Experts needed on Diamond Proportions.

[Rockdiamond]

Teobdl- wow
Amazing post!!!

Hi DF - here's an effective strategy for you. Just recommend that everyone buys a D/IF
This way you're taking no chances. Plus it's their money.

 

[RandG]

But if a well meaning consumer/ member is just going off promotional info and does not understand the real life differences, their recommendation may be leading the person asking in the wrong direction. Unintentional up-sell. I watch the forum closely and this happens all too frequently.

Could you please provide concrete evidence of members up selling off of 'promotional info'.

I personally don't see it that way, however--facts & evidence would help clarify.

Sarahb- I'd guess that this happens in >50% of posts where people are looking for buying advice, maybe even >80%. There is this a strong suggestion that not buying a super ideal means the buyer is "sacrificing light performance" and the buyer will be making a huge mistake if they don't buy one. While it is true that the behavior of diamonds changes as one deviates from the Brian Gavin standard of hearts and arrows, the degree to which the deviation impacts beauty in real life is greatly, greatly exaggerated by many posters. It's incredibly frustrating to see, especially as someone who will sift through actual inventories of non-super ideals to find legitimately great diamonds at good prices that maximize a person's budget. What many posters do is simply pull up the super ideal sites, plug in a budget, and find the 3 diamonds that match the person's criteria. Easy as pie. The problem is that the diamond is often 10-15% lighter with lower color or clarity than an equivalently priced diamond that, in real life, will behave almost identically for 99.9% of people in probably 95% of all situations. No, those aren't real numbers, but I doubt many people would debate the point.

PSers are supposed to be the ones who can dig through the haystack to find the needle with ease, and here we are telling people to avoid the haystack and go right to the pin cushion with the curated, custom, but uniformly made needles. Some people advise that they go to the expensive pin cushion out of naivety, others do so out of laziness.

I get it that a lot of people want the most well-cut diamond they can buy. Those people should absolutely get super ideal diamonds. But many people are buying these super ideals not because they really want the most well-cut diamond ("top 1% of all diamonds!") but because there's a suggestion that diamonds at the 95-98th percentile look like crap.

I hope my post doesn't come across as hostile against super ideal vendors and associates. My gripe is with the people who are proxy upselling out of naivety or laziness.

Teobdl: Very well said-- thank you.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

But if a well meaning consumer/ member is just going off promotional info and does not understand the real life differences, their recommendation may be leading the person asking in the wrong direction. Unintentional up-sell. I watch the forum closely and this happens all too frequently.

Could you please provide concrete evidence of members up selling off of 'promotional info'.

I personally don't see it that way, however--facts & evidence would help clarify.

Sarahb- I'd guess that this happens in >50% of posts where people are looking for buying advice, maybe even >80%. There is this a strong suggestion that not buying a super ideal means the buyer is "sacrificing light performance" and the buyer will be making a huge mistake if they don't buy one. While it is true that the behavior of diamonds changes as one deviates from the Brian Gavin standard of hearts and arrows, the degree to which the deviation impacts beauty in real life is greatly, greatly exaggerated by many posters. It's incredibly frustrating to see, especially as someone who will sift through actual inventories of non-super ideals to find legitimately great diamonds at good prices that maximize a person's budget. What many posters do is simply pull up the super ideal sites, plug in a budget, and find the 3 diamonds that match the person's criteria. Easy as pie. The problem is that the diamond is often 10-15% lighter with lower color or clarity than an equivalently priced diamond that, in real life, will behave almost identically for 99.9% of people in probably 95% of all situations. No, those aren't real numbers, but I doubt many people would debate the point.

PSers are supposed to be the ones who can dig through the haystack to find the needle with ease, and here we are telling people to avoid the haystack and go right to the pin cushion with the curated, custom, but uniformly made needles. Some people advise that they go to the expensive pin cushion out of naivety, others do so out of laziness.

I get it that a lot of people want the most well-cut diamond they can buy. Those people should absolutely get super ideal diamonds. But many people are buying these super ideals not because they really want the most well-cut diamond ("top 1% of all diamonds!") but because there's a suggestion that diamonds at the 95-98th percentile look like crap.

I hope my post doesn't come across as hostile against super ideal vendors and associates. My gripe is with the people who are proxy upselling out of naivety or laziness.

Teobdl,
I think you have a point, and no offense taken here. I will just make the following few observations. One, people like what they like and often are passionate about it. I think that sometimes comes off as "you need the very best, the rest is crap". Two, many people come in to the forum specifically interested in cut quality and seeking the best cut stones. You will often see them posting stones to get opinions that they have already run HCA on for instance, looking for greater detail. Third, many of the diamonds posters are looking at do not have enough information available to determine how well they are cut. That is why many prosumers will say "it looks promising, see if you can get an Ideal Scope image". (John took the time in this thread to demonstrate with Diamcalc the range of performance you can be looking at when judging from GIA numbers alone.) And fourth, many prosumers ARE mining the haystack looking for generic diamonds that have potential, many of which are from dropshippers, exactly because those diamonds are cheaper and because more vendors today are willing to provide the additional information needed to better assess cut quality. Fifth, there is often not much difference in price between a precision cut diamond and one with questionable cut quality, particularly if the consumer is shopping at a local store that is not attempting to be price competitive with internet dealers. So it is a no-brainer for community members to be recommending diamonds with verifiably high cut quality.

Lastly, I would say that precision cutting is a real benefit and the worst thing for consumers is not necessarily to be persuaded to spend some extra money on that attribute, even if it is not obvious to the untrained eye. Those facets are still playing better with light, day after day, year after year.

 

[kb1gra]

I think that is fine when the poster has a substantial budget. For someone looking to spend $10,000 on a stone, losing half a mm to get a superideal is not a big deal.

Where it becomes questionable is when someone has a low budget. Let's say less than $2000. The posters here tend to weigh cut as the premium even if it costs the poster in other areas that may be important such as color. It might be ideal cut, but the stone is still an I/SI1. That may not be what the poster actually wanted, but they're persuaded that's what they HAVE to do to get a superideal, or they're getting a "poor performer."

Similarly, posters will say that you have to buy from this vendor or that vendor because "they provide all the info you need up front." But you don't necessarily need that information on the stones they're recommending. Why would you need to get idealscope, ASET, etc on an AGS0 stone? You don't. That's what I believe David was referring to when he said "promotional info" but David, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

If I'm spending $1500, and I get some help finding a VG cut that is still quite lovely, possibly whiter, and probably larger, I was then helped with getting a better VALUE as a combination of size, color, clarity, and cut within my very limited budget. Is a superideal the best VALUE in diamond buying? There is a definite argument for no, unless for you as a consumer CUT is the only thing that's important to you.

I should add I have no dog in this fight-- I don't care for rounds and I am often looking at fancies, which is a separate question removed from this one as a whole. In fancies, it's entirely possible to prefer a cut pattern that is currently unpopular and be getting an excellent price on what YOU like because it's not popular. In rounds, that gray area is small to nonexistent, see above.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If someone comes here with a small budget and is not expressing a desire for "the best" mrb, I definitely help them look for a budget priced GIA Excellent cut stone (I never see a reason to recommend very good) from vendors who offer GIA Ex stones with idealscope images or the secondary tier of diamonds from the superideal cut vendors. Occasionally they will still want superideal and they know it will be a small stone, and that is great, too! But for buyers who come here with a higher budget and want help with finding a great mrb stone, I absolutely will recommend the best cut stones. Buying high quality is almost always the best decision when buying anything (in my opinion), not to mention you have an incredibly beautiful diamond. My original diamond was probably "good" cut at the very best and it astounds me how much better my current diamonds are (I wasn't unhappy with the original diamond until I discovered well cut ones..ignorance is bliss!!!!). Other than studs, thankfully there were no other major diamond purchases before finding PS. I find it a pain to try to recommend stones from drop shippers with no images, or a limit of three images for which you have to sometimes wait days to get. I have tried personally to find the needle in the haystack ideal cut stones from virtual inventories and it is NOT easy! Finding a pair is even more difficult.

I won't apologize for recommending ideal cut and superideal cut stones that have the proof of their light performance. In the long run, I think it is the best decision to buy well cut diamonds even though they sell at a price premium. I really thought that was what PS was all about...educating people to get the best cut diamonds.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Teobdl- wow
Amazing post!!!

Hi DF - here's an effective strategy for you. Just recommend that everyone buys a D/IF
This way you're taking no chances. Plus it's their money.

David
here's a better effective business strategy for you. Have every customer send you a blank check and you can pick out a G/G/G "spready pancake stone" for them since it is only their money!... I'm sure you'll have no problem convincing your customers that your G/G/G stone will look just as beautiful as any XXX ideal cut stone in the market.

btw; I wouldn't recommend buying a D/IF stone. A top ideal F VS1 H&A is good enough for me...

 

[kb1gra]

Teobdl- wow
Amazing post!!!

Hi DF - here's an effective strategy for you. Just recommend that everyone buys a D/IF
This way you're taking no chances. Plus it's their money.

David
here's a better effective business strategy for you. Have every customer send you a blank check and you can pick out a G/G/G "spready pancake stone" for them since it is only their money!... I'm sure you'll have no problem convincing your customers that your G/G/G stone will look just as beautiful as any XXX ideal cut stone in the market.

btw; I wouldn't recommend buying a D/IF stone. A top ideal F VS1 H&A is good enough for me...

I know you're being hyperbolic, but nobody on the thread was discussing a stone with a grade of good in any category.

There is a point to that perfect on paper doesn't mean perfect to a viewer. I personally don't like H&A patterned stones so FOR ME, a H&A stone would be a waste of money because I don't appreciate it. I do think that sometimes gets forgotten when you are buying diamonds off paper and static online images, and the idea of buying "perfect on paper" is a little different than buying "perfect in person."

A good example of this was the 2ct rb thread, where the person was looking at very $$ rings at designer stores but had to continually be persuaded to buy the stone THEY LIKED BETTER IN PERSON, rather than the one that was "better" on paper.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

One more comment I will make in defense of prosumers here with regard to the accusation that there is a lot of "up selling" going on. I see every bit as much "down selling" where prosumers advise consumers they don't need to pay extra for top colors or clarities. While I don't always agree with this advice personally, it does demonstrate that prosumers here are indeed seeking what they think is best for the posters and not simply trying to spend more of their money for things that don't matter.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think that is fine when the poster has a substantial budget. For someone looking to spend $10,000 on a stone, losing half a mm to get a superideal is not a big deal.
I totally understand the reasoning behind this- but actually, if you think about it, the larger the stone, the more the actual dollars difference. If someone is shopping for a 5ct round the difference in real dollars between a triple EX and a VG can be $20k or more. Again, not to question the desire for a super ideal or EX or 000. These specialty stones cost more for legitimate reasons- but those reasons will not matter to many buyers.

Where it becomes questionable is when someone has a low budget. Let's say less than $2000. The posters here tend to weigh cut as the premium even if it costs the poster in other areas that may be important such as color. It might be ideal cut, but the stone is still an I/SI1. That may not be what the poster actually wanted, but they're persuaded that's what they HAVE to do to get a superideal, or they're getting a "poor performer."

Similarly, posters will say that you have to buy from this vendor or that vendor because "they provide all the info you need up front." But you don't necessarily need that information on the stones they're recommending. Why would you need to get idealscope, ASET, etc on an AGS0 stone? You don't. That's what I believe David was referring to when he said "promotional info" but David, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.
Bingo- some of the vendors do measure in "inches per hour" as opposed to miles per hour- and provide more technical info. But the key here is to realize that it is advertising of their services as opposed to " scientific proof" they sell better diamonds.
Think about the reality of buying diamonds- if it was your job would you look at diamonds themselves, or reflector images. And if you need a reflector image to illustrate problems of a diamond you have right in front of you, how important are those "problems" ( obstruction, leakage, etc)
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned not paying for things you can't see. That's part of what we're talking about here

If I'm spending $1500, and I get some help finding a VG cut that is still quite lovely, possibly whiter, and probably larger, I was then helped with getting a better VALUE as a combination of size, color, clarity, and cut within my very limited budget. Is a superideal the best VALUE in diamond buying? There is a definite argument for no, unless for you as a consumer CUT is the only thing that's important to you.

I should add I have no dog in this fight-- I don't care for rounds and I am often looking at fancies, which is a separate question removed from this one as a whole. In fancies, it's entirely possible to prefer a cut pattern that is currently unpopular and be getting an excellent price on what YOU like because it's not popular. In rounds, that gray area is small to nonexistent, see above.

 

[Gypsy]

If ya'all are done beating this horse, could you turn your attention here: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/for-the-experts-play-nice-feathers-and-cavities-clarity.210537/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/for-the-experts-play-nice-feathers-and-cavities-clarity.210537/[/URL]

 

[Rockdiamond]

We're still not clear on some extremely vital issues here Gypsy.
Initially you mentioned that VG cut graded stones that perform well are rare- they are not in my experience, and no one has come forward to dispute that.
We're talking about a lot of money to many consumers

snip Two, many people come in to the forum specifically interested in cut quality and seeking the best cut stones. snip

Bryan, people come here looking for advice on how to buy diamonds. Many are pretty much clueless, which is a great purpose of this forum.
They are told:
First rule- CUT IS KING- GET AN IS/ASET
Next rule: refer to rule #1

 

[WinkHPD]

[

<Snip>

Bingo- some of the vendors do measure in "inches per hour" as opposed to miles per hour- and provide more technical info. But the key here is to realize that it is advertising of their services as opposed to " scientific proof" they sell better diamonds.
Think about the reality of buying diamonds- if it was your job would you look at diamonds themselves, or reflector images. And if you need a reflector image to illustrate problems of a diamond you have right in front of you, how important are those "problems" ( obstruction, leakage, etc)
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned not paying for things you can't see. That's part of what we're talking about here<Snip>

David,

You have it backwards. It is because I DO look at the diamonds themselves and DO SEE a difference that I choose (my choice) to sell better cut diamonds. The reflector images are not a substitute for looking at diamonds. On the contrary. They confirm the differences our eyes detect and help us to understand why we see what we see. It would be far easier for me to throw away my ASET, tell clients EX and VG cut is all the same and buy/sell "cheap." But I want to sleep at night.

Instead, when my clients are viewing diamonds in person, I do enjoy showing various diamonds in the ASET, but ONLY after they have made their choice in a "blind taste test" such as I have described many times on this forum. That helps them to understand WHY they chose a top cut diamond. It's like showing them the engine of the car they liked best... It's an "oh wow" and an "ahhh" moment.

If my clients could not see the difference a top cut makes they would not reliably go to the top cut when shown three or more diamonds on a slotted tray with nothing being said about any of the diamonds. I do not get to sit with a great number of clients here in Boise, but I am not at all surprised that an overwhelming majority reliably select the top cuts over the others.

You enjoy an advantage I do not have. In the NY district you have the luxury of looking at dozens of diamonds to find that needle in a haystack, the VG that shines. That's fine. But for me, selling what I can rely upon as ALWAYS being stunning is key. I also think it is a better service to my clientele as well.

Wink

 

[teobdl]

I would like to see a Super Ideal Pepsi Challenge at JCK.

Scenario: A random assortment of drop ship diamonds that a reasonable PSer would recommend (e.g. diamonds that have the normal PS ideal proportions close to 34.5/40.8/56/62 and good idealscopes) and a random assortment of verified super ideals.

Challenge: Pick the super ideals vs non superideals

Who: all comers. Seasoned veterans, prosumers, and newbies alike.

Rules: Eyes only and a reasonable time limit. PSers should vet the reports and images of the non-super ideal group so that no obvious duds are included. Make sure all diamonds are clean.


I am confident that this challenge will not happen, and not due to logistical/coordination reasons.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I would like to see a Super Ideal Pepsi Challenge at JCK.

Scenario: A random assortment of drop ship diamonds that a reasonable PSer would recommend (e.g. diamonds that have the normal PS ideal proportions close to 34.5/40.8/56/62 and good idealscopes) and a random assortment of verified super ideals.

Challenge: Pick the super ideals vs non superideals

Who: all comers. Seasoned veterans, prosumers, and newbies alike.

Rules: Eyes only and a reasonable time limit. PSers should vet the reports and images of the non-super ideal group so that no obvious duds are included. Make sure all diamonds are clean.


I am confident that this challenge will not happen, and not due to logistical/coordination reasons.

Teobdl,

Forgive me, but such Pepsi-challenge does not work. When drinking a soft-drink, it is all about instant satisfaction, not about long-term joy in experiencing various facets of a diamond.

If security would allow, I would gladly take the following bet.

Against every diamond you suggest out of non-super-ideal-inventory, I would gladly put a diamond of ours, of similar price. Granted, there may be a size-difference OR a color-difference (let’s avoid clarity-differences, as this may be confusing).

Then, let that consumer walk around with both diamonds for two weeks, which allows time to really experience the quality-difference in many light-environments.

I am pretty sure that at the end of the exercise, some consumers will go for your choice. However, I am also sure that a huge majority will prefer to keep my suggestion over yours.

Unfortunately, it is close to impossible to organize such test in a secure way.

Live long,

 

[kb1gra]

There is a flipside to that, which is that often talking yourself out of the stone that most appealed to you originally, is another good way to end up disappointed.

But again, I am not drawn to rounds, generally speaking, and this may be more true for fancies, that the whole stone has to "speak" to you. Talking yourself into an 8-main cushion because it is "the best" when you really like crushed ice, isn't a good way to buy. That option isn't available in a MRB, so that leaves you to start comparing nuances on paper-- because again, I at least am talking about online where the diamond has no real personality, only numbers and pictures. At that point, you must buy paper because there is no option to see different stones together-- outside of vendors like GOG who are so kind as to make comparison videos.

 

[Karl_K]

Then, let that consumer walk around with both diamonds for two weeks, which allows time to really experience the quality-difference in many light-environments.

I have been staying out of this thread for a while because I find going back and forth with David incredibly boring and a waste of my time but Paul hit it on the head with this comment.
There is a huge difference between first impressions and living with the diamond in your own environment for 2 weeks.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- let me just say this first.
You're awesome.
I mean that.
We've spoken many times, and you have a magnetic personality.
Your enthusiasm is contagious as well.
When you show clients diamonds, they will see what you do.
And you're not wrong.
CBI diamonds are amazing. Consistently so.

But ( you knew there was a but I'm sure
I don't think that you would come away with the same impression of an "average" VG cut grade if you sat and looked at a lot of them.
Yes, you may see a difference between a given VG and EX ( or 000) - but some VG's are indistinguishable visually from some XXX/000's

I don't see it as selling an inferior product, any more than I do selling an I1.
As long as the price reflects the diminution of grade.
The whole point of how this discussion started is that there's a value to each aspect of a diamond- each of the four C's.
Balancing the priorities realistically is what I'm advocating.
Not every buyer wants to consider an I1- nor an IF. Not every buyer wants to consider a VG, nor a 000
Neither is a "wrong" choice.

teobdl- AWESOME Idea!!

Paul does raise reasonable considerations- such as the stones being consistent in terms of color/clarity and fluorescence.
In terms of long term enjoyment, that is also a very good point, and far more difficult to ascertain.
For one thing, quality of setting will affect that outcome.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There is a flipside to that, which is that often talking yourself out of the stone that most appealed to you originally, is another good way to end up disappointed.

But again, I am not drawn to rounds, generally speaking, and this may be more true for fancies, that the whole stone has to "speak" to you. Talking yourself into an 8-main cushion because it is "the best" when you really like crushed ice, isn't a good way to buy. That option isn't available in a MRB, so that leaves you to start comparing nuances on paper-- because again, I at least am talking about online where the diamond has no real personality, only numbers and pictures. At that point, you must buy paper because there is no option to see different stones together-- outside of vendors like GOG who are so kind as to make comparison videos.

With regards to "crushed ice" round diamonds- they do indeed exist.
When you have longer LGF's and the non H&A style symmetry, it can cause the light to bounce around a bit and reduce contrast- producing an effect some will call "crushed ice"
Such stones can achieve GIA EX

Comparison videos are great- and there's a lot more options for them nowadays, as more and more sites have actual photos

 

[kb1gra]

There is a flipside to that, which is that often talking yourself out of the stone that most appealed to you originally, is another good way to end up disappointed.

But again, I am not drawn to rounds, generally speaking, and this may be more true for fancies, that the whole stone has to "speak" to you. Talking yourself into an 8-main cushion because it is "the best" when you really like crushed ice, isn't a good way to buy. That option isn't available in a MRB, so that leaves you to start comparing nuances on paper-- because again, I at least am talking about online where the diamond has no real personality, only numbers and pictures. At that point, you must buy paper because there is no option to see different stones together-- outside of vendors like GOG who are so kind as to make comparison videos.

With regards to "crushed ice" round diamonds- they do indeed exist.
When you have longer LGF's and the non H&A style symmetry, it can cause the light to bounce around a bit and reduce contrast- producing an effect some will call "crushed ice"
Such stones can achieve GIA EX

Comparison videos are great- and there's a lot more options for them nowadays, as more and more sites have actual photos

Well, it was more of a generalization. The contrast between a crushed ice style cushion (some of which I really like, so nothing against that) versus say, an antique faceted or an 8-main, is more that I was trying to point out - if you have a strong preference for one, the other likely won't do it for you, but both may be "good performers." If you like the way a longer LGF looks, and someone else talks you into buying a superideal H&A because it's "better," then you still didn't buy the right stone. Get me?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I would like to see a Super Ideal Pepsi Challenge at JCK.

Scenario: A random assortment of drop ship diamonds that a reasonable PSer would recommend (e.g. diamonds that have the normal PS ideal proportions close to 34.5/40.8/56/62 and good idealscopes) and a random assortment of verified super ideals.

Challenge: Pick the super ideals vs non superideals

Who: all comers. Seasoned veterans, prosumers, and newbies alike.

Rules: Eyes only and a reasonable time limit. PSers should vet the reports and images of the non-super ideal group so that no obvious duds are included. Make sure all diamonds are clean.


I am confident that this challenge will not happen, and not due to logistical/coordination reasons.

This is an interesting hypothetical and a worthwhile thing to ponder. It is probably no surprise that I share some of Paul's and Wink's perspective on this. But let me try to frame it my own way.

What this survey would seek to reveal is how apparent visual differences are between ideal and super-ideal cuts, or if they are at all. Fair question since presumably you will be paying a premium for the superideal.

First, the survey is in fact a difficult one to control because in order to see very small differences, you would need to eliminate variance from color/clarity/size/fluro, the experience levels and optical acuity of the observers, and even small differences in proportions sets within the ideal and superideal range. But for the sake of this excersize let's say the test results indicate that there is no clear evidence that people in general can see these differences consistently with the naked eye. Does that then render them of no value? We understand and accept that FL is worth more than VS1. Does the fact that nobody can see that difference without magnification make those differences irrelevant from a value perspective?

One of the team members who did alot of work on the development of the AGS light performance grading system is an MIT mathematician. He is surprising philosophical in his observations about cut quality at the highest levels. He talks about diamonds as tiny 3 dimensional sculptures where the beauty of these small pieces of art is revealed by the perfection of the positioning, alignment and polish of this micro system of tiny mirrors. By examining the various analytics used to seperate ideal from super-ideal we can assess the perfection of these sculptures and appreciate their exceptional level of craftsmanship.

And to Paul's point - a more practical matter. If it is possible to see clear differences regarding the alignment of these mirrors that process light, is it a big surprise that greater cutting precision would result in greater light performance over a wider range of lighting scenarios, even if it is not immediately obvious to the naked eye in a given viewing?

Taking it down one more notch on the practical side -we specialize in ideal cut diamonds. We have both ideal and super-ideal. (we also sell generic diamonds). We have occassion every day to show them to customers in person in our retail store. While many of them opt for our Expert Selection (Ideal and Triple Ex) diamonds (and even non ideals), a high percentage decide to pay a little more for the super ideal. Why is that? Are they wrong? Are they just buying paper and marketing spin?

I don't think so. These folks see value in owning an impeccably crafted diamond with an elite pedigree that will give them optimal performance every day for a lifetime. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing you have something truly exceptional, especially in something as emotionally important as a diamond. I think this decision making process with regard to cut quality is in a sense more logical than paying up for a VS or a VVS over an eye-clean Si, but such choices are also made in the market every single day for similar reasons.

There is something for everyone in the diamond market. We don't all like the same things. As long as we are provided the best available information about the diamonds we are considering, then we will make the right decisions for ourselves as individuals with unique sensibilities and tastes.

 

[KobiD]

But if a well meaning consumer/ member is just going off promotional info and does not understand the real life differences, their recommendation may be leading the person asking in the wrong direction. Unintentional up-sell. I watch the forum closely and this happens all too frequently.

Could you please provide concrete evidence of members up selling off of 'promotional info'.

I personally don't see it that way, however--facts & evidence would help clarify.

Sarahb- I'd guess that this happens in >50% of posts where people are looking for buying advice, maybe even >80%. There is this a strong suggestion that not buying a super ideal means the buyer is "sacrificing light performance" and the buyer will be making a huge mistake if they don't buy one. While it is true that the behavior of diamonds changes as one deviates from the Brian Gavin standard of hearts and arrows, the degree to which the deviation impacts beauty in real life is greatly, greatly exaggerated by many posters. It's incredibly frustrating to see, especially as someone who will sift through actual inventories of non-super ideals to find legitimately great diamonds at good prices that maximize a person's budget. What many posters do is simply pull up the super ideal sites, plug in a budget, and find the 3 diamonds that match the person's criteria. Easy as pie. The problem is that the diamond is often 10-15% lighter with lower color or clarity than an equivalently priced diamond that, in real life, will behave almost identically for 99.9% of people in probably 95% of all situations. No, those aren't real numbers, but I doubt many people would debate the point.

PSers are supposed to be the ones who can dig through the haystack to find the needle with ease, and here we are telling people to avoid the haystack and go right to the pin cushion with the curated, custom, but uniformly made needles. Some people advise that they go to the expensive pin cushion out of naivety, others do so out of laziness.

I get it that a lot of people want the most well-cut diamond they can buy. Those people should absolutely get super ideal diamonds. But many people are buying these super ideals not because they really want the most well-cut diamond ("top 1% of all diamonds!") but because there's a suggestion that diamonds at the 95-98th percentile look like crap.

I hope my post doesn't come across as hostile against super ideal vendors and associates. My gripe is with the people who are proxy upselling out of naivety or laziness.

I hear what you are saying, and have noticed the exact same thing in my short time here. The focus is 100% on cut and light performance, with all sacrifices falling in line afterwards (typically, size, colour, clarity.. in about that order).

To investigate a bit for myself, I went to a local jewellers and specifically asked them to pick me a GIA 3X, and a GIA VG to compare side by side. Granted I couldn't take the stones out of the store and into natural lights, I could move them around and shelter them from the spot lights to a certain extent. To be honest, the difference in performance while measurable (we've all seen ideal scope images, simulations, etc) was almost insignificant to the naked eye. Yes, you could do comparisons under spot lighting and see a facet or two light up where another wouldn't but to the layman or average joe there really wasn't a lot in it.

In contrast, the AGS0 stone of my partner had not been cleaned in a week, and looking at it after viewing these other stones it looked somewhat dull, especially when darkening up under direct sunlight/bright spotlighting. There was also very little in the way of fireworks, for a stone which is usually a cracker.

What I am saying is that while I can agree that ideal proportions WILL return more light, that while a buyer won't neccessarily go wrong buying a top performer (I don't know why anyone wouldn't want great light performance), that to me personally, the effects of a weeks grime (on a ring that isn't even worn daily) had a larger impact on performance than the cut. Obviously, this was only between a VG and G, and moving down further you'd expect diminishing returns. I just didn't see such a huge variance as PS would make you believe.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

But if a well meaning consumer/ member is just going off promotional info and does not understand the real life differences, their recommendation may be leading the person asking in the wrong direction. Unintentional up-sell. I watch the forum closely and this happens all too frequently.

Could you please provide concrete evidence of members up selling off of 'promotional info'.

I personally don't see it that way, however--facts & evidence would help clarify.

Sarahb- I'd guess that this happens in >50% of posts where people are looking for buying advice, maybe even >80%. There is this a strong suggestion that not buying a super ideal means the buyer is "sacrificing light performance" and the buyer will be making a huge mistake if they don't buy one. While it is true that the behavior of diamonds changes as one deviates from the Brian Gavin standard of hearts and arrows, the degree to which the deviation impacts beauty in real life is greatly, greatly exaggerated by many posters. It's incredibly frustrating to see, especially as someone who will sift through actual inventories of non-super ideals to find legitimately great diamonds at good prices that maximize a person's budget. What many posters do is simply pull up the super ideal sites, plug in a budget, and find the 3 diamonds that match the person's criteria. Easy as pie. The problem is that the diamond is often 10-15% lighter with lower color or clarity than an equivalently priced diamond that, in real life, will behave almost identically for 99.9% of people in probably 95% of all situations. No, those aren't real numbers, but I doubt many people would debate the point.

PSers are supposed to be the ones who can dig through the haystack to find the needle with ease, and here we are telling people to avoid the haystack and go right to the pin cushion with the curated, custom, but uniformly made needles. Some people advise that they go to the expensive pin cushion out of naivety, others do so out of laziness.

I get it that a lot of people want the most well-cut diamond they can buy. Those people should absolutely get super ideal diamonds. But many people are buying these super ideals not because they really want the most well-cut diamond ("top 1% of all diamonds!") but because there's a suggestion that diamonds at the 95-98th percentile look like crap.

I hope my post doesn't come across as hostile against super ideal vendors and associates. My gripe is with the people who are proxy upselling out of naivety or laziness.

I hear what you are saying, and have noticed the exact same thing in my short time here. The focus is 100% on cut and light performance, with all sacrifices falling in line afterwards (typically, size, colour, clarity.. in about that order).

To investigate a bit for myself, I went to a local jewellers and specifically asked them to pick me a GIA 3X, and a GIA VG to compare side by side. Granted I couldn't take the stones out of the store and into natural lights, I could move them around and shelter them from the spot lights to a certain extent. To be honest, the difference in performance while measurable (we've all seen ideal scope images, simulations, etc) was almost insignificant to the naked eye. Yes, you could do comparisons under spot lighting and see a facet or two light up where another wouldn't but to the layman or average joe there really wasn't a lot in it.

In contrast, the AGS0 stone of my partner had not been cleaned in a week, and looking at it after viewing these other stones it looked somewhat dull, especially when darkening up under direct sunlight/bright spotlighting. There was also very little in the way of fireworks, for a stone which is usually a cracker.

What I am saying is that while I can agree that ideal proportions WILL return more light, that while a buyer won't neccessarily go wrong buying a top performer (I don't know why anyone wouldn't want great light performance), that to me personally, the effects of a weeks grime (on a ring that isn't even worn daily) had a larger impact on performance than the cut. Obviously, this was only between a VG and G, and moving down further you'd expect diminishing returns. I just didn't see such a huge variance as PS would make you believe.

Kobi,
I will pick up on your point about a dropoff in performance with buildup. Keeping diamonds properly cleaned is major pet peeve of mine. It makes a huge difference in performance. And I agree with you, a dirty AGS0 can look inferior to a clean not-so-well cut diamond. However, a well cut stone will hold up better under duress in terms of performance, than a less well cut stone. That is when dirty and/or low light situations.

On a related note, I find a bit of a disconnect in a buying approach that is focused on precision cutting but willing to sacrifice too much on clarity. Certain clarity attributes can significantly undermine light performance. And no matter how well you clean that diamond, you will never get the full value of the cut quality. On the other hand one could argue that if you are going to buy a lower clarity diamond, it better be well cut or you compound your problem!

Bottom line, if you are going to obsess on cut quality, please obsess on keeping it clean.

 

[KobiD]

Kobi,
I will pick up on your point about a dropoff in performance with buildup. Keeping diamonds properly cleaned is major pet peeve of mine. It makes a huge difference in performance. And I agree with you, a dirty AGS0 can look inferior to a clean not-so-well cut diamond. However, a well cut stone will hold up better under duress in terms of performance, than a less well cut stone. That is when dirty and/or low light situations.

On a related note, I find a bit of a disconnect in a buying approach that is focused on precision cutting but willing to sacrifice too much on clarity. Certain clarity attributes can significantly undermine light performance. And no matter how well you clean that diamond, you will never get the full value of the cut quality. On the other hand one could argue that if you are going to buy a lower clarity diamond, it better be well cut or you compound your problem!

Bottom line, if you are going to obsess on cut quality, please obsess on keeping it clean.

I think the part in bold is the key to the whole discussion. For someone who is going to obsess over their diamond, evaluate it, inspect it under magnification and scopes, perform macro photograghy on it, then the additional cost involved in stepping up to a super ideal optically symmetrical stone is worth the value.

On the other hand, I would argue a large proption of the market simply buy a ring to wear. I have probably spent more time inspecting and evaluating the stone in my ladies ring than she has. For her, the performance appears to be second to what the ring actually signifies and how it looks as a whole.

The difference between ideal/superideal could be the difference between ironing your undies or not. I don't think feel it makes much difference to those who don't know, but would to those who care. It just boils down to if you're one of those people or not.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great post Kobi!

About clarity and cut:
Drawing conclusions is totally impossible- in other words, better cut does not automatically help lower clarity stones.
There's far too many other factors that totally outweigh cut in terms of how visible an imperfection is an a diamond. Most notably nature and placement of imperfection.

About stones getting dirty.
Cut does play a roll here, but not better cut worse cut.
The type of cut makes a difference
Stones with larger facets on the pavilion, such as a round or old mine cushion are less susceptible to dirt than a stone like a marquise, or Radiant cut. In all cases, you really need to keep the stone clean to have it really sparkle.
If we're comparing round EX vs VG in this regard, again, quality of cut has no bearing.

All due respect- but is exactly the type of info that can be very misleading to consumers.
Buy a super ideal for the beauty, the precision, the consistency- but let's not attach attributes that have nothing to do with super ideal.

 

[KobiD]

Great post Kobi!

About clarity and cut:
Drawing conclusions is totally impossible- in other words, better cut does not automatically help lower clarity stones.
There's far too many other factors that totally outweigh cut in terms of how visible an imperfection is an a diamond. Most notably nature and placement of imperfection.

About stones getting dirty.
Cut does play a roll here, but not better cut worse cut.
The type of cut makes a difference
Stones with larger facets on the pavilion, such as a round or old mine cushion are less susceptible to dirt than a stone like a marquise, or Radiant cut. In all cases, you really need to keep the stone clean to have it really sparkle.
If we're comparing round EX vs VG in this regard, again, quality of cut has no bearing.

All due respect- but is exactly the type of info that can be very misleading to consumers.
Buy a super ideal for the beauty, the precision, the consistency- but let's not attach attributes that have nothing to do with super ideal.

I disagree.

Using the tools (IS/ASET) to compare two stones, the one which HAS a greater light return, will also have the best chance of maintaining light return as grime builds up on the stone.

I'm not taking sides at all here and being completely impartial. Light performance is light performance - there are no two ways about it. Cut is the main factor driving light return, while other aspects can also affect/influence the light performance. This is where TL, wink, etc are coming from, and with good reason too.

For me, the variances are somewhat subtle, particularly in the less than 1ct weight range. I believe that it really boils down to the end user/owner and how they perceive their stone. As far as prosumers making suggestions biased towards TIC, they do so with their own expectations, as if they were purchasing for themselves. One thing lost in the internet is that you really don't get to grasp who your customer is, or precisely what they are hoping to achieve. Not everyone are jewellery enthusiasts, and not everyone is anal about light performance in the top percentile. Many are happy to wear their rings day in day out, without too much concern over how it actually looks or performs, while others have treats for special occassions chasing the 'wow factor'.

Pricescope seems to consist of both targets. The prosumers who dwell here because of their intense interest in diamonds, and the average consumer who comes here knowing nothing. Both at opposite ends. The average consumer would likely be happy with any old rock, so a VG isn't a bad stone to them, nor is a triple Ex or AGS0. There is a market for all grades, colours, cuts, etc. For me, I personally love the appeal of a precision cut simply for the workmanship involved in creating such a masterpiece from rough.. but in saying that I did end up sacrificing and settling on an ideal that lacks a little symmetry to meet a price point which I had determined fair; not due to a lack of funds, but simply to the dollars going towards a rock. I like to try and keep things in check with reality as much as possible - and if a VG stone can be shown which meets someones requirements, then its a winner to them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Light performance= preference.
Period.
There's no such thing as "better light performance" other than a persons preference.
Even if ray tracing/aset/is can tell us which diamond returns more light in theory, there is no workable calibration to tell us which diamond returns more light in the real world- and even if there was, returning more light in and of itself does not make a diamond more desirable, or better cut. Mirrors return more light than diamonds..
In terms of the dirt aspect- it the size and placement of the facets on the pavilion that causes a different light performance- not better, different.
This has to do with physics and changes how a diamond looks when there's gunk on the pavilion.
Changing from EX to VG will have ZERO affect on how the diamond looks when dirty for that reason alone.

 

[KobiD]

Light performance= preference.
Period.
There's no such thing as "better light performance" other than a persons preference.
Even if ray tracing/aset/is can tell us which diamond returns more light in theory, there is no workable calibration to tell us which diamond returns more light in the real world- and even if there was, returning more light does not make a diamond more desirable, or better cut. Mirrors return more light than diamonds..
In terms of the dirt aspect- it the size and placement of the facets on the pavilion that causes a different light performance- not better, different.
This has to do with physics and changes how a diamond looks when there's gunk on the pavilion.
Changing from EX to VG will have ZERO affect on how the diamond looks when dirty for that reason alone.

I have read a few threads that have taken this same path Rockdiamond, and likely why many feel its beating the same old horse. Speaking from someone who's not affiliated with the trade, ASET/IS displays more than just theory. Ray tracing and simulation is theoretical, but to physically view a reflected image through a scope is about as real world as you will get. To me, its not entirely measurable data, but definitely shows variance between light return and leakage, often backed by real world interpretation (consumers/prosumers). You can dismiss it as you please (and as you have in the past), but imo it shows a lack of understanding on your behalf. I see no purpose in dismissing light performance as it has been defined.

Personal preference = personal preference, and yes, some may like different ways in which light can be returned. Some may indeed find high performing diamonds outside of the range of EX/Ideal, some may find beauty in diamonds that don't quite perform at the same level. Some may place value on colour, size, or clarity above sparkle and brightness. When it comes to personal preference and the concept of value, there is no right or wrong.

In saying all that, I can see your point in that many threads on PS try to push the light performance, cut above all else, and the simple reason is that most believe a diamond should sparkle! It should be a balance of brightness, brilliance, and fire. But for some, its less of a consideration. Individuals may be just as happy sacrificing some cut grade and light return in exchange for colour or size. Each to their own.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Great post Kobi!

About clarity and cut:
Drawing conclusions is totally impossible- in other words, better cut does not automatically help lower clarity stones.
There's far too many other factors that totally outweigh cut in terms of how visible an imperfection is an a diamond. Most notably nature and placement of imperfection.

About stones getting dirty.
Cut does play a roll here, but not better cut worse cut.
The type of cut makes a difference
Stones with larger facets on the pavilion, such as a round or old mine cushion are less susceptible to dirt than a stone like a marquise, or Radiant cut. In all cases, you really need to keep the stone clean to have it really sparkle.
If we're comparing round EX vs VG in this regard, again, quality of cut has no bearing.

All due respect- but is exactly the type of info that can be very misleading to consumers.
Buy a super ideal for the beauty, the precision, the consistency- but let's not attach attributes that have nothing to do with super ideal.

I disagree.

Using the tools (IS/ASET) to compare two stones, the one which HAS a greater light return, will also have the best chance of maintaining light return as grime builds up on the stone.

I'm not taking sides at all here and being completely impartial. Light performance is light performance - there are no two ways about it. Cut is the main factor driving light return, while other aspects can also affect/influence the light performance. This is where TL, wink, etc are coming from, and with good reason too.

For me, the variances are somewhat subtle, particularly in the less than 1ct weight range. I believe that it really boils down to the end user/owner and how they perceive their stone. As far as prosumers making suggestions biased towards TIC, they do so with their own expectations, as if they were purchasing for themselves. One thing lost in the internet is that you really don't get to grasp who your customer is, or precisely what they are hoping to achieve. Not everyone are jewellery enthusiasts, and not everyone is anal about light performance in the top percentile. Many are happy to wear their rings day in day out, without too much concern over how it actually looks or performs, while others have treats for special occassions chasing the 'wow factor'.

Pricescope seems to consist of both targets. The prosumers who dwell here because of their intense interest in diamonds, and the average consumer who comes here knowing nothing. Both at opposite ends. The average consumer would likely be happy with any old rock, so a VG isn't a bad stone to them, nor is a triple Ex or AGS0. There is a market for all grades, colours, cuts, etc. For me, I personally love the appeal of a precision cut simply for the workmanship involved in creating such a masterpiece from rough.. but in saying that I did end up sacrificing and settling on an ideal that lacks a little symmetry to meet a price point which I had determined fair; not due to a lack of funds, but simply to the dollars going towards a rock. I like to try and keep things in check with reality as much as possible - and if a VG stone can be shown which meets someones requirements, then its a winner to them.

Kobi,
I think you have alot of insight and a pretty balanced view of things here. Where I would diverge from your assessment above is at the sentence I bolded. There is a difference between the average consumer and the one that finds his or her way to pricescope and then actually posts. They are not the average consumer in the way that we think of it in the broad market. The average consumer believes that every kiss begins with K. As an old baseball player, I think of K as a strikeout! The consumer that you see posting here (in general) is traveling a different journey, and the prosumers here understand this. And this understanding helps mold the response and advice that is given.

The modern consumer, especially the young guy looking for a kick-ass engagement ring, is unlike any consumer the jewelry industry has ever known before. He/she is educated, comfortable utilizing the web in many ways, and is "self-educating". This consumer is seeking something more, something better, than what is out there in the traditional jewelry world.

They find that something extra, something better here. Yes, they get differing opinions from the "you must buy super ideal, everything else is crap" to the "trust me I have been in business forever and mediocrity is all you really need. You will get it cheaper and it will be spreadier". This consumer is astute and can parse these different opinions out and they will generally make the smart decision.

I think it is important to recognize that pricescope is a microcosm of the broader market. And distinctly different. There is no problem with a chorus containing many voices. It's a good thing. It lets us exercise our freedom to be who we want to be and to become masters of our own destiny. I love it!

 

[BrownyJones]

I wouldnt say all consumers that find PS are astute. Just last week there was a young lad from texas that was basically peer-pressured into buying a super duper ideal stone since his darn near perfect stone was dissed by a few expert PSers. I'm sticking with my great stone and custom setting because when that rock is on my fiance's finger, its going to be perfect not because it has a HCA score of 0.9, no whitish spots on the idealscope image, or perfectly formed hearts and arrows, but because my fiance will make that ring look perfect! Thanks gyspy and all the other great advice on here.

 

[KobiD]

Well said TL. Can't say I disagree with anything you've said there. Rarely is too much information a bad thing for the conscientious buyer, and ultimately how the individual then defines 'value' is then an entirely personal decision.

I think there is generally just a perpetuated belief that anything less than super-ideal is not worth owning, even if the price is reflects this. I know personally, I'd be more inclined to look towards standard TIC proportions than not, and that is even after seeing the variance between AGS Ideal through to GIA VG. Given my time again, I may even splash on some more symmetry.. but its only when putting things under scrutiny that I pick up these changes. I just happen to be an analytical person by nature so it appeals to me.