Date: 1/21/2006 2:26:35 PM
Author: Lynn B
John,
I just HAVE to ask... what does the code 'SAS 0.400' mean as regards a 'D' colored stone? Does it have anything to do with 'D' being the 4th letter of the alphabet? What's the 'SAS' mean?!!
I know, I know! Totally nerdy question! But what do you expect from a diamond geek who loves Wheel of Fortune??!!
Thanks!
What an interesting idea. I think we’re pretty far from this or, perhaps, we’re already there. To sell securities based on diamond inventory involves an assumption that the holding company can increase or reduce their holdings as they gain or lose capital or based on their estimations of the future market. To some degree, this is exactly what diamond dealers do and, as some of them are public companies, you are effectively doing this when you buy their stock. A more direct model would be something in the vein of a Real Estate Investment Trust that’s underwritten by diamonds instead of Real Estate. Rather like when you buy into a REIT, you would be betting that the management is sufficiently skilled to buy properly and that they have an appropriate avenue to sell when required. This is exactly the skill set of the diamond dealers so, again, it may be more direct to simply buy stock in one of them. Unlike a REIT, there isn’t any revenue associated with holding the inventory (there’s no rental income available) so it would be a pure equity play and the holding period is going to become important. Minor differences in buying or selling skills could prove to be the most important issue. Once again this is a big issue for diamond dealers and it’s far from an obvious skill. I’m not sure I would say Blue Nile stock is exactly investing in commodity diamonds for the new era since they actively avoid carrying inventory but it does seem to have all of the elements. Am I missing something?
Date: 1/21/2006 3:18:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Date: 1/21/2006 2:26:35 PM
Author: Lynn B
John,
I just HAVE to ask... what does the code ''SAS 0.400'' mean as regards a ''D'' colored stone? Does it have anything to do with ''D'' being the 4th letter of the alphabet? What''s the ''SAS'' mean?!!
I know, I know! Totally nerdy question! But what do you expect from a diamond geek who loves Wheel of Fortune??!!
Thanks!
Lynn, SAS stands for spectrophotometer analysis system. The SAS2000 provides colorimetry accurate to far beyond the ability of human vision to discern. A diamond graded between 0.000 to 0.499 on the SAS is a D in its metric, 0.500-0.999 is an E, 1.000-1.499 an F, and so on. Even the labs judge color in 3 subdivisions within a grade, so your ''H'' diamond could be high H, middle H or low H. Normal human vision cannot distinguish between a couple of color grades, so these measures (the SAS, other colorimeters, lab grading subdivisions) are much more than buyers will tend to worry about - especially once it''s bought and on the wearer''s finger.
it''s just an example of how we can ''commoditize'' what we perceive as color in a diamond to the nth degree - but such nth degree measures (and even D vs E or F at some level) are irrelevant to casual viewers who see the ring at a cocktail party. Real people speak in emotional terms like ''how white'' or ''how sparkly.'' Rarely will someone stop you when you''re picking up a cocktail weenie to say ''Oh my goodness, look at your ring. It must be a strictly graded G, facing up colorless, with a 40.8 Pavilion!''
Those crafty Nilers. Buying on margin without the risks.
I sort of disagree John. I think consumers want to know if they are getting a "true D" or a "new D" when the difference in price may be tens of thousands of dollars.Date: 1/21/2006 3:18:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Date: 1/21/2006 2:26:35 PM
Author: Lynn B
John,
I just HAVE to ask... what does the code ''SAS 0.400'' mean as regards a ''D'' colored stone? Does it have anything to do with ''D'' being the 4th letter of the alphabet? What''s the ''SAS'' mean?!!
I know, I know! Totally nerdy question! But what do you expect from a diamond geek who loves Wheel of Fortune??!!
Thanks!
Lynn, SAS stands for spectrophotometer analysis system. The SAS2000 provides colorimetry accurate to far beyond the ability of human vision to discern. A diamond graded between 0.000 to 0.499 on the SAS is a D in its metric, 0.500-0.999 is an E, 1.000-1.499 an F, and so on. Even the labs judge color in 3 subdivisions within a grade, so your ''H'' diamond could be high H, middle H or low H. Normal human vision cannot distinguish between a couple of color grades, so these measures (the SAS, other colorimeters, lab grading subdivisions) are much more than buyers will tend to worry about - especially once it''s bought and on the wearer''s finger.
it''s just an example of how we can ''commoditize'' what we perceive as color in a diamond to the nth degree - but such nth degree measures (and even D vs E or F at some level) are irrelevant to casual viewers who see the ring at a cocktail party. Real people speak in emotional terms like ''how white'' or ''how sparkly.'' Rarely will someone stop you when you''re picking up a cocktail weenie to say ''Oh my goodness, look at your ring. It must be a strictly graded G, facing up colorless, with a 40.8 Pavilion!''
Marty, no argument. You're saying the same thing I said all through page 1 regarding a need for some level of commoditization on behalf of consumers so that they can justify the purchase.Date: 1/21/2006 11:37:07 PM
Author: adamasgem
I sort of disagree John. I think consumers want to know if they are getting a 'true D' or a 'new D' when the difference in price may be tens of thousands of dollars.Date: 1/21/2006 3:18:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Date: 1/21/2006 2:26:35 PM
Author: Lynn B
John,
I just HAVE to ask... what does the code 'SAS 0.400' mean as regards a 'D' colored stone? Does it have anything to do with 'D' being the 4th letter of the alphabet? What's the 'SAS' mean?!!
I know, I know! Totally nerdy question! But what do you expect from a diamond geek who loves Wheel of Fortune??!!
Thanks!
Lynn, SAS stands for spectrophotometer analysis system. The SAS2000 provides colorimetry accurate to far beyond the ability of human vision to discern. A diamond graded between 0.000 to 0.499 on the SAS is a D in its metric, 0.500-0.999 is an E, 1.000-1.499 an F, and so on. Even the labs judge color in 3 subdivisions within a grade, so your 'H' diamond could be high H, middle H or low H. Normal human vision cannot distinguish between a couple of color grades, so these measures (the SAS, other colorimeters, lab grading subdivisions) are much more than buyers will tend to worry about - especially once it's bought and on the wearer's finger.
it's just an example of how we can 'commoditize' what we perceive as color in a diamond to the nth degree - but such nth degree measures (and even D vs E or F at some level) are irrelevant to casual viewers who see the ring at a cocktail party. Real people speak in emotional terms like 'how white' or 'how sparkly.' Rarely will someone stop you when you're picking up a cocktail weenie to say 'Oh my goodness, look at your ring. It must be a strictly graded G, facing up colorless, with a 40.8 Pavilion!'
Look at the wholesale price difference for a 1 carat IF round between D and E color, and you may be talking $6000 or more.
As it is, a one color grade shift on the average 1ct stone, all other factors being equal, may cost a consumer a grand or more.
Certainly, in larger stones, we are talking big big bucks, between an objectve analysis (with confidence bounds) and a purely subjective (or sometimes biased because of kickbacks) grading... Perhaps that type of objective analysis had something to do with the exposure of the GIA grading scandal.
I have a SAS2000 unt in Dubai, but that came after the first GIA fiasco started, I think.
Objective measures help the consumer in some cases. when they are 'sold' as objective and are less than that, as in the cut grading issue, comsumers may be hurt, because their judgement is clouded by UNDEFINED superlative grading, like 'excellent'
I can''t say I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Actually, I believe this very fact supports what I noted above. Most folks (men and women) have bought into the "magic 1-ct" notion, and what we''ve seen is people stretching to the limits of color/clarity to maintain that size if it''s possible without sacrificing quality. When that''s no longer possible, though, the choice is to simply start smaller and upgrade. It doesn''t usually mean NO ring.....it just means more modest until financial circumstances improve. Some people will choose to go to K stones or to the rare clean I1 stones; others will look in the .80-.90 range.
That is achievable Ana.
This is a very lovely description, but I believe it''s only marginally relevant to the consumer.
A tihink you are onto something AlDate: 1/22/2006 1:05:23 AM
Author: aljdewey
This is a very lovely description, but I believe it''s only marginally relevant to the consumer.
Yes, 100 diamonds will all be different....just like snowflakes. But honestly, I don''t care what kind of inclusion a stone has as long as I can''t see it and it doesn''t affect the durability of the stone. So yes, the G-SI1 with the crystal is *technically* and *factually* different from the G-SI1 with the feather......but who cares? For my purposes (wearing it in a setting), I can''t see the difference, so for my purposes, they aren''t different in the ways that I care about as a consumer.
Rarity matters more to collectors or gemologists and less to everyday consumers. I believe men tend to care more about that than women, and I think it''s because the MEN are the ones who are obsessed with buying her ''the best'', the ''ring she deserves'', and tying all this emotional stuff into the specs of the ring. Most women I know are far less hung up on ''rarity''. C''mon.....almost every engaged woman I know receives a diamond of some sort, so the notion of rarity is a bit passe. Since beauty depends on the viewer, it''s really up to the consumer to determine what looks beautiful to him.
I did the ''soda challenge'' when I was at WF. I picked out the E and the J....but only by comparison next to other stones. I couldn''t likely do it by finding one woman in the mall wearing a J and one wearing an E.Even with my passion for the stones, I couldn''t see discernable differences between the branded and non-branded; between the ''perfect'' H&As and the nearly perfect; etc. I couldn''t likely do it by finding one woman in the mall wearing a J and one wearing an E.
I don''t know if the word we should be discussng is commoditization. I prefer (or think) the issue is TRUTH IN ADVERTIZING, the biggest problem in the industry, along with a set of consistent and meaningfull STANDARDS by the labs to back up the advertizing.
I like the root canal analogy.. very appropriate
Good reset IF. Yes, that's what I have been discussing. This is the buzz about commoditization offered in discussions at our trade events and periodicals. The 'fear' is largely from those who believe what the internet is doing shrinks their margins and devalues their product by making economic info the focus - as opposed to cooing and purring over shiny diamonds in the case as a focus.
I think so too. IceFisher, I'd just amend your last words to: A rising tide lifts all boats - EXCEPT those anchored in old ways. And you know what happens to them...
Date: 1/22/2006 11:50:50 AM
Author: icefisher
Is the 'fear' of commodization that strmdr referred to at the outset of this thread, a fear that grading standards (to the extent they are that) and the internet will make the retail diamond market like the market for widgets or computers or any other fungible good?
If so... so what? Would that make diamonds 'mundane'? Was that the question? (also Q for Strmdr)
Because if so, that to me really sounds like a complaint about the introduction of greater market efficiencies, which history in general shows is a losing proposition.
You are an optimist
I think the key here, Dave, from a consumer standpoint: They are ALIKE. Not IDENTICAL, and to us, they don't HAVE to be. As long as they share the same color, clarity, and *substantially similar* cut quality, that's really all that matters to most of the masses. Of course, we expect that the elements are graded by a top-shelf lab, but that's really the only significant variable.
Yep....the fear is that instead of being able to seduce the customer into thinking that''s *THE* diamond for him....the ONLY one that will do because there is *no other one like it*, said customer might be able to set *emotion* aside and realize that he could be happy with *any* diamond meeting a substantially similar criteria.
I thnk the answer is in two parts
The GIA Facetware™ Cut Estimator is intended to provide an estimation of the cut grade that would be received from the GIA Laboratory for the same diamond. However, there are several reasons why the grade provided by GIA Facetware™ may be different from that received from the GIA Laboratory. Some of the reasons are:
The diamond''s actual proportions (such as the crown angle or star length) or visually assessed parameters (such as the girdle thickness or symmetry) as determined by the GIA Laboratory are different from the proportions or parameters assumed by the user.
The diamond has been manufactured using non-standard brillianteering such that it is significantly "painted" or "dug-out" (i.e., the diamond has its upper- and/or lower-half facets fashioned at tilt angles different from those traditionally used for standard round brilliant diamonds). Click here to learn more.
300x240.png)
