very good point too.

It''s important to define what one is looking for in a stone.

This happened to me, and I was quite surprised. I live a stone''s throw away from a jeweler which, unbeknown to me before I walked in, carries mostly Canadian diamonds. I said that I was looking for something in a lower color range, perhaps J, and the jeweler told me he would never sell such a low quality stone.

Because they carried only Canadian stones, which I was led to understand tend to be on the smaller side, I didn''t even see a diamond over 2 carats in their store.