building a consensus about Light Performance

[oldminer]

Let's dream for a moment and envision a future time when all of us have agreed that we have all the right tools for placing accurate, repeatable and meaningful grades of Light Performance on diamonds.

Would we want a system that really defines the top 2% from the top 5%, and the top 5% from the top 10%, or would we prefer a somewhat more liberal approach that puts the top 10% or the entire top 20% in a general top category?

Diamond dealers who want volume business would prefer a coarse grading structure so that more diamonds fit the "best" classification. Specialist cutters would prefer a system which defines their production as superior to some of their competitors. There are two sides to this issue, and of course, there is a moderate, third level that could be adopted. The third level would be less strict than specialists might want, but more strict than the liberals would choose.

How do you view your own taste in this decision? Would you opt for stringent grading like clarity grading IF/VVS1/VVS2/VS1 etc for Light Performance?
Would you rather opt for moderate grading such as IF, VVS/VS, SI for Light performance?
Would you prefer IF-VS2/Eye-Clean/ Eye Visible type discrimination.

Only about 2% of the public buy super performing diamonds today. If more folks knew about it, there would be more who would take this approach, I believe. However, I am endlessly curious about how much discrimination the public, cutters and vendors would prefer.

My own preferences I try to keep to myself. Believe me, I am flexible on this subject although I have feelings about it. They are yet to become fixed opinions.

Thank you for all comments and opinions as well as filling in the poll.

Please keep in mind that strict grading results in premium prices as supply is difficult and can't as readily meet a demand. Liberal grading creates a far greater supply and results in virtually no premium being required. Does this alter your initial thought process? It might.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/16/2005 1:19:27 PM
Author:oldminer

Only about 2% of the public buy super performing diamonds today. If more folks knew about it, there would be more who would take this approach, I believe.

Agreed!

 

[kenny]

Why not something objective like number from 0 to 100?

0 has 0 light return.

100 has 100%

I'd guess the best cut possible would be high 90s.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/16/2005 1:19:27 PM
Author:oldminer

Let''s dream for a moment and envision a future time when all of us have agreed that we have all the right tools for placing accurate, repeatable and meaningful grades of Light Performance on diamonds.

... as there are for wheat and chetchup and whatever else is traded sight unseen.

I am not sure what to choose, and here''s why:

Perhaps there is a level of precission that renders the cut garding useful - I am not sure which that is and if it can be talked about in percentyles of the diamond population. One could imagine that once a technical standard becomes accepted and recognized, more diamonds will be made to meet it. So the quantity and % of better cut stuff goes up... Defining the grades by % would prevent that sort of desirable dynamic - no matter how much the average improves, there will always be some distribution of whatever technical metric is used for evaluation, only the relevance of the percentyle tresholds changes.

Just a thought...

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 8/16/2005 1:26:07 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 8/16/2005 1:19:27 PM
Author:oldminer

Only about 2% of the public buy super performing diamonds today. If more folks knew about it, there would be more who would take this approach, I believe.

Agreed!

Dave and Ira

I think the percentage is quite a bit larger than 2%. I would surmise that when LK and the other three ideal cutters were the only players in the game, they probably had 2 % of the market. Now I believe it is a lot more... maybe around 8 %

There are lots of companies producing "super ideals" that weren''t a factor before.

Over the past 5-6 years consumer knowledge has dramtically increased due to the internet, and even mall stores having "ideal cut" retail displays in their showcases.

The ability to more easily discern the differences in appearance based on improved technologies is also growing a lot.

But I do agree that the public''s knowledge and desire for these better stones is "coming of age".

Rockdoc

 

[aljdewey]

Dave, I guess I'd fall somewhere in the middle of your two options.

I wouldn't want a 20-step system, but I don't know if IF-VS/ SI/ Included (almost akin to good/better/best)would be enough definition.

I think the categories would need to go something like this:

1, Top 2% (Creme-de-la-creme): Top top top performing diamonds....to satisfy the purists out there.
2. Top 5% (Just under creme-de-la-creme): Diamonds that miss the creme-de-la-creme on paper, but wouldn't necessarily make a difference visually (i.e. can't be called IF, but can be called VVS2. My eye can't see the diff, but there is a quantifiable difference on paper).
3. Top 10% - where a visual difference does just begin to become noticeable, but is minor.
3. Top 25% - where perhaps a bit more of a difference is noticeable, but still performs better than 3/4 of the rest.
4. Top 50%
5. Everything else

When I think of school grades....A/B/C/D/F.....I understand that C is above, B is above average, and A is top-shelf superlative. I wish I had the same comfort level with assessing cut on diamonds that aren't top make.....to know what is still a well-above average diamond even though it isn't a "superideal".

 

[Regular Guy]

Al,

I like the functional descriptors for your categories, not sure about the numbers. Rock, appreciate your insight into the data.

Also...I wonder if your top 3 could all be any of BIC, FIC TIC?

 

[strmrdr]

Well you could take the top .00001% of diamonds and we would still argue about the merits of one over another here :}

I think percentages are idiotic to start with.
Its why GIA''s cut grade is going to be worthless.
They took the current diamonds and seperated them in classes.
This leaves no room nor incentive to move upward.

AGS on the other hand seems to have said if we were going to cut the best performing diamonds in the world how would they be cut?
Look at what they did for the princess cut.
Tell me which is a better cut grade system?
One that pushes the state of the art or one that measures what is out there and seperates it into broad catagories based on secret criteria.
I know which I want.
Real r&d science vs industry protection hmmmm seems like a no brainer to me as a consumer which to support.
We here at PS have proved time and time again consumers are willing to pay extra for the best cut diamonds with some education.

 

[oldminer]

strmrdr

I appreciate what you wrote above. Logic has a difficult time in the world of diamonds.
AGS has indeed pushed the industry to cut a better princess cut. No doubt about that at all.

Separating what is out there already into "Broad Categories" is pretty much where we are today. Keeping the upper category "Broad" does serve a certain agenda or business model very well, but it does not seem the way informed consumers would like it to be. Remember, the vast majority of consumers are uninformed. I believe GIA will have a large degree of success with the broad category model although it will be very difficult for them to enter into grading fancy shapes with a similar "system"

.

I know the black box objections by now pretty well as I have a black box. I won''t argue that you and others are very right in being suspicious. It would be foolish for an uninformed person or group to jump on board without sufficient proof. Please let''s dream for a moment, get hypothetical and ask if one did use such a black box to make accurate, reasonably narrow and visually meaningful categories out of what is already out there, wouldn''t that be a practical and consumer friendly improvement? There are a lot of existing diamonds needing analysis.

I have asked ImaGem to give you and others hard evidence of their grading strategy. I hope they will feel compelled to present their case among the parties who are communicating here. I see it as an opportunity that should not be wasted.

 

[laney]

Well, a lot more people use Windows than DOS

(for you storm)

I agree with the market consideration of a broader less stringent system - easier to understand - and easier to "market" - would cost less for all.

But, then, we''d still have the purists... and no matter what method was chosen - the purists would always seek out the best 1% of stones if they can.

So, since the purists educate themselves, go to niche forums and discuss the finer points of tweeked girdles with strangers.. I don''t think they''d "use" the rating system built for them anyway. They''d just debate it - and point out it''s obvious flaws and some benefits. They don''t need no stinkin'' grading system! They know a good stone when they see/document/test/debate it dammit! lol

Honestly - I guess a more general system for the ::gasp:: consumer that would allow more free flow of good is better ::wow, it hurt to say that!::

 

[Mara]

I''d be more in the middle, aka I don''t want to pay a premium for cuts when I can determine myself what the cut quality is without having someone else grade it for me and paying for that. Right now I am happy with how I find my diamonds now. I know who sells the well-cut stuff around here and that who I''d start with in looking for something. But it''s not with a premium or if it is it''s very small!