Grading systems and 'gaming' them: An eternal story?

[Paul-Antwerp]

More people figuring out what PS'ers want is a great thing!
Competition is great for consumers!!!
I would love to see 50 vendors all providing the details, policies and service that PS'ers have came to want and expect.
When you have 1 or 2 or even 3 or 4 vendors you lose price competition and indeed that did happen in the past with rising margins for vendors over stones that did not get PS approval.
Then a competitor came in with lower prices and stones that PS consumers wanted and the result was a lot of yelling and screaming.

Bring on the competition!!!!!!

Karl,

If your assessment is correct, it is the same as GIA claiming that they have improved the overall cut-grade of rounds by introducing their cut-grading-systems.

In reality, we all know that such assessment by GIA is incorrect. Their system has brought a lot of non-EX-cutters to a level where they cut EX steep-deep, and a lot of cutters already cutting EX to the same level where they cut mostly EX steep-deep.

It is what Garry and I, amongst others, have warned for when the GIA-system was announced. This reality has been well described here on PS.

If that is the case for the GIA-system, and similar can be observed in the AGS-system, it also applies to the PS-system. What you thus see as beneficial competition is actually more like turning a blind eye to the faults in your system. Where you seem to be a proponent of exact, measurable science, you should not forget that behavioral science is also science.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Paul,

Let say I became a billionaire tomorrow and wanted to sell diamonds on PS.
Lets say I set up a production line to produce optically symmetrical, diamonds at 35/41 that pass all the tests for the PS market.
That would gain me slightly more average yield than 40.8/34.5.
I can either sell them at the same price and make a little more or sell them at a slight discount to gain market share.
Would that be gaming the system in a harmful way?

or

Lets say I set up a production line to produce optically symmetrical, diamonds at 33.5/41.2 that pass all the tests for the PS market.
That would gain me slightly more average yield than 40.8/34.5.
I can either sell them at the same price and make a little more or sell them at a slight discount to gain market share.
Would that be gaming the system in a harmful way?

I think not, they would be beautiful diamonds that I could offer at attractive prices and with top notch service become a successful PS vendor.

 

[kenny]

Paul, I believe your observations are correct - that cutters cut the heaviest diamonds that qualify for GIA's (too-broad) Excellent grade.

I believe you forgot to mention that your company does just the opposite.
Infinity cuts the best-looking diamonds possible, not the heaviest stones possible that meet loose criteria.
GIA's cut grading system does not recognize and reward your work.

Most shoppers are not very educated and in their minds a GIA Excellent is seen as the smallest target there is - a tiny bullsey of the best of the best.
We know better.

PSers use HCA and IS pics to define an even smaller bullseye.
But you know better.

Infinity cuts to an even smaller and more tightly-controlled bullseye which lab grades and HCA/IS does not have the resolution to identify.
Hence your company has a problem.
You are producing something too good to be measured and recognized by these systems.
Unfortunately your attempts to educate can be seen as marketing or advertising.
I appreciate your dilemma.

 

[oldminer]

Kenny, I think you have clearly stated Paul's dilemma. He, and very few others, do deserve recognition for cutting at the very top level.
The top end of diamond cut grading is difficult to pinpoint and few people could be shown how the very top differs from a stone cut a little less as well. Most people really don't even care so long as they don't see any lack of beauty or some other visual effect of slightly less well cutting.

Where should the trade or the labs re-draw the to further limit the "gaming" aspect of the current grading strategies? Most dealers and cutters would say "don't rock the boat, it is tough enough. I tend to agree. The vast majority of consumers wouldn't ever notice because most don't care about it. A relatively small minority of shoppers who are into quality and beauty already do have a lot of tools to make choices they deem fit for themselves. It all becomes quite personal and subjective once the consumer is only shopping for GIA EX/EX/EX or better. There are differences among the GIA top stones yet there are still differences among even the AGS000 stones. However, once you are only shopping in the region near the pinnacle of cut quality, it may be best to allow reasonable variation so that some individual choice can be allowed and encouraged.

There are a few shoppers who would truly like to buy the absolutely perfectly cut diamond. If the labs and the cutters could agree on the parameters of such super-duper ideal cut diamonds, there would some interested shoppers. I'd expect the premium in cost would be large and the extra cutting cost and slow rate of sales would make such stones extremely hard to find. They would look no different than many other slightly less well cut stones. It would be altogether an emotional purchase or one based on engineering statistics.

If you wanted to have a great game, why not make the AGS system 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc and then whole numbers from 1 to 10. That would expose the "gamers"....

 

[Fly Girl]

Paul, I believe your observations are correct - that cutters cut the heaviest diamonds that qualify for GIA's (too-broad) Excellent grade.

I believe you forgot to mention that your company does just the opposite.
Infinity cuts the best-looking diamonds possible, not the heaviest stones possible that meet loose criteria.
GIA's cut grading system does not recognize and reward your work.

Most shoppers are not very educated and in their minds a GIA Excellent is seen as the smallest target there is - a tiny bullsey of the best of the best.
We know better.

PSers use HCA and IS pics to define an even smaller bullseye.
But you know better.

Infinity cuts to an even smaller and more tightly-controlled bullseye which lab grades and HCA/IS does not have the resolution to identify.
Hence your company has a problem.
You are producing something too good to be measured and recognized by these systems.
Unfortunately your attempts to educate can be seen as marketing or advertising.
I appreciate your dilemma.

Thank you for bringing this up, Kenny. I have my Crafted by Infinity set into a pendant, and its stunning sparkle is readily apparent to other observers. I know, because they tell me. The difference in Paul's super-ideal cuts can be seen by people who aren't even looking for it. I also love his Princess cuts, and normally, I'm not much of a Princess fan. But, his are awesome. It's hard to tell people who come to PS about them, because there are many other diamonds that make the bar at PS. I have felt for some time that Crafted by Infinity diamonds are a great deal for the discerning purchaser because they should command a greater premium than Paul able to charge.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Paul - thank you for posting this: it is, as Natascha says, informative and thought-provoking. I am just another consumer with an opinion, and I'm unsure if that's what you're looking for, but I confess I simply can't resist chiming in with my own 2c - and perhaps you or other readers will find something in it that is food for thought.


In response to your points - I absolutely agree that 'gaming the system' is the natural response of an entity that is out to get the most 'bang for its buck', so to speak. Fulfill minimum expectations and reap the rewards.. it is a unique operation that sees the virtue in consistently going the extra mile for little or no reward. However, in this particular industry, I strongly feel there are two sides to the coin - and that it's a losing proposition to try to combine them into a single study.

The first question would be: what is the diamond doing with the light that goes into it? This question, I think, is not going to be much of a question at all in a few years. Technology has advanced enough that a fully describing, accurate and precise ray-tracing model that considers absorption due to body colour, ray paths, inclusions, fluor/polarisation/... is, in my opinion, already certainly possible to produce, the wait is for the cost of such design and manufacture for wide-range use to become feasible. And Frankly, also in my opinion, the industry will be much the better for it - there's so much that is opaque to the customer who cares to question! But then, I put no stock in X Factors and/or romancing what is ultimately a glorified rock

The second question is much less transparent, and I simply can't forsee any universally recognised and accepted resolution, because of the very nature of the issue: What do our eyes see the diamond doing with the light that goes into it, and what do our eyes prefer? If anyone's going to get closer to nailing this one, I think I'll put my lot in with the biologist, neurologist, and electrical engineer team! The first 'level of disagreement', if you will, is that everyone sees things differently. The second level is that everyone interprets what they see differently, and the third is that everyone prefers to see different things. I don't like skinny arrows. And I vastly prefer colour to white light return. And I like strong blue fluor. There's nothing wrong with stones of these types, and many people do prefer them, I'm just not one of them.. Show me a cut grading system that rewards long lower girdle facets and I'll be the one choosing a "poorly" cut stone.. because I've looked at - well, at least hundreds of stones, I've ogled them, admired them, and in the process I've discovered which nuances I prefer to see, and which I don't, so I can make educateded choice about my personal preferences. Which may not be anyone else's.

Which brings me to my real point here - what is the point of 'grading cut'? Binary Good vs. Bad, yes, that's easy enough, and the various tools we can use are of tremendous help here. But what about the flavours within Good? Grading 'cut' is problematic precisely because it is an effort to put a price on both questions, and there's just no way to comprehensively answer that second, and yet that's half the question! What AGS might call "levels of performance within Ideal" I might call "flavours of performance" because there are people out there that would choose those stones consistently over "higher performers" - if they cared to take the time to inspect, of course. By labelling proportions and flavours of light output, contrast, scintillation (however you define them exactly) as "superideal", "ideal", "excellent", "very good", "get it!" we are funneling any and all prospective consumers right back onto those binary Do This, Not That tracks (by whatever metrics we use, whomever 'we' are).


I don't want to derail this thread but I would like to bring up a third point that hasn't yet been addressed, and that I think is very pertinent to this discussion of "gaming the system", from my perspective as an educated consumer. The third - and really the most significant, in the real world of consumer concerns - question is that of budget, and how to decide what to prioritise to maximise that budget. The "ideal" that PS groupthink aspires to is unquestionably Hearts and Arrows - though few, including me, have a firm grasp of what, precisely, that entails, thanks in-part to industry-wide opacity in definition, and in larger part to the fact that what it entails also depends on which vendor we're talking about! Paul, you have asserted before (and I agree) that different vendors and different brands marketed as H&A have different requirements, and some of those brands require stricter specifications that their stones must conform to, and thus are "safer" to buy from blindly as you know exactly what you're getting. I will state that after having looked at lots of stones from different brands, I can't see the differences between certain proportions of "near-H&A" and "true H&A", from professional pictures and using my hand-held scope, in various types of lighting, even after being told what to look for. I may be new to the world of diamonds, but I have excellent close-range vision, a good eye for detail, and a definite interest in trying to pinpoint and diagnose any differences that I do see.. and not once have I been able to specifically designate those differences as attributable to "perfect hearts and arrows" vs "some slightly clefted hearts"/"some slightly thicker Vs"/some slightly mismatched arrow shafts and heads"... and I simply cannot be the only one who does not see these differences, and is therefore unable justify the premium that branded H&As command simply for the sake of those hearts and arrows - there are other good reasons for me to buy a branded in-house stone, but these stones are not called "Branded In-House Stones With Excellent Policies", they're called "Superideals" and "H&As" (mind, if we could all have Branded In-House Superideal H&A Stones with Excellent Policies we would, but the reality is that they cost *more* - usually lots more, sometimes enough to go up a clarity/colour grade!)

But.. when new members come to PS for advice, they quickly pick up that Branded "Superideal" H&A is the PS standard for best of the best. Without any understanding of what it means for them re. Question 2. And PS vendors are certainly aware of this "PS standard", and can count on PS groupthink to push these stones, with their sometimes frankly shocking premiums, at prospective consumers without regard to what those consumers' eyes can see, or what they prefer, or that if they are like me, unable to spot the differences even after being told what to look for, their money is better funneled into something their eyes *can* appreciate. IMO this is another example of vendors perfecting the art of 'gaming the system' - that is, the PS standard, right here on this board.


ETA: sorry for the novel, folks.

Hello Yssie,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a long reply, a novel, as you say. It shows how much the topic touches you, and I feel kind of honored because of that.

Your post clearly shows where you are coming from, and there is sufficient ground for us to agree upon. Where I have been talking about various quality-levels within the same top-grade in various systems, you rightly bring up the case of various tastes too. Granted, you may prefer the look of longer lower girdle facets in general, but I am sure that a super-duper stone can be produced with such lower girdle facets, that you would prefer even more. My point in the OP is that this difference will not be appreciated in any existing system, definitely not on a PS-level with only online-assessment.

When you are introducing budget into the mix, however, this is a matter of the PS-system indeed, and an important one. Let us not give an example of rounds here, but let us talk fancy-shapes. Cutting it short, I think that the minimum-level of the top-grade 'Buy it' in the PS-system (fancy shapes) consists of two criteria:
- Can the vendor provide an ASET-image?
- Is the price low enough?

With the PS-system being in constant evolution, the logical next step is for a constant devaluation of the top-grade.

I realize that this is contrary to everybody's intentions here, but it is a natural evolution, thus the opposite needs to be fought for. Mine is basically a call for awareness.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Precisely - and those "safe" choices cost significantly more, and often mean giving up something else that they might find more visible - a colour or clarity grade, say (I edited my post to make that more clear). But.. neither am I.. unless one is willing to tour jewellery stores, I suppose. Would certainly make for an interesting exhibit, though as you suggest perhaps not popular

well I for one would welcome an exhibit that demonstrated differences in
color
carat
clarity
cut (steep deep, 60/60, near tolk type, longer LGFs, shorter LGFs, and more...and that's just for rounds...then we could go with different crown heights for step cuts...different numbers of chevrons for princesses...etc etc etc...)
and of course in sunlight, office light, candle light...
would be a most educational experience!

but back to the practical point, not popular

You raise a very important point, Slg. Basically, you are saying that the subject of diamonds involves continuous education, and from experience, I would say that a lifetime is not sufficient to grasp it all.

The internet and PS for that matter might give the impression that one is truly an 'expert' after a few months or in the better case a few years of online-information. Granted, many of such self-made PS-students have exceeded the knowledge-level of many seasoned professionals in our industry, and that is a sad reality.

But knowing that I am still learning every day, after more than 20 years at the heart of this industry, I also realize the gigantic nature of the task for people, generally at the periphery of the industry.

I am not sure if this was a clear post, so please ask for clarification if necessary.

Live long,

 

[yssie]

Paul - thank *you* for taking the time to read my novel

Hello Yssie,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a long reply, a novel, as you say. It shows how much the topic touches you, and I feel kind of honored because of that.

Your post clearly shows where you are coming from, and there is sufficient ground for us to agree upon. Where I have been talking about various quality-levels within the same top-grade in various systems, you rightly bring up the case of various tastes too. Granted, you may prefer the look of longer lower girdle facets in general, but I am sure that a super-duper stone can be produced with such lower girdle facets, that you would prefer even more. My point in the OP is that this difference will not be appreciated in any existing system, definitely not on a PS-level with only online-assessment.

Agreed. I think we agree that this is a failing of existing systems - that try to put objective "light return" and subjective "appearance", "performance", "flavour" into the same box of "objective cut grade".. But, I also don't see any way around that (any way to reward a vendor that chooses some specific flavour, say, and consistently goes above and beyond to ensure optimal "light return" for stones of that flavour, however we want to define that) - unless someone creates a grading system that objectifies "light return" for many different "flavours" - which would be so filled with minutiae that the vast majority of the market doesn't care about it would be useless by any practical measure.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think the point of this thread is to increase awareness of these issues - and that is a very important topic, I think. People can't make educated decisions about anything if they don't have the information - or worse, don't realise they are missing information.

When you are introducing budget into the mix, however, this is a matter of the PS-system indeed, and an important one. Let us not give an example of rounds here, but let us talk fancy-shapes. Cutting it short, I think that the minimum-level of the top-grade 'Buy it' in the PS-system (fancy shapes) consists of two criteria:
- Can the vendor provide an ASET-image?
- Is the price low enough?

With the PS-system being in constant evolution, the logical next step is for a constant devaluation of the top-grade.

I realize that this is contrary to everybody's intentions here, but it is a natural evolution, thus the opposite needs to be fought for.

Again, agreed on both counts. Though I do think there is awareness that a fancy shape purchased blindly based on those two criteria may not be to one's personal tastes, and awareness that ASET, like any other tool, has limitations of use, and that you can count on getting exactly what you pay for - enough awareness? No, not until every single buyer recognises these things, which will make 'gaming the system' that much more difficult for those inclined to do so.. but this thread, and the article that is hopefully to come, is progress!

Mine is basically a call for awareness.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

More people figuring out what PS'ers want is a great thing!
Competition is great for consumers!!!
I would love to see 50 vendors all providing the details, policies and service that PS'ers have came to want and expect.
When you have 1 or 2 or even 3 or 4 vendors you lose price competition and indeed that did happen in the past with rising margins for vendors over stones that did not get PS approval.
Then a competitor came in with lower prices and stones that PS consumers wanted and the result was a lot of yelling and screaming.

Bring on the competition!!!!!!

Karl,

We've both watched the price wars between various vendors here which started when a flood of diamonds was introduced. Many consumers have benefitted from the way some vendors are willing to play off against one another - until they are selling at or even below cost in some cases; just to make sure their arch-competitor does not have another happy consumer touting them on PS. In the long run this will be detrimental because fewer vendors will exist.

You seem to think that more vendors have figured out what PSers want. I don't see that, I see it as more figuring out what PS as-a-whole will accept as a minimum.

Surely you don't believe that diamonds of truly-equal-quality will have radically different room in their margins for discounting? I can tell you they absolutely DO NOT. As someone who will not compromise on quality I'll tell you that the quest for top diamond quality at cheapest price is a long-standing failing of greed over common sense. You do not get the absolute best quality for the lowest price. It just is not possible. Yet people will still "convince" themselves that buying, for example, an EGL "F" is somehow getting them an "F" color for cheaper… We all know it is not, so how did our trade allow this to happen? Because the majority of us stood by over the years and allowed that flaw in our systems to breed and promulgate and did nothing about it.

It may be painful, but we must hold up a mirror to our trade's systems. In fact cut is easier to exploit than color and clarity since any single grade from a lab encompasses many different "looks." So in many cases manufacturers game the system to get the minimum allowable quality which will achieve the highest quality grade on paper. There is an added cost for producing the best above-the-minimum, but people like the "best for less" philosophy, even though differences can exist, because cheap is attractive. And on Pricescope it may be easier to "game" systems than at the jewelry store counter where the diamond is being seen. Especially in terms of cut where, unlike color, a single grade encompasses a variety of looks and there is factually NO grade for scintillation or taste factors.

It has always been odd to me that we rarely discuss cut-perception here. We freely acknowledge color and clarity perception. Why not cut? Does it somehow diminish us on the internet to admit that it exists? Some people freely admit they do not see differences between similar "H&A" rounds when others are extremely vocal about the differences they do see. It is the same with painted and non-painted stones. It is the same with chevroning in Princess Cuts. It is the same with lower half differences. Some see them and some do not and that is fine but there ARE differences.

It has been my experience, demonstrated time after time after time, that if you put a group of (example) AGS0 cut grade diamonds on a tray without saying anything about the diamonds that consumers will quickly determine which stone they like best, or even more quickly, which stone they like least. Simply keep removing the least favorite and it will take very little time to winnow down the group to at most two stones which will then vie for top preference (my process here is for all stones to be properly cleaned, randomly placed on a slotted tray with no information available to the consumer about which stone is which, and the consumer is allowed to view them in a variety of light conditions, removing the least favorite stone again and again until one stands above the rest).

Also on Pricescope, we freely criticize and scrutinize "best-minimum-levels" of outside systems (like GIA EX and AGS0 cut). I think it is only fair that as members of PS we hold a mirror up and admit that the PS "best-minimum-level" can also be gamed. There are differences and testaments to them occur time and time again.

So going back to your point about price-wars, I am sorry but it is simply impossible at this time to adequately know what may be discernable to the eyes of a live consumer using only what is available through the internet or through Pricescope. It may anger people with a stake in Pricescope that I say this but it does not change the facts of live-viewing and human perception.

Just my thoughts on this issue.

Wink

 

[yssie]

You raise a very important point, Slg. Basically, you are saying that the subject of diamonds involves continuous education, and from experience, I would say that a lifetime is not sufficient to grasp it all.

The internet and PS for that matter might give the impression that one is truly an 'expert' after a few months or in the better case a few years of online-information. Granted, many of such self-made PS-students have exceeded the knowledge-level of many seasoned professionals in our industry, and that is a sad reality.

But knowing that I am still learning every day, after more than 20 years at the heart of this industry, I also realize the gigantic nature of the task for people, generally at the periphery of the industry.

I am not sure if this was a clear post, so please ask for clarification if necessary.

Live long,

Not slg obviously but I'd like to reply to this post also:

Paul - I truly don't think any of the self-made PS students consider themselves experts - there are some things, some venues of knowledge, that are simply not possible to fully understand from the sidelines. I think I speak for most RT regulars when I say that I consider myself a student - I'm here to learn, and what better place to do that where tradepeople volunteer their knowledge? And learn I most certainly do! And I like to share what I've discovered along the way. And yes, it's a very sad reality that at this point I may well be able to identify more characteristics of a given stone than many jewellers.


But, I do see a prevalent "you" vs "them" mentality in threads like this - "jewellers" vs "non-jewellers". I firmly believe there is nothing sacrosanct about any industry - after years of graduate physics classes, I wager I know more than most jewellers about that Question 1 I posed in my first post. Does that make me a superior source, or more entitled to speak on the subject, than someone who has not taken those classes but has cut or studied stones for a decade? Absolutely not. On the other hand, does not being in the business invalidate relevant topics I've learnt from papers, from labwork, from researchers at the forefront of their fields? Again, absolutely not.

Likewise, a chemist or chemical engineer would likely have lots of insight into the structural aspects of study, and people who know anatomy and circuits could contribute to research of Question 2... honestly, I can't think of a single industry that has not recognised that it isn't an island field - that knowledge from various fields is not only helpful, but necessary to further R&D. They have realised (and likely it was a bitter pill) that the "you" vs "them" way of thinking is a handicap. I think the jewellery industry has also recognised this - or, at least, the niche of the industry that we see on PS! But the fact of the matter is that one does not need to be an expert in *any* industry, or part of that industry, to have a genuine interest in learning more - and perhaps to have something valuable to contribute along the way.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Everyone seems to be ignoring a point I raised- what if GIA did not intend to have an "EX" cut grade that had a narrow range of appearance?

By what virtue does anyone declare that a "superideal" is better than a "normal" ideal".
IS?
HCA?
Brilliance Scope?
Ray tracing?
What if the human eye disagrees with the results of these technologies?

I have not seen Paul's work firsthand, but I have no doubt whatsoever, I'd be impressed with the quality of cut. But maybe it's the consistency that may be the most important characteristic that defines how great it is. Thus allowing buyers to have a remarkable degree of confidence that they will love the way the stone looks based on prior experience with his work.

When learning the very basics about cut, one of the lessons is that a deep stone will look smaller than one of the same weight that is not deep ( oversimplified, but you get the point)
If a "steep Deep" does not have a smaller diameter than a non steep deep of the same weight, why is it "worse"?
Again, by what benchmark will we prove this.
Light return?
Leakage?
What if a certain percentage of eyes prefer a different type of brilliance, or a different pattern of scintillation /leakage?
Actually, it's not a hypothetical question, as we know it's true.
If we can show that certain cutters increase profits by retaining more weight, that is a physical reality- and a business one.
But what if the resultant stones are not less attractive to a fair degree of onlookers?
What if they don't appear smaller?

Look at the term "game the system"
Isn't virtually all business about finding ways to maximize profits while retaining cleints- and cleint satisfaciton?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Paul, I believe your observations are correct - that cutters cut the heaviest diamonds that qualify for GIA's (too-broad) Excellent grade.

I believe you forgot to mention that your company does just the opposite.
Infinity cuts the best-looking diamonds possible, not the heaviest stones possible that meet loose criteria.
GIA's cut grading system does not recognize and reward your work.

Most shoppers are not very educated and in their minds a GIA Excellent is seen as the smallest target there is - a tiny bullsey of the best of the best.
We know better.

PSers use HCA and IS pics to define an even smaller bullseye.
But you know better.

Infinity cuts to an even smaller and more tightly-controlled bullseye which lab grades and HCA/IS does not have the resolution to identify.
Hence your company has a problem.
You are producing something too good to be measured and recognized by these systems.
Unfortunately your attempts to educate can be seen as marketing or advertising.
I appreciate your dilemma.

Kenny,

Thank you for the recognition, but I am not only talking about 'heaviness', and highlighting that at the same time answers Karl's hypothetic reply of him being a billionaire.

At the same time, this is not about Infinity's production.

Did you notice how certain established PS-vendors have recently placed more emphasis on their second-tier supply and even on virtual supply, which they have not examined themselves yet? Did you notice that PS has allowed certain vendors to add rounds to the H&A-search-selection, that used to be of this second-tier-group or even virtual supply, without the need for these vendors to supply H&A-pics?

While I am highlighting here how the 'system' is gamed on the demand-side, similar evolutions are taking place on the supply-side. Just last week, I had the surprise-visit of an American retailer (unknown on PS), who specializes in selling diamonds of top-cut-quality. He had come to Antwerp with a budget of about 700K that he would like to spend with his regular supplier, also the supplier of a well-known brand on PS. After his visit, he stood crying on my doorstep, because he could only find about 120K worth buying, and he feared not having a suitable supply of the quality he prefers to sell.

So, yes, my attempts to educate can be seen as marketing or advertising. That is a reality I need to accept. But at least, I hope that the subject is thought-provoking, while it is based upon thorough inside-knowledge of this industry.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

You raise a very important point, Slg. Basically, you are saying that the subject of diamonds involves continuous education, and from experience, I would say that a lifetime is not sufficient to grasp it all.

The internet and PS for that matter might give the impression that one is truly an 'expert' after a few months or in the better case a few years of online-information. Granted, many of such self-made PS-students have exceeded the knowledge-level of many seasoned professionals in our industry, and that is a sad reality.

But knowing that I am still learning every day, after more than 20 years at the heart of this industry, I also realize the gigantic nature of the task for people, generally at the periphery of the industry.

I am not sure if this was a clear post, so please ask for clarification if necessary.

Live long,

Not slg obviously but I'd like to reply to this post also:

Paul - I truly don't think any of the self-made PS students consider themselves experts - there are some things, some venues of knowledge, that are simply not possible to fully understand from the sidelines. I think I speak for most RT regulars when I say that I consider myself a student - I'm here to learn, and what better place to do that where tradepeople volunteer their knowledge? And learn I most certainly do! And I like to share what I've discovered along the way. And yes, it's a very sad reality that at this point I may well be able to identify more characteristics of a given stone than many jewellers.


But, I do see a prevalent "you" vs "them" mentality in threads like this - "jewellers" vs "non-jewellers". I firmly believe there is nothing sacrosanct about any industry - after years of graduate physics classes, I wager I know more than most jewellers about that Question 1 I posed in my first post. Does that make me a superior source, or more entitled to speak on the subject, than someone who has not taken those classes but has cut or studied stones for a decade? Absolutely not. On the other hand, does not being in the business invalidate relevant topics I've learnt from papers, from labwork, from researchers at the forefront of their fields? Again, absolutely not.

Likewise, a chemist or chemical engineer would likely have lots of insight into the structural aspects of study, and people who know anatomy and circuits could contribute to research of Question 2... honestly, I can't think of a single industry that has not recognised that it isn't an island field - that knowledge from various fields is not only helpful, but necessary to further R&D. They have realised (and likely it was a bitter pill) that the "you" vs "them" way of thinking is a handicap. I think the jewellery industry has also recognised this - or, at least, the niche of the industry that we see on PS! But the fact of the matter is that one does not need to be an expert in *any* industry, or part of that industry, to have a genuine interest in learning more - and perhaps to have something valuable to contribute along the way.

Yssie,

I just wanted to clarify that in no way was I hinting at a "me" against "them"-position. I personally know how valuable various forums like PS have been for me personally, in getting to my current knowledge-level.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Did you notice how certain established PS-vendors have recently placed more emphasis on their second-tier supply and even on virtual supply, which they have not examined themselves yet? Did you notice that PS has allowed certain vendors to add rounds to the H&A-search-selection, that used to be of this second-tier-group or even virtual supply, without the need for these vendors to supply H&A-pics?

Remarks about your competition is not kewl and is not the PS way.
Some vendors have had a very successful step-down line for years and sold a ton of them.
Others have been very successful with virtual stones.

H&A images have never been an official requirement of PS to list as H&A.
If you want to say it should be, then I agree.
However consumer pressure has forced vendors to offer them.
As far as I have seen the consumers of PS are still demanding them when a diamond is posted for consideration that claims h&a.
Anyone reading here for even a short time will know to demand heart images if h&a is claimed.

 

[Karl_K]

While I am highlighting here how the 'system' is gamed on the demand-side, similar evolutions are taking place on the supply-side. Just last week, I had the surprise-visit of an American retailer (unknown on PS), who specializes in selling diamonds of top-cut-quality. He had come to Antwerp with a budget of about 700K that he would like to spend with his regular supplier, also the supplier of a well-known brand on PS. After his visit, he stood crying on my doorstep, because he could only find about 120K worth buying, and he feared not having a suitable supply of the quality he prefers to sell.

The larger PS vendors no doubt have supply contracts that allow them first or near first shot at what is produced.
That someone went someplace that may produce diamonds for a PS dealer and they didn't have what he wanted doesn't really prove anything.
Perhaps the PS vendor picked through them already or perhaps the cutter just didn't have the rough to cut them this run.
There is no way to tell.
As you first told me, and has been rather painful to me lately, the rough and rough supply determines what is cut.

 

[Lula]

Did you notice how certain established PS-vendors have recently placed more emphasis on their second-tier supply and even on virtual supply, which they have not examined themselves yet? Did you notice that PS has allowed certain vendors to add rounds to the H&A-search-selection, that used to be of this second-tier-group or even virtual supply, without the need for these vendors to supply H&A-pics?

Remarks about your competition is not kewl and is not the PS way.
Some vendors have had a very successful step-down line for years and sold a ton of them.
Others have been very successful with virtual stones.

H&A images have never been an official requirement of PS to list as H&A.
If you want to say it should be, then I agree.
However consumer pressure has forced vendors to offer them.
As far as I have seen the consumers of PS are still demanding them when a diamond is posted for consideration that claims h&a.
Anyone reading here for even a short time will know to demand heart images if h&a is claimed.

I don't think that Paul's comments are out of place. I think what he's referring to is really the elephant in the room here, and is something that has concerned me -- that is, the increasing reliance by certain PS vendors on virtual listing stones, and, even more concerning, the willingness on the part of PS consumers to recommend them. When I first joined PS, and in the year before that when I lurked, Blue Nile and other drop shippers that sold stones sight unseen off the virtual list were routinely criticized by PS consumers as not offering the consumer the best value (or best cut stone) for their money. PS consumer "standards" in 2008 - 2009 (and I suspect before 2008, as well, based on the old threads I've read) were much tighter and vendors were held to a higher standard, in my opinion. And I'm not just talking about the "your eyes may have a different preference" riff that has developed here; I'm talking about vendors offering stones they've never seen in person yet are listed in their "inventory"; vendors offering images (H&A and especially ASET) that are of questionable skill and quality, or, worse, images that look so perfect that they appear photoshopped - all things that would have previously resulted in the PS community criticizing that vendor's policies and procedures -- but not anymore. I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

ETA: And it's my hunch -- just my hunch -- that the increasing ability of mass-production cutters to produce diamonds that meet the minimum standards for AGS 0 and GIA Ex cut grades has proved to be a bit too tempting for some vendors, especially in light of the recent contractions in supply, to include virtual selections in their own "inventory." Personally, I think it cheapens their brand and is confusing for the customer who doesn't understand the value of buying a stone that has been vetted by an experienced seller (getting dangerously close to RD's argument here )

 

[Karl_K]

ETA: And it's my hunch -- just my hunch -- that the increasing ability of mass-production cutters to produce diamonds that meet the minimum standards for AGS 0 and GIA Ex cut grades has proved to be a bit too tempting for some vendors, especially in light of the recent contractions in supply, to include virtual selections in their own "inventory." Personally, I think it cheapens their brand and is confusing for the customer who doesn't understand the value of buying a stone that has been vetted by an experienced seller (getting dangerously close to RD's argument here )

What is wrong with taking those diamonds and having someone available to vet them? Take images and list them for sale?
Seems reasonable to me.
A stone that meets the min standards of gia x on the borders is going to fail the rest of the tests.
There are some combos in AGS0 that while not traditional can make beautiful high performance diamonds.
There is life outside of near Tolk scientific study after study has shown that.
To limit people to just near tolk is not right in my opinion.
I have personally seen diamonds in the outer regions of AGS0 and GIA EX that I would have no problem putting on my Wife's finger.
I have also seen diamonds in the outer region of gia ex that I would not recommend to anyone.
That is why the PS system has evolved to multiple tests and not just one data point.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Karl,

By concentrating on average angles only, you are missing my point.

You accept that the grading-system of GIA can be gamed and you accept that the grading-system of AGS can be gamed. Yet, you do not even want to consider that perhaps the grading-system of PS can be gamed.

And this facing the reality that the PS grading-system is a system in motion, depending upon well-intended individuals, who work with tools that are mainly assessing brightness only. Your current position is simply not in line with the normal logical you.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Karl,

By concentrating on average angles only, you are missing my point.

You accept that the grading-system of GIA can be gamed and you accept that the grading-system of AGS can be gamed. Yet, you do not even want to consider that perhaps the grading-system of PS can be gamed.

And this facing the reality that the PS grading-system is a system in motion, depending upon well-intended individuals, who work with tools that are mainly assessing brightness only. Your current position is simply not in line with the normal logical you.

Live long,

I do not believe that it can be gamed to the extent that people are buying bad diamonds.
Your definition of gamed and mine is different.

Providing people options with the full information that PS pro-sumers demand is not gaming the system in a bad way and I dont consider it gaming at all.
That some vendors/people dont like the competition is understandable but the continued attacks are getting old in a hurry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

More people figuring out what PS'ers want is a great thing!
Competition is great for consumers!!!
I would love to see 50 vendors all providing the details, policies and service that PS'ers have came to want and expect.
When you have 1 or 2 or even 3 or 4 vendors you lose price competition and indeed that did happen in the past with rising margins for vendors over stones that did not get PS approval.
Then a competitor came in with lower prices and stones that PS consumers wanted and the result was a lot of yelling and screaming.

Bring on the competition!!!!!!

Karl,

If your assessment is correct, it is the same as GIA claiming that they have improved the overall cut-grade of rounds by introducing their cut-grading-systems.

In reality, we all know that such assessment by GIA is incorrect. Their system has brought a lot of non-EX-cutters to a level where they cut EX steep-deep, and a lot of cutters already cutting EX to the same level where they cut mostly EX steep-deep.

It is what Garry and I, amongst others, have warned for when the GIA-system was announced. This reality has been well described here on PS.

If that is the case for the GIA-system, and similar can be observed in the AGS-system, it also applies to the PS-system. What you thus see as beneficial competition is actually more like turning a blind eye to the faults in your system. Where you seem to be a proponent of exact, measurable science, you should not forget that behavioral science is also science.

Live long,

Paul I actually do think the GIA system has improved cut quality. But at the same time it has also limited the degree of cut quality that could have been attained. And all (really both) the current systems have resulted in far more rounds being polished because their liquidity has shot up a lot - far more stones are now sold without anyone ever looking at the diamond - and have not helped fancy cuts at all, which may have even deteriorated by and large.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Paul I actually do think the GIA system has improved cut quality. But at the same time it has also limited the degree of cut quality that could have been attained. And all (really both) the current systems have resulted in far more rounds being polished because their liquidity has shot up a lot - far more stones are now sold without anyone ever looking at the diamond - and have not helped fancy cuts at all, which may have even deteriorated by and large.

Garry,

We are in agreement, at least on the part in red.

In the same way, although AGS has a much smaller footprint, I would say that their introduction of a new cut-grading-system has improved quality, while at the same time it reduced the degree of cut-quality that could have been attained.

And in the same way, considering the PS-forum as a grading-system in se, the advice here has improved cut-quality offered overall, while also limiting the degree of cut-quality that could be attained or offered.

I just want to raise awareness of this automatic evolution.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Paul, I believe your observations are correct - that cutters cut the heaviest diamonds that qualify for GIA's (too-broad) Excellent grade.

I believe you forgot to mention that your company does just the opposite.
Infinity cuts the best-looking diamonds possible, not the heaviest stones possible that meet loose criteria.
GIA's cut grading system does not recognize and reward your work.

Most shoppers are not very educated and in their minds a GIA Excellent is seen as the smallest target there is - a tiny bullsey of the best of the best.
We know better.

PSers use HCA and IS pics to define an even smaller bullseye.
But you know better.

Infinity cuts to an even smaller and more tightly-controlled bullseye which lab grades and HCA/IS does not have the resolution to identify.
Hence your company has a problem.
You are producing something too good to be measured and recognized by these systems.
Unfortunately your attempts to educate can be seen as marketing or advertising.
I appreciate your dilemma.

Thank you for bringing this up, Kenny. I have my Crafted by Infinity set into a pendant, and its stunning sparkle is readily apparent to other observers. I know, because they tell me. The difference in Paul's super-ideal cuts can be seen by people who aren't even looking for it. I also love his Princess cuts, and normally, I'm not much of a Princess fan. But, his are awesome. It's hard to tell people who come to PS about them, because there are many other diamonds that make the bar at PS. I have felt for some time that Crafted by Infinity diamonds are a great deal for the discerning purchaser because they should command a greater premium than Paul able to charge.

Thank you, FlyGirl, for this testimonial.

You are truly testifying what you and other observers see in what is 'on paper' the same grade. And I know that in your case, this observation is also based on you doing the effort of seeing multiple diamonds at various places.

Thank you also for the promotional aspect of your post, although the thread itself is really not about Infinity only.

Live long,

 

[risingsun]

I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

I happen to agree with you, Lula. When I first joined PS, cut was everthing. Now, "very good" is good enough. The majority of our paid sponsors do not offer the super ideals. If I am wrong in this assessment, please correct me. We have been asked to respect the diversity of the buying public. I understand that not eveyone is looking for the super duper loupers and we can't fault them for that. OTOH, we used to be advocates of these diamonds. I have noticed a reverse type of thinking. "You could spend the money on a H&A, but you don't need to. You won't see the difference." This may be helpful for some people, but it isn't for me. I respect the art and science of the top tier stones. That is what I want. Please understand that I am not comparing them to OEC or OMC or AVC. Those are in a whole other category. I'm strictly discussing RB diamonds. This is not the same site that it used to be. I don't recommend anything anymore. I'm too politically incorrect.

ETA: I do understand that a beautifully cut diamond does not have to be a H&A. When I look at the tutorials, however, the more precisely the diamond is cut, the more evident the H&A pattern becomes. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.

 

[Lula]

I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

I happen to agree with you, Lula. When I first joined PS, cut was everthing. Now, "very good" is good enough. The majority of our paid sponsors do not offer the super ideals. If I am wrong in this assessment, please correct me. We have been asked to respect the diversity of the buying public. I understand that not eveyone is looking for the super duper loupers and we can't fault them for that. OTOH, we used to be advocates of these diamonds. I have noticed a reverse type of thinking. "You could spend the money on a H&A, but you don't need to. You won't see the difference." This may be helpful for some people, but it isn't for me. I respect the art and science of the top tier stones. That is what I want. Please understand that I am not comparing them to OEC or OMC or AVC. Those are in a whole other category. I'm strictly discussing RB diamonds. This is not the same site that it used to be. I don't recommend anything anymore. I'm too politically incorrect.

ETA: I do understand that a beautifully cut diamond does not have to be a H&A. When I look at the tutorials, however, the more precisely the diamond is cut, the more evident the H&A pattern becomes. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.

Thank you, risingsun. I agree with everything you've said. I, too, can see the difference between my precision-cut branded H&A diamond and other diamonds, even well-cut diamonds. And others notice it, too. It happens often enough that I know the differences are real and not just random compliments from people who admire jewelry. I must admit, I, too, have been less of an advocate on RT because of the drift toward "good enough."

And, Karl, it's not that I don't believe that PS vendors working from the virtual list don't vet those stones before selling them to the consumer; it's the fact that the vendors are including those non-in-house stones in their "inventory" that I think is disingenuous and misleading to consumers. There are posts on here all the time from consumers confused about the meaning of "virtual" inventory. It's one thing for a consumer to find a stone in the virtual listings and ask a vendor to call it in for them; it's another thing for those stones to show up on PS vendors' inventory listings -- to uneducated consumers, it may appear that those virtual listing stones already have the "seal of approval" from the PS vendor, even though the vendor has listed them on his/her site without ever having seen them (until they are called in, of course). I'm sorry, I know that would not have flown around here even just a year or so ago. And I suspect you would have been one of the people calling vendors out on it.

So what's changed? Prices are up, inventory is in short supply, and, perhaps related to those two trends, or perhaps not, the attitude toward cut quality has become much more lax on RT. Perhaps it's not surprising -- if you read the older threads, people were experimenting with going lower and lower in color and clarity in order to maintain tip-top cut and gain maximum carat weight (see the Show me your J's threads circa 2005-2006). Now buying lower color and clarity is not only accepted on PS, it's recommended (which is fine, as long as individual preference is explained and respected). I see the same trend in recommendations on cut quality. And just like there are some people who are unhappy with their J color in real life, I believe there will be people unhappy with their "good enough" cut quality in real life, especially after comparing their diamond to other diamonds in a variety of lighting conditions, over time. Others will not notice or care, and be happy as clams. But as prosumers, we need to be mindful that these "shifts" in attitudes on PS when we share our recommendations about vendors and/or stones.

I don't think this is just about vendor competition. I think this is about a larger shift, both in vendor offerings and prosumer attitudes and participation on RT.

 

[WinkHPD]

I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

I happen to agree with you, Lula. When I first joined PS, cut was everthing. Now, "very good" is good enough. The majority of our paid sponsors do not offer the super ideals. If I am wrong in this assessment, please correct me. We have been asked to respect the diversity of the buying public. I understand that not eveyone is looking for the super duper loupers and we can't fault them for that. OTOH, we used to be advocates of these diamonds. I have noticed a reverse type of thinking. "You could spend the money on a H&A, but you don't need to. You won't see the difference." This may be helpful for some people, but it isn't for me. I respect the art and science of the top tier stones. That is what I want. Please understand that I am not comparing them to OEC or OMC or AVC. Those are in a whole other category. I'm strictly discussing RB diamonds. This is not the same site that it used to be. I don't recommend anything anymore. I'm too politically incorrect.

ETA: I do understand that a beautifully cut diamond does not have to be a H&A. When I look at the tutorials, however, the more precisely the diamond is cut, the more evident the H&A pattern becomes. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.

Lula and RisingSun, you are voicing what a handful of cut-specialized sellers also feel. But when we attempt to raise these points we are immediately accused of self-promoting or of being critical of advertising vendors here who are considered competitors. Thus we are censored. This has resulted in what you speak of in terms of watering down of the minimum-accetpable-level, which is precisely at the heart of Paul's topic. In short "good" is now good enough here and I fear no one is permitted to make a different case, or they risk upsetting the standard PS process. It goes hand in hand with the avoiding-cut-perception reality I mentioned in my last post.

And while RisingSun is not my personal client I have read enough of her contributions as a consumer over the years to know she has diligently made this kind of comparison with the same results as Lula, FlyGirl and others who have reported them here. Just as importantly I know there are thousands of people who make these very observations in live showroom viewings daily, but do not post on (and probably have not even heard of) this site.

Cut perception matters to many, so why are we not discussing it more rather than less?

Wink

 

[risingsun]

I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

I happen to agree with you, Lula. When I first joined PS, cut was everthing. Now, "very good" is good enough. The majority of our paid sponsors do not offer the super ideals. If I am wrong in this assessment, please correct me. We have been asked to respect the diversity of the buying public. I understand that not eveyone is looking for the super duper loupers and we can't fault them for that. OTOH, we used to be advocates of these diamonds. I have noticed a reverse type of thinking. "You could spend the money on a H&A, but you don't need to. You won't see the difference." This may be helpful for some people, but it isn't for me. I respect the art and science of the top tier stones. That is what I want. Please understand that I am not comparing them to OEC or OMC or AVC. Those are in a whole other category. I'm strictly discussing RB diamonds. This is not the same site that it used to be. I don't recommend anything anymore. I'm too politically incorrect.

ETA: I do understand that a beautifully cut diamond does not have to be a H&A. When I look at the tutorials, however, the more precisely the diamond is cut, the more evident the H&A pattern becomes. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.

Thank you, risingsun. I agree with everything you've said. I, too, can see the difference between my precision-cut branded H&A diamond and other diamonds, even well-cut diamonds. And others notice it, too. It happens often enough that I know the differences are real and not just random compliments from people who admire jewelry. I must admit, I, too, have been less of an advocate on RT because of the drift toward "good enough."

And, Karl, it's not that I don't believe that PS vendors working from the virtual list don't vet those stones before selling them to the consumer; it's the fact that the vendors are including those non-in-house stones in their "inventory" that I think is disingenuous and misleading to consumers. There are posts on here all the time from consumers confused about the meaning of "virtual" inventory. It's one thing for a consumer to find a stone in the virtual listings and ask a vendor to call it in for them; it's another thing for those stones to show up on PS vendors' inventory listings -- to uneducated consumers, it may appear that those virtual listing stones already have the "seal of approval" from the PS vendor, even though the vendor has listed them on his/her site without ever having seen them (until they are called in, of course). I'm sorry, I know that would not have flown around here even just a year or so ago. And I suspect you would have been one of the people calling vendors out on it.

So what's changed? Prices are up, inventory is in short supply, and, perhaps related to those two trends, or perhaps not, the attitude toward cut quality has become much more lax on RT. Perhaps it's not surprising -- if you read the older threads, people were experimenting with going lower and lower in color and clarity in order to maintain tip-top cut and gain maximum carat weight (see the Show me your J's threads circa 2005-2006). Now buying lower color and clarity is not only accepted on PS, it's recommended (which is fine, as long as individual preference is explained and respected). I see the same trend in recommendations on cut quality. And just like there are some people who are unhappy with their J color in real life, I believe there will be people unhappy with their "good enough" cut quality in real life, especially after comparing their diamond to other diamonds in a variety of lighting conditions, over time. Others will not notice or care, and be happy as clams. But as prosumers, we need to be mindful that these "shifts" in attitudes on PS when we share our recommendations about vendors and/or stones.

I don't think this is just about vendor competition. I think this is about a larger shift, both in vendor offerings and prosumer attitudes and participation on RT.

Those of us who think this way are contributing less and less to this site. Many have left entirely. We have had a number of concerns, which have not been addressed to our satisfaction. I find myself in the role of an advocate, but there is a limit to my patience. When I first joined PS, I received the education I needed and made my own choice. I felt confident in that and subsequent decisions. With a few exceptions, our former prosumers are no longer with us. I am not just speaking of those who have received this title in a formal manner. We had very informative discussions with our experts, as well, which didn't deteriorate into "sabers at dawn" type of arguments. I have no answers, only deep concerns.

 

[risingsun]

I think the "cult of cut" and the emphasis on improving the PS collective knowledge about diamond cutting has been watered down significantly in the past several years. I suspect there are others who feel the same way I do, but our voices have been pretty much silenced. I think it does the consumers a great disservice. Yes, they get a great price on a diamond that will no doubt be of better cut quality than what they can find in their local stores, but, personally, I joined PS because it offered me more than that -- or it used to anyway.

I happen to agree with you, Lula. When I first joined PS, cut was everthing. Now, "very good" is good enough. The majority of our paid sponsors do not offer the super ideals. If I am wrong in this assessment, please correct me. We have been asked to respect the diversity of the buying public. I understand that not eveyone is looking for the super duper loupers and we can't fault them for that. OTOH, we used to be advocates of these diamonds. I have noticed a reverse type of thinking. "You could spend the money on a H&A, but you don't need to. You won't see the difference." This may be helpful for some people, but it isn't for me. I respect the art and science of the top tier stones. That is what I want. Please understand that I am not comparing them to OEC or OMC or AVC. Those are in a whole other category. I'm strictly discussing RB diamonds. This is not the same site that it used to be. I don't recommend anything anymore. I'm too politically incorrect.

ETA: I do understand that a beautifully cut diamond does not have to be a H&A. When I look at the tutorials, however, the more precisely the diamond is cut, the more evident the H&A pattern becomes. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.

Lula and RisingSun, you are voicing what a handful of cut-specialized sellers also feel. But when we attempt to raise these points we are immediately accused of self-promoting or of being critical of advertising vendors here who are considered competitors. Thus we are censored. This has resulted in what you speak of in terms of watering down of the minimum-accetpable-level, which is precisely at the heart of Paul's topic. In short "good" is now good enough here and I fear no one is permitted to make a different case, or they risk upsetting the standard PS process. It goes hand in hand with the avoiding-cut-perception reality I mentioned in my last post.

And while RisingSun is not my personal client I have read enough of her contributions as a consumer over the years to know she has diligently made this kind of comparison with the same results as Lula, FlyGirl and others who have reported them here. Just as importantly I know there are thousands of people who make these very observations in live showroom viewings daily, but do not post on (and probably have not even heard of) this site.

Cut perception matters to many, so why are we not discussing it more rather than less?

Wink

Thank you for your post, Wink. I miss your participation, but understand the reasons for it. It is a loss for PS and the new people who need this type of education. I have received compliments on my H&A diamond on a regular basis. It ususally starts out with " I have never seen a diamond sparkle like yours does. I have never seen a diamond that looks like this." People do notice the difference. There has been plenty of self promotion on this site, but not by the H&A vendors. I use your tutorial to assist people who are looking for a diamond. It has been extremely helpful. I fear if PS continues on this way, it will become irrelevant.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There's different ways of looking at this.
Lula- you mentioned vendors being tempted by diamonds that you term "meet the minimum standards"- however that is really misplaced for just about every diamond seller- because they are not cutters. Generally, the best, most reputable sellers make the same percentage on any given stone- regardless of how it's cut.
Paul is kind of in a class by himself in that he cuts the stones- if he's giving up yield, that's coming directly out of his pocket. But pretty much all the other vendors simply buy their diamonds. If the cutter saved weight it does not benefit the non cutting dealer.
Although "super ideal" or branded diamonds will incur a premium, this is based on super selective dealers- who offer a very high level of consistency. I believe that in many cases, based on the outstanding reputation of these dealers, the premium may be justified.
But there is not generally an additional market discount for stones that are the subject of this thread- stones termed to be "gaming the system".
A GIA triple EX has a price - and this price is not influenced by HCA, or if it is termed "steep deep"- or any of the other finer points raised here. Is the market wrong in these pricing habits?
Some here believe it is.
Others may not.
This is a crucial point in the subject at hand. If the sellers themselves are not gaining a financial advantage, how are they gaming the system? Cutters? Maybe- dealers, I don't see it.


In terms of "watering down" of advice given- again- there's different ways of looking at what is the best stone for any given consumer.
I have raised a few questions in this thread about the means of determining what is the very best cut.
I feel very strongly that the dealer is the "safety valve" that allows consumers to obtain the best cut in diamonds.
Some dealers, for example, scorn any stone below G color. Are they correct? If my point is correct- that some people may actually prefer stones that are being terms "marginal", it's a similar situation. Blindly recommending a certain type of cut because it's "better" may have some consumers paying premiums for stones they may actually like less.
The advocating of one dealer based on personal experience seems to me to be one of the best ways of assisting shoppers.

I agree with concerns about virtual inventory as a whole- mainly because I stand firm on my belief that the eye is the most important tool to be used in selecting how well cut a diamond is.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

David,

The term 'gaming' is a reference to the popular usage of the term here on PS. The active nature of the word 'gaming' does not mean that it has to be intentional. 'Gaming' can just as well, and is indeed, also happening out of pure ignorance.

Take the example of a cutter, or a planner of a cutting-operation, faced with rough and a rough-scanner. The rough-scanner suggests the planning for GIA-EX that costs the least loss in weight, thus suggests the cheapest possible GIA-EX.

Following that advice, the planner and thus the cutter produce the cheapest possible GIA-EX (generally steep-deep) and being a few percentage-points cheaper, they will sell much faster. Given that the majority of production is naturally evolving towards this quality-level, the advantage of being a few percentage-points cheaper evaporates, and it might well give the impression on a big trading-market like NY that there is a standard price-level for GIA-EX.

I regularly assist other diamond-companies in their purchases of polished diamonds, and because of a shrinking supply, this is becoming a more important activity. Sellers generally do not understand why I gladly pay a certain price for one specific stone, while I am totally not interested in a stone, totally equal on paper, even with better clarity-characteristics, not even if they would give it to me 5 to 10% below the normal market-level. If I encounter such ignorance in Antwerp, you surely have the same in NY.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Karl,

By concentrating on average angles only, you are missing my point.

You accept that the grading-system of GIA can be gamed and you accept that the grading-system of AGS can be gamed. Yet, you do not even want to consider that perhaps the grading-system of PS can be gamed.

And this facing the reality that the PS grading-system is a system in motion, depending upon well-intended individuals, who work with tools that are mainly assessing brightness only. Your current position is simply not in line with the normal logical you.

Live long,

I do not believe that it can be gamed to the extent that people are buying bad diamonds.
Your definition of gamed and mine is different.

Providing people options with the full information that PS pro-sumers demand is not gaming the system in a bad way and I dont consider it gaming at all.
That some vendors/people dont like the competition is understandable but the continued attacks are getting old in a hurry.

Karl,

Indeed, definitions are important in our discussion.

So, you do accept that grading-systems, also PS, can be gamed, but you seem to accept that, because it will not lead to people buying bad diamonds. That is your right, but it hinges on what you define as 'bad' diamonds. It means that your 'good enough' should suffice for everyone.

The reality is that this is not how the world works. Various consumers are declaring that they do observe differences where you unilaterally decide that it does not matter anymore. This may be due to them having better cut-perception, but it could also be because they kept an open mind, while actually seeing a lot of stones in real life.

Whichever way you turn it, observable differences exist, while a system naturally evolves to an overwhelming supply near the minimum-level of the system. In the case of the PS-system, there is an added danger, in the sense that it is an undefined system in constant evolution, and the natural evolution of such a system is a constantly deteriorating minimum-level of 'good enough'.

Your answers indicate that I am describing this correctly, but for some reason, you refuse to accept the logic.

Live long,