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

[whatmeworry]

Is the complaint that consumers who have found that life exists beyond the "PS Standard" of

HCA < 2
Table 55-57
CA 34-35
PA 40.6-40.8
AGS0
H&A
blah, blah, blah

are somehow "loosening" the standards by saying life exists beyond H&A, go see for yourself?

On the contrary, I think they are "liberating" the standards. I'm going to quote Richard Hughes (talking about grouping all blue sapphires into one category).
"Broad variety definitions such as this actually enhance consumer protection, because they force buyers to use their eyes, rather than looking for definitions on a gemological certificate."

 

[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

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.

Thank you for your kind comments! They are greatly appreciated. I remember the hours that you and I spent talking so many years ago and always knew that you had received a very special diamond and I was always so happy for you that you did!

Wink

 

[Lula]

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.

Good post, RD -- David -- and I believe we agree more than we disagree.

I should clarify what I mean by "tempted." My hunch is that vendors are responding to the shortage in rough, and also responding to the shift in attitudes on PS, by offering more virtual stones as a way of boosting their inventory and competing for customers, more than to compete on price -- based on your statements on percentages which I take at face value because I am neither a diamond cutter or a vendor.

I do, however, have some experience in marketing/sales, and, of course, my own experience as a diamond consumer, and I have seen changes both in what local retail stores are offering, and what PS vendors are offering. Simply put, even at the mom-and-pop retail level, there is increasing awareness about the importance of cut.

I offer the following scenario for your (and others') feedback -- note, this scenario is based on what I've seen develop both online on PS and in our local retail jewelry market in the past several years. Individual experience may vary, as Kenny says.

Many retail stores, in order to stay in business, have begun to respond to consumer demand for "ideal" cut stones (I'm not going to argue the correctness of that term here; I'm only referring to it as a way of demonstrating nascent cut awareness on the part of consumers and local retailers). This is a major shift, at least in my Midwestern area, from just two years ago.

How much of this focus on cut is driven by local retailers' desire to compete with large online vendors, such as Blue Nile; how much is due to cutters' ability to more easily cut to the minimum AGS 0 and GIA Ex standards, and how much is due to consumer education about cut -- I don't know. But this "cut awareness" is definitely filtering down to the local retail store level. And because local retailers have access to the same virtual listings that online vendors do, this increases competition for the online retailers. I'm saying this because in the past year or so, I've noticed more and more posts by consumers who are becoming educated on PS about cut, and then taking that education to their local retail store and asking the retail store to call in AGS 0 or GIA Ex stones for them to view. In some cases, the retail store has been actively competing with an online vendor on price for AGS 0 or GIA Ex stones.

Who has the advantage in the above scenario? The local retailer, because he/she will be the one showing the consumer the stones. All the online vendor has to offer is a listing with photos and IS and ASET images, and, in the case of H&A, H&A images, and perhaps a video of the stone. As you've noted many times before, the consumer will choose the stone his/her eyes prefer -- as it should be.

"A Tale of Two GIA EX's"
Going back to Paul's point of stones that just barely make the AGS 0 or GIA Ex cut grades, the local retailer has the advantage here, too. Because a consumer looking at two GIA Ex stones (of similar carat weight, color and clarity) will be able to choose the "better" GIA Ex with his/her eyes. Will there be individual variation between consumers on which stone is "better" -- sure. But the consumer has the advantage of comparing two or more stones in person, under different lighting conditions, in the retail store. In addition, the consumer can compare those two GIA Ex stones to other cut grades (whatever the store has in stock) and make a choice using his/her eyes. All well and good and what many of us on PS mean when we say "your eyes should be the judge."

Let's say the consumer chooses one of the GIA Ex stones; the retail store sends the other GIA Ex stone back to the wholesaler who puts it back on the "virtual" list. What none of us know is the reason why one GIA Ex stone was chosen over the other. Let's assume they have similar HCA scores, similar IS and ASET images. The one that was sent back might be a "dud" compared to the other, in terms of its sparkle, scintillation, and fire (qualities not currently able to be measured by any objective tools). An online consumer can't see the differences in sparkle, scintillation, and fire, but the consumer standing at the retail counter comparing the two stones can.

The GIA Ex that was returned to the virtual list is again available. It may be called in by several local retailers, and rejected again by consumers who, after seeing the stone in person, decide that it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi and back it goes again to the "virtual" list. Where, finally, it is spied by a consumer, newly educated on PS about cut quality, on an online vendor's website. The online vendor calls it in. Idealscope, and depending on the vendor, ASET and H&A images, are taken, and submitted to the consumer. The vendor has "vetted" the stone, given the consumer his/her opinion of the color and clarity, perhaps answered some questions about the stone. It fits the consumers' price, color, clarity and size requirements; he/she orders the stone and believes he/she has just scored the deal of a lifetime. All of this without knowing that several other consumers, who had the advantage of seeing the stone in person, rejected it on it lacking a-certain-something that other stones they compared it to had. The online consumer has just purchased a GIA Ex with excellent IS and ASET images, but the stone may be at the "low" end of the GIA Ex cut grade in terms of visual beauty (not currently able to be measured with the tools available to us, but still a "real" phenomenon that consumers respond to).

Now, there may never be a problem, because the consumer purchasing this stone may live in Podunk, USA, and may now own the best looking stone in Podunk. Happy Ending. Or, as David notes, the consumer may prefer the slight wonkiness of this particular GIA Ex and admire its beauty. Happy Ending. Or, the online consumer may say, "Gee, I really don't understand the fuss over these GIA Ex stones; my best friend's stone from FrozenSpit Jewelers looks just as nice as mine."

It's that third outcome that I'm concerned about. Has this consumer been a victim of a stone that "gamed" the system? Not overtly, but perhaps covertly? Would this consumer feel better about the situation if he/she had paid less for the stone, and knew that it was a stone that had just barely made the GIA Ex grade? I don't know. But currently there is no price break for stones that "just barely make" the GIA Ex grade.

Which brings me to branded cuts. Several online vendors have developed their own brands, and were way above the curve on cut quality.
The advantage of buying a branded cut, in my opinion, is clearly outlined by this statement of yours, David --

"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."

Yes, it's about consistency! The online vendor vets the stones for me, based on the vendor's standards for its branded stones, because as a consumer buying online, I don't have the option of standing at the counter and comparing two or more of the vendor's branded stones. I must depend on the brand's consistency to ensure that I receive a stone that is at the top of the AGS 0 or GIA Ex cut grade. Yes, David, I must trust my vendor because I don't have the luxury of comparing the stones in person. I have owned several stones from one brand, and so I can speak with some authority about the value of knowing that if and when I trade my stone in, the stone I receive will have the same "look" that I find beautiful. Consistency goes beyond objective measures, such as the HCA and IS and ASET images, and begins to address the question of what is beautiful. Consumers may vary on what brand they believe is beautiful, but the brand must be consistent in appearance and performance to remain an identifiable and distinct brand. And it is this consistency that others notice -- what risingsun is referring to when she says that people say they've never seen a diamond sparkle like hers before. It's what people notice when they compliment my diamond.

So what about the online vendors who sell their own branded cuts, and several tiers under that, including stones that are not in-house? In the case of the GIA Ex in the above scenario, the online vendor selling this GIA Ex has vetted this stone for the consumer, but the stone is expressly not part of that vendor's branded line of stones -- for a reason. And that reason is, is the stone did not meet the vendor's own standards for his/her brand. Could the stone still be beautiful to the consumer receiving it? Sure. But I'd still argue that a consumer wanting to buy a diamond from the virtual list, where there's no way to know whether the stone is a "high" GIA Ex or a "low" GIA Ex is better served by either having that stone called in by a local vendor and comparing it to other GIA Ex's and other cut grades, or buying it online and being willing to return it after living with the stone for a while, comparing it to other well-cut stones, and observing it in a variety of lighting conditions.

This novella explains my issues with the current cut grading system, and why I think consumers can indeed be misled by over-reliance on numbers, HCA scores, IS and ASET images, etc., and why I believe prosumers on PS have a duty to play devil's advocate a bit more rather than simply rubber-stamping every IS that comes along with "looks good."

 

[Rockdiamond]

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,

Your answer makes perfect sense, taken from a broad view. I see the results in masses of round diamonds cut to look like what we associate with "ideal make"- that being ( at the simplest level) small tables. Many of these, I agree, are not that great in terms of cut.
The new breed of "mass market" sellers- most are selling to consumers blind- simply drop shipping- will move these less desirable stones more easily.
I promise, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have never found that any of the tools so beloved here on PS trumps using ones' eyes to select goods- for many buyers. The exceptions might be those buyers looking for H&A.
For example, Steep Deep stones , if they are problematic examples should be easy to spot for a trained buyer.
Or, if you need some special tool to see the deficit, why is it then important? Whatmeworry brings up an excellent point
My point is that the dealers that buy stones- or those that personally inspect the goods they sell from memo, or a list, will eliminate undesirable stones. Or, the best ones, should.
Furthermore, this whole discussion highlights the importance of consumers taking the greatest effort to select their dealer.
Lula- I see you've posted and I want to read your post, then repsond.
Thank you

 

[Karl_K]

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

Live long,

I dont like hype, never have.
If you want to convince me scientific proof is a good start.
What I see is a vendor running down another vendor with 0 scientific proof that precision cutting and or h&a are better.
GIA has rejected that they are and AGS will not say so.

On top of that continually repeating that your competitors are selling low quality diamonds that PS pro-sumers are approving them with no scientific proof that they are a lower quality is flat out wrong.

 

[kenny]

Paul, in what ways are Crafted by Infinity diamonds different (better) than others with good HCA scores and Idealscope pics?

You may want to let John Pollard answer this one, as he is deft with words in his native language.

 

[Karl_K]

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 -

I must be missing something virtual stones have always been in the PS search.
I will look into it and see if I can figure it out.

 

[Karl_K]

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 -

I must be missing something virtual stones have always been in the PS search.
I will look into it and see if I can figure it out.

I did find that some diamonds not being sold as h&a are incorrectly showing up in the h&a section of the search.
I didn't see any stones that were obviously virtual except under search all.
I notified Andrey of the error in the listing.

 

[Serg]

I do not doubt what "game " is word without negative impact , meaning.
But "Gaming with rules", "Gaming with standards", "Gaming Them" has strong negative impact for me, and I consider such expression in contest "cut quality" as strong "black PR".

 

[Lula]

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 -

I must be missing something virtual stones have always been in the PS search.
I will look into it and see if I can figure it out.

I did find that some diamonds not being sold as h&a are incorrectly showing up in the h&a section of the search.
I didn't see any stones that were obviously virtual except under search all.
I notified Andrey of the error in the listing.

Thanks for checking on that, Karl.
But what I'm referring to is also the listings on the vendors' own websites, where you use the search tool for a certain size, color, clarity, etc., and the vendor's own site lists branded stones, second tier stones, and stones labeled "virtual." This is not just one vendor; it's several. And I think this practice has caused some confusion among consumers about what exactly the differences between in-house stones and virtual stones are, when these virtual stones show up as part of Vendor X's "inventory."

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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,

Your answer makes perfect sense, taken from a broad view. I see the results in masses of round diamonds cut to look like what we associate with "ideal make"- that being ( at the simplest level) small tables. Many of these, I agree, are not that great in terms of cut.
The new breed of "mass market" sellers- most are selling to consumers blind- simply drop shipping- will move these less desirable stones more easily.
I promise, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have never found that any of the tools so beloved here on PS trumps using ones' eyes to select goods- for many buyers. The exceptions might be those buyers looking for H&A.
For example, Steep Deep stones , if they are problematic examples should be easy to spot for a trained buyer.
Or, if you need some special tool to see the deficit, why is it then important? Whatmeworry brings up an excellent point
My point is that the dealers that buy stones- or those that personally inspect the goods they sell from memo, or a list, will eliminate undesirable stones. Or, the best ones, should.
Furthermore, this whole discussion highlights the importance of consumers taking the greatest effort to select their dealer.
Lula- I see you've posted and I want to read your post, then repsond.
Thank you

David your assumptions are based on dealers being expert 'lookers'.
I have plenty of evidence that this is untrue in the majority of cases.
Leaky diamonds look better thru a luope and because clarity counts more $'s than cut quality, most 'looking' is done thru a loupe with backlight.
Therefore leaky diamonds look better.
It is one of the reasons the trade does not challenge GIA's steep deeps.

 

[Karl_K]

Thanks for checking on that, Karl.
But what I'm referring to is also the listings on the vendors' own websites, where you use the search tool for a certain size, color, clarity, etc., and the vendor's own site lists branded stones, second tier stones, and stones labeled "virtual." This is not just one vendor; it's several. And I think this practice has caused some confusion among consumers about what exactly the differences between in-house stones and virtual stones are, when these virtual stones show up as part of Vendor X's "inventory."

What a vendor does on their own search PS doesn't have any control over.
While I see where it can be confusing, if the diamonds are clearly labeled and an explanation is given I don’t have a huge problem with it on their own site.
Ideally the terms would have a mouse over that explains them and a link to an explanation page.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is a photo of the proposed study that no one has yet completed or even attempted.
It shows how one can use the basis of any grading system and compare it with human perception of each of the Basic Light Return features which we can observe.
Until such a study is done properly it is unlikely that we will have grading systems that reallly work from a beauty perspective.

Of course this would also enable new niches of diamond cuts that have best brightness, or best fire, or most or least scintillation. And they will make the calibration of any system (eg Bscope) possible (if such systems can be shown to align with human perception, which my bet is any monoscopic view will never be able to do!)

 

[Rockdiamond]

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,

Your answer makes perfect sense, taken from a broad view. I see the results in masses of round diamonds cut to look like what we associate with "ideal make"- that being ( at the simplest level) small tables. Many of these, I agree, are not that great in terms of cut.
The new breed of "mass market" sellers- most are selling to consumers blind- simply drop shipping- will move these less desirable stones more easily.
I promise, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have never found that any of the tools so beloved here on PS trumps using ones' eyes to select goods- for many buyers. The exceptions might be those buyers looking for H&A.
For example, Steep Deep stones , if they are problematic examples should be easy to spot for a trained buyer.
Or, if you need some special tool to see the deficit, why is it then important? Whatmeworry brings up an excellent point
My point is that the dealers that buy stones- or those that personally inspect the goods they sell from memo, or a list, will eliminate undesirable stones. Or, the best ones, should.
Furthermore, this whole discussion highlights the importance of consumers taking the greatest effort to select their dealer.
Lula- I see you've posted and I want to read your post, then repsond.
Thank you

David your assumptions are based on dealers being expert 'lookers'.
I have plenty of evidence that this is untrue in the majority of cases.
Leaky diamonds look better thru a luope and because clarity counts more $'s than cut quality, most 'looking' is done thru a loupe with backlight.
Therefore leaky diamonds look better.
It is one of the reasons the trade does not challenge GIA's steep deeps.

Gary- we agree 100% on the part in bold.
When I traveled selling diamonds to jewelers, at least 75% of the retail jewelers had little idea how to select fine makes.
By 2006, I was no longer selling on thew road- so I never got to see how GIA's cut grade would affect selection process.
But there were a number of well educated sellers that had a well honed eye.
Hence my point that consumers are best assisted by putting emphasis on dealer selection.


We disagree that these well honed eyes would have any problem identifying a diamond with detrimental leakage issues.
I'm talking about sharp buyers- who would never limit viewing to backlit under a diamond lamp.

Lula hit the nail in the head in terms of "the filter process"
This is where the worst representatives of pretty much any diamond category are thicker in selections of diamonds in databases.
Also true with SI goods- a far larger percentage of non eye clean SI stones are waiting on DB lists, as compared to the percentage of eye clean Si stones coming off the wheel.
When talking about GIA EX cut grade stones, it's also got to be a factor.
I might not select the same diamonds you would, Garry- but surely if we each looked at 50 GIA EX cut grades- we'd both eliminate a fair share as "not my taste"
But deep diamonds would surely be a common area in your and my rejections.
So, IMO steep deeps are not challenged partially due to ignorance of sellers- but also on the ability of sharp buyers to avoid stones with detrimental characteristics.
The buyer for, say Zales will buy all the deep stones you throw at him- especially at the right price- weather or not he's a "make maven" or not, he's got to buy hundreds of 1 carat stones at a clip.
Someone needing to buy 10 is in a far stronger position in terms of selection ability.

This also goes to Paul's initial point. Maybe the "gaming" is having a strong effect in some areas of internet sales.
My opinion is that dealers on the web that invest on diamonds for stock are generally very efficient at NOT buying "compromised" or "gamed" diamonds.
PS prosumers are generally very well meaning- and I suspect they'd be more likely to suggest rejecting a stone I - or many experts- might find very attractive, than suggest a stone the same group would reject.
If anything they may be to strict.
If that's the case, "gaming" prosumers seems extremely unlikely.
That makes it likely that consumers that come here for advice- and get it from our extremely well educated prosumers, they're not going to buy a dog- or get "gamed"

 

[yssie]

Oh, good grief.


I for one am very glad to see PSers routinely recommending that new buyers FIND OUT with their OWN EYES what is worth it to them to spend money on, and what is not. If this is a new trend, it is all for the better.


We want to talk numbers and cut performance, however we want to define that?

Let's have at it.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT. Yet there is (thankfully) no blind cult mentality of Buy a D, Buy a D - instead, educated consumers advise other consumers to FIND OUT what THEIR EYES can see. Despite the fact that a D is, in fact, simply BETTER - it is rarer, it is pricier, it is more prestigious, it outputs more frequencies than a G, an H, or a J. Some people can see the difference - in colour, perhaps in light output, some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can see.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray. Some people can see the difference (and also there are the eyeclean and mind-clean aspects to consider) some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can appreciate.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate a D or a VVS over a J or an SI does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate an H&A over a near-H&A does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

I'm not getting into the discussion of how and why and if H&A is Better than a non-H&A.


I'm sorry to see this thread devolve into marketing, and I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!


Yeah.. I think it best I bow out of this thread.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

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

Live long,

I dont like hype, never have.
If you want to convince me scientific proof is a good start.
What I see is a vendor running down another vendor with 0 scientific proof that precision cutting and or h&a are better.
GIA has rejected that they are and AGS will not say so.

On top of that continually repeating that your competitors are selling low quality diamonds that PS pro-sumers are approving them with no scientific proof that they are a lower quality is flat out wrong.

Karl,

What I am describing is human behavior, and the study of human behavior is also a science. Every system affects human behavior, and this is what I am describing on a micro-level.

In this case, it is not only affecting Infinity, but also other colleagues. In that sense, I deplore that part of the ongoing discussion is now about our brand, about H&A, and so on. Your incorrect accusations of hype and so on are not helping in this regard.

This thread is a call for PS to look in the mirror. Understand your strengths, but also understand your limitations. The attitude that nothing bad is going on in your backyard historically has never been a guarantee of all ending up fine. To the contrary.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Oh, good grief.


I for one am very glad to see PSers routinely recommending that new buyers FIND OUT with their OWN EYES what is worth it to them to spend money on, and what is not. If this is a new trend, it is all for the better.


We want to talk numbers and cut performance, however we want to define that?

Let's have at it.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT. Yet there is (thankfully) no blind cult mentality of Buy a D, Buy a D - instead, educated consumers advise other consumers to FIND OUT what THEIR EYES can see. Despite the fact that a D is, in fact, simply BETTER - it is rarer, it is pricier, it is more prestigious, it outputs more frequencies than a G, an H, or a J. Some people can see the difference - in colour, perhaps in light output, some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can see.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray. Some people can see the difference (and also there are the eyeclean and mind-clean aspects to consider) some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can appreciate.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate a D or a VVS over a J or an SI does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate an H&A over a near-H&A does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

I'm not getting into the discussion of how and why and if H&A is Better than a non-H&A.


I'm sorry to see this thread devolve into marketing, and I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!


Yeah.. I think it best I bow out of this thread.

Yssie, I beg you to stay in this thread.

Your post exactly describes what I am saying.

You are mentioning color-sensitivity, and how consumers should see for themselves what they prefer.
You are mentioning clarity-sensitivity, and how consumers should see for themselves what they prefer.
And rightly, you are mentioning cut-sensitivity, and how consumers should see for themselves what they prefer.

All these sensitivities exist and all these differences in color, clarity and cut also exist. And like you, I do not like the thread derailing into a discussion about H&A again, since that is not the subject.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gary- we agree 100% on the part in bold.
When I traveled selling diamonds to jewelers, at least 75% of the retail jewelers had little idea how to select fine makes.
By 2006, I was no longer selling on thew road- so I never got to see how GIA's cut grade would affect selection process.
But there were a number of well educated sellers that had a well honed eye.
Hence my point that consumers are best assisted by putting emphasis on dealer selection.

David can you please give examples of how those dealers or retailers with a well honed eye make or made their selection?

 

[risingsun]

Gary- we agree 100% on the part in bold.
When I traveled selling diamonds to jewelers, at least 75% of the retail jewelers had little idea how to select fine makes.
By 2006, I was no longer selling on thew road- so I never got to see how GIA's cut grade would affect selection process.
But there were a number of well educated sellers that had a well honed eye.
Hence my point that consumers are best assisted by putting emphasis on dealer selection.

David can you please give examples of how those dealers or retailers with a well honed eye make or made their selection?

Here we go again. Another one bites the dust! Over and out of here

 

[Karl_K]

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

Live long,

I dont like hype, never have.
If you want to convince me scientific proof is a good start.
What I see is a vendor running down another vendor with 0 scientific proof that precision cutting and or h&a are better.
GIA has rejected that they are and AGS will not say so.

On top of that continually repeating that your competitors are selling low quality diamonds that PS pro-sumers are approving them with no scientific proof that they are a lower quality is flat out wrong.

Karl,

What I am describing is human behavior, and the study of human behavior is also a science. Every system affects human behavior, and this is what I am describing on a micro-level.

In this case, it is not only affecting Infinity, but also other colleagues. In that sense, I deplore that part of the ongoing discussion is now about our brand, about H&A, and so on. Your incorrect accusations of hype and so on are not helping in this regard.

This thread is a call for PS to look in the mirror. Understand your strengths, but also understand your limitations. The attitude that nothing bad is going on in your backyard historically has never been a guarantee of all ending up fine. To the contrary.

Live long,

You said people are gaming the system to the harm of consumers, I disagree.
You dont like competition and I say that it is needed and more choices for consumers is better.

As you know I feel there are advantages to h&a and precision cutting.
However when you make a charge that a vendor is selling sub-par diamonds the level of proof increases to scientific levels.
For those reading a quick rundown:
H&A - is a result of a RB diamond being carefully cut and not a special feature that is limited to only a few people being able to produce.
Modern tools and techniques has increased the ease of producing them so there are more on the market.

Advantages h&a:
the biggest is the contrast patterns that many find pleasing.
While scientific proof is lacking there may be a small light return advantage in tough light conditions.

Advantage precision cutting:
precision cutting across a brand: Family resemblance one diamond to the next with diamonds around the same size looking very close to one another.
It has not been scientifically proven that the higher precision the better the looks or performance.
Some people like me admire precision cutting for the sake of precision cutting.

 

[Karl_K]

What is the goal of the PS system?
Help people find a diamond that they love and give them peace of mind with the purchase that they can't see until they receive it.
When they do see it theirs eyes are the final judge, they love it or they dont.
If they dont the consumers of PS insist on return policies so they can return it and start over.
This has worked well for over 10 years.

What has changed about PS?
In the past fanism was too much of a deciding factor on which diamond was recommended.
Now for the most part each diamond is considered on its merits with the information available online.
That is a change for the better! :}
But those that benefited from the fanism it has been an adjustment having to compete on merit.

B&M dealer are more accepted than in the past and they are not automatically deflected to the flavor of the month PS dealer as has happened in the past.
However telling people they have to visit a b&m to get a diamond they will love has been proven to be wrong time and time again on PS over years and years.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Karl,

I said that within the top-grade EX of the GIA cut-grade, there are various levels of performance, but that the mere existence of the system naturally leads to more diamonds being offered near the minimum-level of the top-grade. This is general knowledge on PS.

I said that within the top-grade Ideal of the AGS-grade, there are various levels of performance, but that the mere existence of the system naturally leads to more diamonds being offered near the minimum-level of the top-grade. Also general knowledge on PS.

And I said that within the top-grade 'Buy it' of the system-in-evolution that the PS-forum is, there are various levels of performance, and that the mere existence of the system naturally leads to more diamonds being offered near the minimum-level of the top-grade. I fully understand that this is hard for you to swallow, and it is not only because of your status on this forum.

You have tried to steer the subject towards specific average-angle-sets, and I told you that it is not the issue. Now, you are trying again to steer the subject towards H&A and precision-cutting, while I have said time-and-again that this is not the issue. Your defense seems to be to shoot at the piano-player, instead of concentrating on the message.

Please read Yssie's post and learn.

Color-awareness exists and differences in color exist. Nothing wrong with accepting that and to have the eyes be the final judge.
Clarity-awareness exists and differences in clarity exist. Nothing wrong with accepting that and to have the eyes be the final judge.
In the same away, cut-awareness exists and differences in cut exist, and one should allow the eyes to be the final judge. Is that so difficult to accept, that you constantly have to come back with false accusations?

Live long,

P.S. This reply was written before I read your last post.

 

[Lula]

I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!

Yes, yssie, this is exactly why PS is -- I say was, though -- such a different and special place. As someone who did compare a less well-cut stone with several precision cut stones, and as someone who can see the difference precision cutting makes in both performance and appearance, I feel that my views have been increasingly dismissed by those who say one or both of the following (talking about rounds here):

1. The differences can't be measured; therefore, they either don't matter or they don't exist.

2. The differences may exist, but they cost too much, and you may not see them anyway; the recommendation to the consumer in this case is consistently "go with the lower priced stone."

How is this respecting consumer "choice"? Indeed, what I've seen is a not-so-subtle push by many prosumers away from the top-tier stones toward the least expensive option. Which may or may not be in the consumers' best interest, depending on what they expect and what they can detect with their own eyes upon receipt of the diamond and comparing it with other diamonds in different lighting conditions , which is exactly how I saw the differences.

You spoke in an earlier post about the need to educate consumers about the different "flavors" of AGS 0 and GIA EX diamonds. Yes, as someone who returned a stone with longer lower girdle facets in order to purchase a more "balanced" Tolk stone, based on my personal preference, I agree, this is a very important concept to convey to newbies. And it is a concept John Pollard wrote extensively about very phenomenon in this article https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

I do see more and more prosumers linking this article, but at the same time, I still see the push toward "the cheapest option."

Why indeed can't we have the same conversation about cut and cut quality as we have had about clarity and color?

I'm sorry, Paul, if my post is not on topic, but this is just my armchair view of how things have changed on RT in the past several years.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

What is the goal of the PS system?
Help people find a diamond that they love and give them peace of mind with the purchase that they can't see until they receive it.
When they do see it theirs eyes are the final judge, they love it or they dont.
If they dont the consumers of PS insist on return policies so they can return it and start over.
This has worked well for over 10 years.

What has changed about PS?
In the past fanism was too much of a deciding factor on which diamond was recommended.
Now for the most part each diamond is considered on its merits with the information available online.
That is a change for the better! :}
But those that benefited from the fanism it has been an adjustment having to compete on merit.

B&M dealer are more accepted than in the past and they are not automatically deflected to the flavor of the month PS dealer as has happened in the past.
However telling people they have to visit a b&m to get a diamond they will love has been proven to be wrong time and time again on PS over years and years.

Karl, seriously?

Take the first five lines of your post here, and replace 'PS' with 'GIA' or 'AGS', as if it were one of their principals stating this. You would have no problem pointing out where their systems fail, but have no problem defending your own backyard.

The rest of your post is entirely off-base. Are you serious?

Live long,

 

[John P]

Paul, in what ways are Crafted by Infinity diamonds different (better) than others with good HCA scores and Idealscope pics?

You may want to let John Pollard answer this one, as he is deft with words in his native language.

Hi Kenny,

I appreciate the endorsement. Thank you.

I've remained silent for a couple of reasons. First, when Paul and I both participate in a thread it risks being seen as marketing. This is just part of Pricescope. When Brian Gavin and I worked together we rarely entered same-thread for the same reason. Second, in the last few years I'm participating less here, for reasons Risingsun and Lula have already identified. I'm glad I was alerted to your request.

To your question:

I'm going to refrain from answering technical questions about the Infinity brand. Paul's topic is not about Infinity Diamonds. It is about the limitations of current systems, specifically the Pricescope system. I'm happy to answer you in that sense:

Readers may recall that for years I've said that having an HCA score is like having a chalk outline of a potential blind date. Having an Ideal-scope image is like having a glamour-photo of him or her. Knowing proportions is like knowing height, weight and measurements...and those things are all well and good...but the personality of that blind date, how he or she impacts you, how he or she reacts to your favorite places, etc. can only be appreciated in-person.

My opinion on this has never changed. I'm in showrooms all over the country and can state emphatically that internet photos, grading reports and HCA results cannot decisively predict what an individual human will prefer when viewing diamonds live, liberally, through a number of lighting conditions. Any jeweler operating a fair showroom can attest to this. It's no secret. Human cognition is uniquely individual. One person may prefer diamond "A" in person to diamond "B" when the two have the same paper statistics; even closely matched "Pricescope" examples. This happens again and again, every day. To me it's odd that there is any resistance to discussing it.

The current climate of immediate accusation-over-conversation indicates to me the further erosion of what used-to-be a forum of stimulating discussions. I hope that can change.

Cheers,

 

[WinkHPD]

Oh, good grief.


I for one am very glad to see PSers routinely recommending that new buyers FIND OUT with their OWN EYES what is worth it to them to spend money on, and what is not. If this is a new trend, it is all for the better.


We want to talk numbers and cut performance, however we want to define that?

Let's have at it.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT. Yet there is (thankfully) no blind cult mentality of Buy a D, Buy a D - instead, educated consumers advise other consumers to FIND OUT what THEIR EYES can see. Despite the fact that a D is, in fact, simply BETTER - it is rarer, it is pricier, it is more prestigious, it outputs more frequencies than a G, an H, or a J. Some people can see the difference - in colour, perhaps in light output, some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can see.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray. Some people can see the difference (and also there are the eyeclean and mind-clean aspects to consider) some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can appreciate.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate a D or a VVS over a J or an SI does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate an H&A over a near-H&A does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

I'm not getting into the discussion of how and why and if H&A is Better than a non-H&A.


I'm sorry to see this thread devolve into marketing, and I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!


Yeah.. I think it best I bow out of this thread.

Yssie,

Please stay.

I can not speak for Paul, but I know he is advocating that it is most important to see with your own eyes the diamonds that you are considering.

Like a fine wine, there are palates that will discern small differences in taste. Likewise the cut perception of an experienced viewer is more likely to finely honed than a first time viewer, yet even beginners will often have a natural preference for one diamond over another even if they do not understand exactly why. So, please stay, and please keep standing up for your point of view. Please keep advocating that people see the gems they are about to buy.

In my opinion, that is the correct position, no matter whose stone is chosen in the end.

Wink

 

[slg47]

1. The differences can't be measured; therefore, they either don't matter or they don't exist.

2. The differences may exist, but they cost too much, and you may not see them anyway; the recommendation to the consumer in this case is consistently "go with the lower priced stone."

How is this respecting consumer "choice"? Indeed, what I've seen is a not-so-subtle push by many prosumers away from the top-tier stones toward the least expensive option. Which may or may not be in the consumers' best interest, depending on what they expect and what they can detect with their own eyes upon receipt of the diamond and comparing it with other diamonds in different lighting conditions , which is exactly how I saw the differences.

Many consumers are not looking to differentiate between the top 1% of diamonds. Obviously the best way for consumers to decide would be to see them in person, however many of the people who are shopping are not interested or not willing to have an ACA, BGD signature, Infinity, and non H&A with good IS image shipped out to them to compare. I welcome technical discussion of the visual differences between H&A and non H&A (see this thread [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/[/URL]) but after reading the responses and forming my own conclusions, my opinion is that the differences are slight and the differences between makes of superideal H&A are much smaller than the differences between each of those brands and, for example, a GIA VG cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gary- we agree 100% on the part in bold.
When I traveled selling diamonds to jewelers, at least 75% of the retail jewelers had little idea how to select fine makes.
By 2006, I was no longer selling on thew road- so I never got to see how GIA's cut grade would affect selection process.
But there were a number of well educated sellers that had a well honed eye.
Hence my point that consumers are best assisted by putting emphasis on dealer selection.

David can you please give examples of how those dealers or retailers with a well honed eye make or made their selection?

Sure Garry!
I think we can compare training to grade cut, to the training for clarity or color grading in some ways.
In all three cases, practice is essential- and a frame of reference that comes from examining many thousands of stones.
What makes an SI2?
I'll bet you'd agree that there's an element of judgement that one can ( or not) develop.
Color requires certain physical attributes- a sensitivity to shade that can not be developed for those lacking in such sensitivity.
Cut grading is, in many ways, similar.
Let's take the example of people that pick melee for rings.
There are extremely talented pickers- achieving extraordinary consistency for pave work.
Clearly they're not going to use ASET/IS or HCA on 1.2mm diamonds, right?
If it's possible to pick .01ct stones well, why not 1carat stones- in fact, common sense would dictate that it's a lot easier.
It is necessary to look at the stone in varied lighting environments- including placing the stone on your finger- which would make things like detrimental leakage rather easy to spot.
I think we can find a balance between the tools ( HCA/IS/ASET/HCA)- which do work as they are intended- and using visual cues- solely.
Both can produce the desired result.

 

[Lula]

1. The differences can't be measured; therefore, they either don't matter or they don't exist.

2. The differences may exist, but they cost too much, and you may not see them anyway; the recommendation to the consumer in this case is consistently "go with the lower priced stone."

How is this respecting consumer "choice"? Indeed, what I've seen is a not-so-subtle push by many prosumers away from the top-tier stones toward the least expensive option. Which may or may not be in the consumers' best interest, depending on what they expect and what they can detect with their own eyes upon receipt of the diamond and comparing it with other diamonds in different lighting conditions , which is exactly how I saw the differences.

Many consumers are not looking to differentiate between the top 1% of diamonds. Obviously the best way for consumers to decide would be to see them in person, however many of the people who are shopping are not interested or not willing to have an ACA, BGD signature, Infinity, and non H&A with good IS image shipped out to them to compare. I welcome technical discussion of the visual differences between H&A and non H&A (see this thread [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/[/URL]) but after reading the responses and forming my own conclusions, my opinion is that the differences are slight and the differences between makes of superideal H&A are much smaller than the differences between each of those brands and, for example, a GIA VG cut.

I agree with you slg, and your last sentence says what I was trying to say much better than the way I said it! Yes, I agree, I suspect the differences between the top-tier (or top 1% of diamonds)are small. But the differences between that 1% (as a group -- encompassing several brands) and a group of your generic GIA Ex, and especially VG, are greater, and, I think, visible to people in person, whether or not they know the differences are due to cut quality. Can some GIA Ex's compare favorably to the top 1%? Sure. But my argument has always been that you'll have to sift through more of them to find the top performers. Some people are willing to do that; I am not.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Oh, good grief.


I for one am very glad to see PSers routinely recommending that new buyers FIND OUT with their OWN EYES what is worth it to them to spend money on, and what is not. If this is a new trend, it is all for the better.


We want to talk numbers and cut performance, however we want to define that?

Let's have at it.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT. Yet there is (thankfully) no blind cult mentality of Buy a D, Buy a D - instead, educated consumers advise other consumers to FIND OUT what THEIR EYES can see. Despite the fact that a D is, in fact, simply BETTER - it is rarer, it is pricier, it is more prestigious, it outputs more frequencies than a G, an H, or a J. Some people can see the difference - in colour, perhaps in light output, some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can see.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray. Some people can see the difference (and also there are the eyeclean and mind-clean aspects to consider) some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can appreciate.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate a D or a VVS over a J or an SI does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate an H&A over a near-H&A does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

I'm not getting into the discussion of how and why and if H&A is Better than a non-H&A.


I'm sorry to see this thread devolve into marketing, and I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!


Yeah.. I think it best I bow out of this thread.

Thritto yssie- please stay.
I find your posts to be among the most well grounded, and always well written and showing great sensitivity. You consistently give sensible advice encouraging folks to look at what they are buying.
I do disagree with some points in your post above- and I pray you won't mind me respectfully debating these points as they apply here.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray.

The two points above are where I feel you're off base.
How can we prove either factually?
Even if there was a machine to "prove" either point, the results would have several deficiencies.
1) no matter how we test light performance, it will , by the nature of any test, be extremely incomplete.
Unless there were results for every different lighting scenario- to say nothing of how setting affects a diamonds light performance.
The results, even if such a machine existed, and was agreed upon, would be irrelevant in many situations.

2) if we could take, as a given, that we could measure the difference in light emanating from a given IF, and a given SI2, I propose that in many cases, the results would also be meaningless to the human eye.
Like comparing two bathtubs filled with water and declaring one had one additional ounce of water- irrelevant.

Paul- I applaud you for writing this. Points about trashing the competition are totally misplaced.