Cut Crusade Rant

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have studied a lot of diamonds lately that do not come from my regular sources and I was disapointed.

Disapointed because so many of the stones had been swindled to make certain carat weights of to remove near surface inclusions.

On the one hand I recognise the great skill of the artisans who do the actual briallianteering work.

But on the other hand I lament the clear fact that making a magic weight, or removing a negligible inclusion makes to the value - that then the cut quality suffers.

I want a new grading system:

Diamonds are sold by the Square Millimeter (i.e by size and not weight) and by the degree or otherwise of eye visibility of their inclusions.

Only IF should remain as an upper standard, because that is the only true "mind clean" grade.

I am happy with color - but it should be face up and digitized.

End of rant

 

[echelon6]

If diamonds are priced by size, wouldn''t that encourage cutters to produce more shallow cut stones? The problem is simply that the market doesn''t price cut quality as high as they ought to. If cut was priced accordingly, the incentive to reach magic weights / removing inclusions at the expense of cut would diminish

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/23/2007 8:16:15 PM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
I have studied a lot of diamonds lately that do not come from my regular sources and I was disapointed.

Disapointed because so many of the stones had been swindled to make certain carat weights of to remove near surface inclusions.

On the one hand I recognise the great skill of the artisans who do the actual briallianteering work.

But on the other hand I lament the clear fact that making a magic weight, or removing a negligible inclusion makes to the value - that then the cut quality suffers.

I guess that is the price of acquiring super expensive rough material on one side combined with the resistance of buyers willing to pay higher prices for the so called super makes....
I am surprised you have not noticed this (YET) with your regular suppliers/sources!!!

I want a new grading system:

Diamonds are sold by the Square Millimeter (i.e by size and not weight) and by the degree or otherwise of eye visibility of their inclusions.

I assume you mean rounds..., cause in straight edge Diamonds (i.e. baguettes, caree''s, Asschers) of under carat weight it is happening already!!!

Only IF should remain as an upper standard, because that is the only true ''mind clean'' grade.

Please define "upper" in your upper standard??? Why do you think IF is the only true ''mind clean'' grade?

I am happy with color - but it should be face up and digitized.

Digitized..., meaning with out human intervention?

End of rant

Thats it? End of your daily rant

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/24/2007 5:17:11 AM
Author: echelon6
If diamonds are priced by size, wouldn''t that encourage cutters to produce more shallow cut stones? The problem is simply that the market doesn''t price cut quality as high as they ought to. If cut was priced accordingly, the incentive to reach magic weights / removing inclusions at the expense of cut would diminish

Could well be the ''market'' does not price ''high'' quality as high as they ought to...

But I am guessing only time will tell..., my feeling is that people like Garry (just an example

) who are going to want to continue receiving a constant supply of high quality (cut or not) Diamonds, will have to keep adjusting to the ongoing upwards of Diamond prices.

I hear a lot of cutters/manufacturers are sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to calm down..., but (in my opinion), the longer one waits..., the harder it will be to get back on the train

Cutters/manufacturers need to stay in the game if they want to survive in this business!!!
Key: being creative and focus on correct added value services!

Like I said many times before..., the rules are changing rapidly..., we (in this industry)are ALL in for an interesting ride!!!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

When meeting with retailers, I explain it as follows, and some probably use it also when talking to consumers:

Of the 4 C''s, only Cut refers to Quality, and the other 3, Carat weight, Colour and Clarity refer to Rarity.

85% of a diamond''s price depends upon Rarity, while maximum 15% (and the figure could well be lower) depends upon Quality.
However, of a diamond''s beauty, it is the other way around, 85% depends upon Quality, and only 15% upon Rarity.

That is why a consumer should work with a retailer, who knows his stuff, since he will be selling you Quality, not Rarity. That is, if you prefer Quality, of course.

Live long,

P.S. For some of this reasoning, I should give kudos to Iiro in Finland, since he first made that distinction between Rarity and Quality.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/24/2007 6:56:31 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
When meeting with retailers, I explain it as follows, and some probably use it also when talking to consumers:

Of the 4 C''s, only Cut refers to Quality, and the other 3, Carat weight, Colour and Clarity refer to Rarity.

85% of a diamond''s price depends upon Rarity, while maximum 15% (and the figure could well be lower) depends upon Quality.
However, of a diamond''s beauty, it is the other way around, 85% depends upon Quality, and only 15% upon Rarity.

That is why a consumer should work with a retailer, who knows his stuff, since he will be selling you Quality, not Rarity. That is, if you prefer Quality, of course.

Live long,

P.S. For some of this reasoning, I should give kudos to Iiro in Finland, since he first made that distinction between Rarity and Quality.

It could be translated as you say...., or wish..., in a certain way.

But as far as beauty...., I dont agree (period).

Some think Rough Diamonds (un-cut) are beautiful. (I am one of those). Which according to you is considered 100% Rarity.

When it comes to colored Diamonds..., beauty= (both) quality and rarity as you wish to translate or differentiate! But I think the Rarity still out weighs the quality!

Some Diamonds with certain type of ''rare'' inclusions are considered beautiful..., again the Rarity outweighs quality...

Lets not forget:


"Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/24/2007 5:17:11 AM
Author: echelon6
If diamonds are priced by size, wouldn''t that encourage cutters to produce more shallow cut stones? The problem is simply that the market doesn''t price cut quality as high as they ought to. If cut was priced accordingly, the incentive to reach magic weights / removing inclusions at the expense of cut would diminish

echelon the fact is that most rough dictates that small spread is the norm

If current grading systems favour slightly deeper stones because that gets a higher weight retention--------

Then if we did have a mm based size pricing system (which is just a pipe dream or a raving rant) then the same forces of the darkness of night

would encourage and design grading systems that favoured overly shallow stones

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DG I am happy to pay a fair price for a fair quality.

But i know of few industries that take a beautiful thing and strive to make it just good enough to fool people into thinking it is special.

As Paul says (and Iiiro) - the quality really comes from what we do to the rough. And I see too much near enough being offered as silk purses

But yes - I have seem some great specimens or rough in kimberlite that are bauties in their own right.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/24/2007 8:31:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
DG I am happy to pay a fair price for a fair quality.

Define fair in today''s volatile High quality (Rarity

) Diamond market...

But i know of few industries that take a beautiful thing and strive to make it just good enough to fool people into thinking it is special.

As Paul says (and Iiiro) - the quality really comes from what we do to the rough. And I see too much near enough being offered as silk purses

But yes - I have seem some great specimens or rough in kimberlite that are bauties in their own right.
Another agreement with "Garry"....

But how do you define "fair" when it comes to the high quality goods a person like you needs? Subjective, no?
Do dealers buying Diamonds from manufacturers should pay the premiums?
Or should manufacturers bite their hats and loose $$$, as I personally know quite a few do

Who do you think will win? The rough producers or retailers?

 

[denverappraiser]

When consumers look at a diamond mounted in a ring and describe it as ‘big’, they are describing to face up surface area, not the weight. When they describe it as ‘beautiful’, they may mean all manner of different things but rarely does this mean that it’s heavy.

When a cutter describes a stone as ‘big’, they are almost always referring to the weight and when they describe it as ‘beautiful’, they’re referring to the price.

Two ships passing in the night.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/24/2007 8:48:59 AM
Author: denverappraiser
When consumers look at a diamond mounted in a ring and describe it as ‘big’, they are describing to face up surface area, not the weight. When they describe it as ‘beautiful’, they may mean all manner of different things but rarely does this mean that it’s heavy.

Not always Neil..., for example, when a lay-person hears about a 50 carat Diamond ring that comes up for sale at an auction..., they say its "huge" because of its weight (and surface area.)

When a cutter describes a stone as ‘big’, they are almost always referring to the weight and when they describe it as ‘beautiful’, they’re referring to the price.

Neil, again not always..., when I describe a Diamond which I cut..., the price has nothing to do with its beauty!!! But the nice car I will purchase with the $$$ I get from the sale is going to be beautiful in (my) eyes!!!

Two ships passing in the night, But be careful..., its night and fogy out there

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver