Gabrielle Cut?

[lil_jay78]

Hi guys...long time no see...

I''ve been on hiatus as work has been crazy lately and I''ve been working on my proposal plans for my gf.

Anyway, I was strolling around westwood last week and walked into Sarah Leonard, where they had several Gabrielle Cuts on display. Of course I had to display my PS knowledge and began asking about the diamond. This is the first time I''ve actually seen a Gabrielle Cut, and the saleslady informed me they are an exclusive dealer for Gabby cuts.

I also found out that these stones currently do not have any GIA or AGS certs, which makes sense to me, considering they are pretty new(right?). Anyway, the sales lady was very impressed w/ the type of questions I was asking and asked if I was a jeweler, and I said, i was just a "fan" of diamonds.

Anyway, the Gabrielle Cut really looks like a nice diamond, but there is little to no information about them so far...so any 411 you guys can give would be awesome. I''d like to see what you guys think.

btw - I''m about to post pics of my ring on SMTR...

 

[JulieN]

Jay, looks like I'll have to go down there and see!

Just because a cut is new doesn't mean that GIA or AGS can't grade it, methinks.

wait, what are they?? round? cushion-ish? step cut?

 

[diagem]

The Gabrielle cut is a cut designed by Master Cutter Gabi Tolkowsky, it comes in rounds and different assortment of fancy shapes...
I am surprised they dont come with any report.

 

[lizz]

I know that Gabi Tolkowsky is the descendent of the "inventor" of the round brilliant diamond cut (Marcel Tolkowsky), that is so popular today.

This pic is from the Robbins Bros. website. This is what they say about this cut:

"The rough is chosen by legendary diamond cutter, Gabrielle Tolkowski, for its unique characteristics and then cut to the 105 facet, triple brilliant standard. The "Gabrielle" is recognized as the most elaborate cut of the century."

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2006 6:02:22 PM
Author: JulieN
Jay, looks like I''ll have to go down there and see!

Just because a cut is new doesn''t mean that GIA or AGS can''t grade it, methinks.

wait, what are they?? round? cushion-ish? step cut?

No it doesnt mean that, but lately GIA has been having a lot of problems with their plots (sketches) on newly cut diamonds.

I know quite a few cutters who are pretty fed up with the fact that GIA doesnt take their sketches into consideration. The GIA seems to rather place the wrong plots on a lot of new unidentifiable cut out there.

But i seriously doubt they would give Gabi Tolkowski a hard time...

 

[KristyDarling]

I saw this cut at Shreve here in San Francisco last year while I was shopping for my upgrade, and while I was dazzled by all the flashes of light and all the teeny, tiny facets (many, many, many facets!!!), it was all a little too chaotic for my eyes. When I look into a stone, I like to see crisp, clear facets, preferably arranged in an arrow pattern....the Gabrielle is cut so elaborately and it''s just so flashy that I don''t remember discerning any pattern at all. (or maybe it was the lighting at Shreve, not sure if that affected my perception) I also remember it being insanely priced. I''ll take a traditional H&A cut stone any day over a Gabrielle!

 

[belle]

the gabrielle has been around for a few years. i saw it last year at one of the local jewelers and remember thinking it was nice, even though i''m not generally a fan of the highly faceted diamonds (or R E A L L Y high prices!). the lack of ags/gia grading report is not due to the cut being ''new'' but more likely a choice by mr. tolkosky himself.

 

[jcrow]

so is it like a round radiant-crushed-glass-look?

 

[lil_jay78]

I didn''t know there were Gabrielle cuts for different shapes...or are there? I''m not sure if I read a response correctly...

Anyway, the one I was looking at was a round and 105 facets, just like a lot of you said. The one I saw was very sparkly but just like you also said, VERY expensive.

The stone I saw at the store was...I THINK, 3/4 carat, H and SI3 and was $7000! Crazy huh?

So how would one verify a Gabby cut w/o an official cert?

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2006 6:26:55 PM
Author: lil_jay78
I didn''t know there were Gabrielle cuts for different shapes...or are there? I''m not sure if I read a response correctly...

Anyway, the one I was looking at was a round and 105 facets, just like a lot of you said. The one I saw was very sparkly but just like you also said, VERY expensive.

The stone I saw at the store was...I THINK, 3/4 carat, H and SI3 and was $7000! Crazy huh?

So how would one verify a Gabby cut w/o an official cert?

Yes, they are cut in all kinds of fancy shapes, you read right...

 

[pricescope]

http://www.gabriellediamonds.com/home/default.asp - on the top, second link is The Shape.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gabi is too much a gentleman to say he is p****d about the issue - but here is what he had to say at the First Diamond Cut Conference we ran in Moscow 2004:
Gabi Tolkowsky – Diamond Report – Technical or Descriptive

The end Consumer: What are the major elements which make people make the decision to acquire a diamond?
After my numerous lectures given worldwide to consumers, and professionals alike, and the "LIVE" conversations with them, their immediate reactions, their questions, comments, requests and their continuous "come backs", I will give my feedback to the audience on this topic.

The internet and the multiple publications have resulted in our professional language on diamond grading reports spilling into common knowledge. Now the general public attempts to use this technical and specialized language and knowledge. Is this appropriate for consumers? Will it result in them being as attracted to diamonds for their inherent beauty and symbolism? Or should we keep our professional language to ourselves and adapt other language that is itself more descriptive for the senses such as "Rarity", "Beauty", "Dream", "Emotion", "Craftsmanship", "Art" etc?.

Should we have two copies of every diamond grading report? The first could be the internal trade expert’s copy, that is, a detailed Technical Diamond Report (for professional use only). The second could be a descriptive Diamond Report written for the attention of the consumer? I propose this not to deceive or conceal information from consumers. It should be ethical and honest, but descriptive in words that are easily understood and where possible they should be emotional words.

Consider for instance these words that we use in our language: Cut, Cleave, Brute, Saw and Laser. I do not Cut a diamond. The word 'Cut' means in English: make an opening or a wound in something, with a sharp tool such as a knife or scissors. To divide and remove something from something large;- To reduce something by removing material, etc

As a professional diamond-cutter-: I would say: "Divide" We divide a diamond if necessary (cleaving, sawing, lasering). As a professional diamond-bruter-: I would say: We "Fashion" a shape. We fashion its form. As a professional diamond-polisher-: I would say: We "Fashion" a shape or its form, and we polish the surface by applying the "Style" of a "design" with precise "facets" or "Mirrors". Should our terminology be "Technical"? Or, should it become more "Descriptive"?

What, for instance, do the words Modified or Variations mean when to a consumer when they read “Modified Square Brilliant”, the words chosen by a Gemological Laboratory to describe a new diamond designed by a fashioner, and released to the market? Indeed what does the word Modified Brilliant mean even to you and me? What relevance do these terms even have to do with a consumer? They need explaining by sales people at the counter. But even to us, do these terms make no sense?

And what are the meanings of Finish, Make, Proportions, Cut Grading, Finish Grading, Major Symmetry, Minor Symmetry. This is jargon that means nothing to consumers.
So the new diamond designed by a fashioner, and released to the market that is described by the Gemological Laboratories as a “modified square brilliant” or whatever, this new design is subject to very high expenses for protection purposes. The patent and the trade marks are very expensive, and also difficult and costly to defend. I would like to propose that the Gemological Laboratories maintain a complete and confidential library of past and future "Shapes and Styles”. If all the labs would do this then it can provide a type of legal protection to creativity and invention for any new designs reaching the open market. The labs could help to protect the work of any artist who can create a new beauty. And if they did then there would be more desire for people to do as I have done many times with my Zoe’s and my Gabrielle’s and so on. They would create their own beauties. There would be many more new inventions and innovations of new diamonds and more creativity and freedom. This extra creativity would attract more attention to the art forms of diamonds.

Current designs and past historical designs could also be presented with new parameters which are not currently considered conventional. This could be because of depth, table, crown, pavilion, cutlet or shape etc. Maybe it should be possible to create new names or categories for such innovations if they can be shown to be new?

And what does the word “Fancy” mean? Should the general description "Fancies" or "Fancy-Shape" be described as being "Natural-Shape". Often the shape that led to the ‘fancy shape’ reflects the form of the original rough diamond. It arose because the craftsman chose to protect the natural outline of the individual natural rough diamond shape. So can we imagine new terminology that better describes the diamond so that it means more and adds better value to what we have done with the natural rough gem. The thing that was made by The Almighty, the creator of all things. So what words can we give to diamonds to make it more beautiful and important and meaningful to the person who buys it to give as a gift, perhaps the most important gift or symbol that many people receive in their life-time.

Thank you
Gabi Tolkowsky

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/22/2006 8:02:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Gabi:

Should we have two copies of every diamond grading report? The first could be the internal trade expert’s copy, that is, a detailed Technical Diamond Report (for professional use only). The second could be a descriptive Diamond Report written for the attention of the consumer? I propose this not to deceive or conceal information from consumers. It should be ethical and honest, but descriptive in words that are easily understood and where possible they should be emotional words.

Great words from a great man.

This reminds me of thoughts related to internet diamond purchasing while discussing them as a commodity (below reposted from this thread):

- - - - -

The ‘Commoditization of Diamonds’ within the trade refers to the reduction of emotional aspects of diamonds to sterile economics and technicalities by manufacturers and sellers. Retailers are in business to buy and sell diamonds and to make a profit. Consumers buy diamonds to own them or give them away as emotional statements.

Retailers describe diamonds as ‘D / SAS 0.400,’ or ‘fancy vivid yellow.’ Consumers who see them will say ‘it’s icy’ or ‘it matches her dress.’

Retailers describe them as ‘SI2’ or ‘VVS.’ Consumers merely see a ‘birthmark’ or not.

Retailers describe ‘p407t53c345.’ Consumers see sparkle and colors.

Because they deal with retailers, consumers meet us on economic levels, but ultimately no one will wear a tag stating ‘D, VVS, p407t53c345’ on their diamond… Once it’s sold the economics become secondary. The most important thing to the buyer will be the emotional descriptors (“How icy! How sparkly!"), used long after technicalities are forgotten.

Before internet sales existed, shoppers saw diamonds under blazing jewelry store lights. Diamonds sold themselves with emotions. Technicalities such as grading reports to confirm pedigree were often afterthoughts.

On the internet, the opposite is true: The online shopper is now offered technicalities and pedigree before ever seeing the diamond live. It’s a complete reversal. This is why sometimes in the trade you will hear ‘The commoditization of diamonds’ and internet sales mentioned together.

- - - - -

There are diamontaires who do not approve of our little corner of the world because it is so analytic. We speak in terms of HCA < 2, Ideal grades, Ex-Ex, reflector photos, etc. Gabi is 100% right...Those terms are not descriptive of beauty or emotional. They are a purely analytic means to an ultimately aesthetic end.

Of course, it can be argued that the result of this analytic purchase winds up as aesthetically pleasing and emotional as any conventional purchase when all is said and done... And, in the end, it is the emotion and delight that endures (and keeps bringing people back to do it again).

 

[ilovesparkles]

A bit bigger picture and the fancy shapes it comes in.

 

[jasontb]

John, unless I''m misunderstanding, I''m quite surprised to hear you say that the internet is resultsing in the ‘Commoditization of Diamonds’. In fact I''d say it''s quite the opposite.

Definition of a commodity: In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer are considered equivalent. It is the contract and this underlying standard that define the commodity, not any quality inherent in the product. One can reasonably say that food commodities, for example, are defined by the fact that they substitute for each other in recipes, and that one can use the food without having to look at it too closely.
I''d say this is the exact opposite of what is happeneding on pricescope. Seems to me that in the old days if it was a G VS2 1.0-ct it was worth $XYZ. Today on PS we want to know much more about it. You are selling a brand. That is the the opposite of commoditization. Just because people want information and refuse to buy on emotion doesn''t mean the item is a commodity.

I proabably just misunderstood...

 

[Sparkle Boy]

Thinking from a purely business persepctive, and as a business person looking into diamonds for the first time, this is an interesting topic of discussion.

On the one hand I can see that all the technical aspects on the reports are not highly descriptive in terms of beauty to the final consumer. On the other hand, all of these descriptors and technical specifications have in fact created the very basis of value for the industry. It seems to me to be a tough thing to suggest two different sets of language when you rely on that very language to define the value of the object you are selling.

You can see this problem in Gabi Tolkowsky''s talk on protecting the inventions on cutters. Right now the protection comes in patents, but more plainly in the actual technical language and specifications of the diamond, and the reports we all seek out. If the consumer is educated on cut quality then these better cut diamonds will be worth the premium. The technical aspects that aren''t very descriptive of beauty become the proof or description of beauty.

As a consumer it seems disingenious to me to try to keep one set of specs for the industry and another for the consumer. I have to think this is taking a big risk. Everyone shops differently and some people would seek out the information anyway.

Like I said earlier, I am always trying to learn. This discussion really got me thinking, what would be the best way to go? Right now the only way to prove, or sell, the value of a quality cut diamond is to use the language the industry has created. Three months ago I didn''t even know what the 4C''s are, now I am looking at pavilion angles. With the internet, the information is out there to make an educated decision. I have looked with my computer at endless specs and I have looked with my eyes. I keep going back to the more expensive well cut diamonds. I have to say something in the industry is working if I can see the value in the best cut diamonds. I can say that this is a testement to people like Gary H that have created quantitative measures that describe qualitative qualities very well.

Great topic and interesting discussion.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/22/2006 9:58:57 PM
Author: jasontb



John, unless I'm misunderstanding, I'm quite surprised to hear you say that the internet is resultsing in the ‘Commoditization of Diamonds’. In fact I'd say it's quite the opposite.

...I proabably just misunderstood...

Jason - It's my fault for not being clear about context with the above post. In the original thread I was explaining an application of the phrase 'The commoditization of diamonds.'

After a few more posts I added this, which better describes my own opinion:

- - - - -

To the original question: Is commoditization a bad thing?

As with everything, the answer depends on balance: NO economic info is just as bad as over-focus on economic info (this is the commoditization that is 'feared'). I don’t ‘fear’ the amount of commoditization necessary to sell diamonds on the internet, but I do strongly believe in a balance.

The one extreme (no economic info) is when a shopper sees a diamond under blazing lights and relies on ‘instinct’ or uneducated sensory input with no concern for information. Though some people are ok that way, for many it could be too much emphasis on emotion without being prudent – and can lead to regret.

The other extreme (over-commoditization) is overemphasis on excessive data, technical abstracts and machine reports. Although some people are wired that way, for many people the reduction of an emotional object to a data stream is an exhausting exercise that may lead to anxiety or mental gridlock.

Neither extreme serves the majority of consumers. Most are comfortable somewhere between the poles.

Fearing ‘commoditization’ is futile, since the internet is here to stay. Instead, the focus should be on assessing and meeting each consumer’s needs on a case by case basis. The advantage we offer as internet dealers is that consumers are in control… If our clients go away both emotionally delighted and economically confident in their purchase, what is to fear?

- - - - -

More follows in the original thread. I linked it before, but it was teeny. Here it is if you want to see other thoughts.

 

[pricescope]

‘Commoditization of Diamonds’

The consumer market of diamonds is commoditized as much as a Puppy market is - puppies are commodities within the trade and on the stage that a consumer starts to look for one.
From the moment a pup changes hands it escapes being a data entry unit (with attributes like breed, pedigree, age, etc. - all the necessary "C"'s which the buyer was researching, educating himself to death or to a comfortable level).
The pup that belongs to me is not a commodity - he/she is not even an it anymore.
One's personal attachment to The diamond after it has been purchased will never allow definitive commoditization, even when it must be upgraded - it's still emotions talking, just different ones.

The more a trade puts into the consumer education phase (which is a commodity stage, but there's nothing wrong with that) the more enjoyment this luxury product will bring to the owner, the less cognitive dissonance (which is a fancy trade name for buyer's remorse) happens.

The "Diamond market" is not the "Gold market" and not the "Art Collectors" market - it's in between - it's a Puppy market. Nobody needs them but most of us want them and want the best ones for the budget.

2 cents (saved on diamonds)

 

[mepearl53]

My puppy would agree with that

 

[^]

Before internet sales existed, shoppers saw diamonds under blazing jewelry store lights. Diamonds sold themselves with emotions. Technicalities such as grading reports to confirm pedigree were often afterthoughts.

On the internet, the opposite is true: The online shopper is now offered technicalities and pedigree before ever seeing the diamond live. It’s a complete reversal. This is why sometimes in the trade you will hear ‘The commoditization of diamonds’ and internet sales mentioned together.

It''s insightful, intelligent dialog like this thread which makes PS, well, a diamond in the rough. Few other message boards, whatever the topic, can compare to the high-minded, supportive, honest and constructive discourse found on these boards. What you''re describing speaks volumes to what I personally am going through. There''s the tendency to distill each diamond down to some magical set of data to ensure I purchase the best possible diamond for the woman who deserves no less. And there''s the knowledge that she will care far more about the emotional, artistic aspect of the gift; In fact she will probably be turned off by my spouting off about table size and BrillianceScope scores.

But there is a reason that we have become so obsessed with the numbers: Bad apples which ruin it for everybody. As long as there are B&M''s out there that are overcharging and duping people into purchasing poor quality diamonds which they later regret, discerning consumers will turn to the internet and its efficient system of disseminating information and rooting out the bad guys while filtering the good guys to the top (often, not always). Excessive painting and digging, overly-spready stones, etc. are artifacts of the greed that is part of human nature. We are educated about the tricks certain manufacturers use to "cheat" us, and learn that the numbers help us combat them.

Additionally, buying sight unseen (or at least ordering for inspection sight unseen), we must depend upon objective data to take the place of what our eyes would tell us in a B&M. And even when we do see them, for verification that our untrained eyes won''t be fooled by circumstantial lighting, etc. On the face of it, a process devoid of romance. Thankfully the numbers are only step 1 in the process (at least my process).

As Pricescope said, the purchase is both qualitative and quantitative simultaneously. I have gathered that good performance, loosely defined, is dictated by good numbers, usually. PS buyers are uber-consumers, highly educated when compared to the majority of diamond consumers. For us, the numbers serve a great purpose. For everybody else, I think AGS, for instance, is trying to distill all the information down to an easily digestible summary, and for that I commend them. They are getting better, and while not perfect, will help average consumers get a better diamond. Manufacturers will always come up with creative ways to squeeze more out of a diamond at the expense of performance while circumventing grading penalties.

The qualitative terms Gabi proposes don''t resonate with me. For instance, there are few enough movie critics out there that you know to some degree whose qualitative analysis you can trust. But standardizing highly subjective and individualized opinions for mass marketing the sheer number of diamonds out there seems unrealistic -- unromantic, even. Besides, like wine labels, manufacturers or whomever can give their opinions, but in the end the consumers'' eyes and hearts will make the final call on subjective judgements. You don''t find out that you don''t like movies or wine till you''ve bought and used them. Diamonds, however, only take an inspection to confirm what the numbers are suggesting.

I think the key would be to have an institute like AGS be more universally known as an authority, so B&M''s with shady certifications can''t get away with passing their diamonds off as better than they are. Consumers could then rely on their grading (with improvements) to ensure they aren''t getting swindled, and then let their eyes and hearts make the final call in person comparing like stones.

I do agree with his assertion that the labs should support patent claims with better libraries. Though I imagine this is impractical, I love the notion that more artists would be encouraged to experiment.

In the end it is about striking a balance between quantitative and qualitative aspects. Which is one of the many reasons why she is so great for me.

^

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/23/2006 6:20:50 PM
Author: ^

Before internet sales existed, shoppers saw diamonds under blazing jewelry store lights. Diamonds sold themselves with emotions. Technicalities such as grading reports to confirm pedigree were often afterthoughts.

On the internet, the opposite is true: The online shopper is now offered technicalities and pedigree before ever seeing the diamond live. It’s a complete reversal. This is why sometimes in the trade you will hear ‘The commoditization of diamonds’ and internet sales mentioned together.

It''s insightful, intelligent dialog like this thread which makes PS, well, a diamond in the rough. Few other message boards, whatever the topic, can compare to the high-minded, supportive, honest and constructive discourse found on these boards. What you''re describing speaks volumes to what I personally am going through. There''s the tendency to distill each diamond down to some magical set of data to ensure I purchase the best possible diamond for the woman who deserves no less. And there''s the knowledge that she will care far more about the emotional, artistic aspect of the gift; In fact she will probably be turned off by my spouting off about table size and BrillianceScope scores.

But there is a reason that we have become so obsessed with the numbers: Bad apples which ruin it for everybody. As long as there are B&M''s out there that are overcharging and duping people into purchasing poor quality diamonds which they later regret, discerning consumers will turn to the internet and its efficient system of disseminating information and rooting out the bad guys while filtering the good guys to the top (often, not always). Excessive painting and digging, overly-spready stones, etc. are artifacts of the greed that is part of human nature. We are educated about the tricks certain manufacturers use to ''cheat'' us, and learn that the numbers help us combat them.
Its not fair to call all Retailers that dont sell perfect diamonds bad apples!!! there are loads of "retailers" that have less knowledge about diamonds than "educated" consumers!!! THATS A FACT.
Diamonds have been cut for close to 700 years, only in the past 15 years technology and education have granted knowledge to "diamond manufacturers" to be able to bring out a better looking diamonds (as far as the "numbers" mean, I think all diamonds are good looking), so i think its unfair for you to categorize the majority of cutters as "cheaters".

Additionally, buying sight unseen (or at least ordering for inspection sight unseen), we must depend upon objective data to take the place of what our eyes would tell us in a B&M. And even when we do see them, for verification that our untrained eyes won''t be fooled by circumstantial lighting, etc. On the face of it, a process devoid of romance. Thankfully the numbers are only step 1 in the process (at least my process).
Remember its only "1" step in the process. and i assume you are talking about Round Shaped Brilliants, while you go into various fancy shapes the numbers seem to mean a LOT less to the average consumer..., and proffesional as one!!


As Pricescope said, the purchase is both qualitative and quantitative simultaneously. I have gathered that good performance, loosely defined, is dictated by good numbers, usually. PS buyers are uber-consumers, highly educated when compared to the majority of diamond consumers. For us, the numbers serve a great purpose. For everybody else, I think AGS, for instance, is trying to distill all the information down to an easily digestible summary, and for that I commend them. They are getting better, and while not perfect, will help average consumers get a better diamond. Manufacturers will always come up with creative ways to squeeze more out of a diamond at the expense of performance while circumventing grading penalties.

That means to me, that the numbers you are educated with ARE NOT FINAL!!!


The qualitative terms Gabi proposes don''t resonate with me. For instance, there are few enough movie critics out there that you know to some degree whose qualitative analysis you can trust. But standardizing highly subjective and individualized opinions for mass marketing the sheer number of diamonds out there seems unrealistic -- unromantic, even. Besides, like wine labels, manufacturers or whomever can give their opinions, but in the end the consumers'' eyes and hearts will make the final call on subjective judgements. You don''t find out that you don''t like movies or wine till you''ve bought and used them. Diamonds, however, only take an inspection to confirm what the numbers are suggesting.
I dont think its a fair to compare/categorize Gabi Tolokowsi as a "CRITIC".
I dont think that the average educated consumer can inspect a diamond and confirm its numbers!!!

I think the key would be to have an institute like AGS be more universally known as an authority, so B&M''s with shady certifications can''t get away with passing their diamonds off as better than they are. Consumers could then rely on their grading (with improvements) to ensure they aren''t getting swindled, and then let their eyes and hearts make the final call in person comparing like stones.
Please do not forget the fact that Labaratory reports are based on opinions!!! yea i agree there are some retailers trying to push unfamiliar lab reports and that is shady and unethical (in case its really unknown). but i dont agree calling labratories who are not as strict as GIA/AGS "shady". i as a profesional strongly believes that GIA (i am not so familiar with AGS) makes plenty of mistakes in their opinions. but that is only my opinion.

I do agree with his assertion that the labs should support patent claims with better libraries. Though I imagine this is impractical, I love the notion that more artists would be encouraged to experiment. Fully agreed.

In the end it is about striking a balance between quantitative and qualitative aspects. Which is one of the many reasons why she is so great for me.

^

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/23/2006 1:57:36 PM
Author: Pricescope

‘Commoditization of Diamonds’

The consumer market of diamonds is commoditized as much as a Puppy market is - puppies are commodities within the trade and on the stage that a consumer starts to look for one.
From the moment a pup changes hands it escapes being a data entry unit (with attributes like breed, pedigree, age, etc. - all the necessary ''C''''s which the buyer was researching, educating himself to death or to a comfortable level).

The pup that belongs to me is not a commodity - he/she is not even an it anymore.
One''s personal attachment to The diamond after it has been purchased will never allow definitive commoditization, even when it must be upgraded - it''s still emotions talking, just different ones.

The more a trade puts into the consumer education phase (which is a commodity stage, but there''s nothing wrong with that) the more enjoyment this luxury product will bring to the owner, the less cognitive dissonance (which is a fancy trade name for buyer''s remorse) happens.

The ''Diamond market'' is not the ''Gold market'' and not the ''Art Collectors'' market - it''s in between - it''s a Puppy market. Nobody needs them but most of us want them and want the best ones for the budget.

2 cents (saved on diamonds)

I know I am a little biased in my opinions about my very dear friends, but, that was absolutely brilliant Irina or Leonid (or both of you?).

I have not seen such wisdom in so few words for some time.

 

[^]

Date: 5/24/2006 3:10:58 AM
Author: DiaGem
Its not fair to call all Retailers that dont sell perfect diamonds bad apples!!! there are loads of "retailers" that have less knowledge about diamonds than "educated" consumers!!! THATS A FACT.
Diamonds have been cut for close to 700 years, only in the past 15 years technology and education have granted knowledge to "diamond manufacturers" to be able to bring out a better looking diamonds (as far as the "numbers" mean, I think all diamonds are good looking), so i think its unfair for you to categorize the majority of cutters as "cheaters".

I see what you''re saying. It''s been framed as such, though, by much of the material I have read, such as Fred Cuellar''s articles (I know, people have issues with him). I suppose it''s unfair to lay blame on the retailer who may know no better, but IMO, retailers should be making more of an effort. I don''t make a living selling diamonds, why should I know more than the person selling me diamonds. Drives me crazy when car salespeople know less about the car I''m buying than I do. I don''t have access to any exclusive information, it has taken me a week and $0 to learn what I have (and I''ve got a ways to go), it blows my mind that a professional wouldn''t take at least that much time to educate themselves. But I''m an unrealistic idealist.

I went to Robbins Brothers and the salesperson there, who was certified by AGL or some lab I don''t remember, and touted himself as the stores head gemologist, told me there were 3 kinds of cuts, poor, ok, and good, and they only sold good cuts. Therefore I didn''t have to worry about cut, as every stone he showed me was going to be "good." I brought up cut a couple times again and he always glazed over it as the least important of the 4 c''s. This is similar to what I experienced at other B&M''s, and does not reflect the same type of knowledge PS vendors enthusiastically share. I''m spoiled here, I know. Not your average vendors. But why shouldn''t we demand a higher level of knowledge with such a sizeable purchase? My produce guy knows how to pick good produce. My butcher knows what he''s doing too. Luckily I get to vote with my dollars.

Additionally,all Retailers that dont sell perfect diamonds aren''t bad apples. However, the ones that sell imperfect diamonds for above perfect diamond prices are bad apples, in my book. Retailers are entitled to make a profit, but I have to draw the line at some point.There are enough PS vendors, online and B&M, who are selling higher quality diamonds for less expensive that I would feel duped if I bought elsewhere. So whether it''s the retailers who don''t know enough and are getting taken by the manufacturers, or however it''s happening, I''ve seen that it''s possible to get higher quality for less money by being an educated retailer. Either the B&Ms I''m talking about (not all B&M''s, of course) are aware of this and they''re just pocketing more money at my expense, or they''re getting duped as well, right?

I dont think its a fair to compare/categorize Gabi Tolokowsi as a "CRITIC".
I dont think that the average educated consumer can inspect a diamond and confirm its numbers!!!

Yikes, let me clarify. I wasn''t calling Gabi a critic. I read his comments as a suggestion for the industry to begin using different terminology for consumers in order to help them choose diamonds to purchase. I tried to think of another industry where people place subjective judgements on products on behalf of the consumers in order to help them with a purchase, and movie critics came to mind. My poorly written rambling can be hard to follow, my fault.

And about the average consumer confirming numbers, I mean to say that in an ideal world, a GIA or AGS certified diamond might be universally recognized as a trustworthy certification. If it got excellent ratings for cut, etc, that would be all the "numbers" a consumer would need to know they weren''t missing something, and then they could use their eyes to pass a final subjective judgement about how all those parts come together in the diamond.

Perhaps I''m paranoid in my interpretation of all these factors. It seems from my reading that there are so many pitfalls when shopping for a great stone. Stories about people buying diamonds with high fluro being passed off as better color that they actually are, and other salient stories of regret definitely make my ears perk up. Maybe these cutting "errors" aren''t devious in intent, but whatever the case, I''m glad I have some tools at my disposal to ensure that I know what I''m getting.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I''m still learning.

^