Guess who else thinks 60/60 is as good as Ideal- GIA!!!!

[RockDoc]

It is my thought that just considering the table and depth and making a conclusions about how good or poor a cut is certainly not much information to make a determination.

I started writing about the importance of the other 40 facets years ago. Even on the AGS reports, the crown measurement average and the pavilion average were just not enough.

So just as some feel that it''s improper that a 60/60 is good or beautiful - it is just as improper to say a 55 / 60 is the "best ideal".

It appears the labs are finally waking up to this and to light return analysis considerations, and that is good, but we ain''t totally there yet.

There are just a lot of very complex other characteristics that can affect the appearance of a diamond. I think we all sort of are in agreement that the eye''s are still the best, but that too requires the trained eye to be able to notice what succint differences enhance the appearance. The improving techonology is a great teacher in many aspects, even for expert eyes, and as time goes on it will get even better.

At the moment there is too much prediction type analysis and not enough attention is being made into visual, actual performance analysis - but it is coming, and in part arrived in some of the various items of equipment that has the ability to discern things that our eyes sometimes miss. Again, the eyes are still the boss, but it doesn''t hurt to have advanced technology back up to support the human conclusions.

I agree a lot is personal preference, but many time the "decision" of which preferences is made from a very "untrained" circumstance, particularly with consumers, as many tend to believe what the sales person says as gospel.


Rockdoc

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 8/4/2005 4:15:03 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 3:43:41 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 3:39:29 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 4:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/3/2005 4:06:04 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 3:42:30 PM
Author: Rhino
Dave, you''re too funny. 60/60 is not the main criteria for determining if the stone is grade 1 or not. It''s the crown/pavilion/lg/star combo''s that are important (and even then there are some probs with the software as well). Here''s another 60/60 that gets 2 scores lower at a Grade 3.

Heh, why settle with Grade 3 when we can have Grade 4

Iiro- please take a look at the side veiw created by plugging in the numbers you have Iiro- NO ONE that knows what a diamond is supposed to look like- I''m NOT talking about experts here- any laymen would look at a stone wit the angles you plugged in and ask- Is that a diamond???? NO cutter worth their salt would ever cut such a stone.

I HAVE seen really badly cut stones in my day- and they are quite simple top spot if they are as bad as that one.

Quite often young couples buy their first diamond without knowing how a diamond is supposed to look. I have seen, you have seen and everyone of us in trade have seen these horribly cut stones, they are out there. What is better sales pitch for this stone than 60/60 argument?

Iiro- the part of your response that does not make sense is this: If a couple has NO idea what a diamodn looks like, why should they be impressed with the fact a diamond is 60/60?
I have seen horribly cut stones- but has anyone here seen a 60/60 that looked like Iiro''s projection??? The really really badly cut stones I''ve seen , for the most part, were not accompanied by a GIA report.

One of the positive aspects of GIA''s new tool is that the pictograph shows ONLY a profile. This is a lot more accurate than devices that project what the top of the diamond looks like.
Again- I say that the ''60/60'' Iira concocted would be so utterly horrible looking that NO ONE would see it as a beautiful diamond.
NOt so with Rhino''s less extremem example

60/60 has nothing to do with GIA cert. I am sure no one will ever try to sell Grade 4 60/60 with GIA cert. There must be a reason for that...
Anyway, 60/60 is meaningless argument, oh sorry, it has some value, some may sell horrific stones as good ones using 60/60 sales pitch...

I am not saying you are, I have no idea of your business or diamonds you sell. My only purpose is to show the weakness of 60/60 mantra.

60/60 has nothing to do with a GIA cert?
Well, we only have GIA REPORTS- but when one needs to know precise measurements of a diamond, exactly how is the GIA report NOT relavent?
If some poor schnook cutter cuts a stone like the monstrosity created with the horrific crown and pavillion anges you selected, why send it to GIA at all??
And if that''s the case ( no GIA report), how exactly would we know what the table size is?


PLEASE!!! Show me someone using a 60/60 "mantra" to sell diamonds.
Now, if you wanted to find folks selling the "Ideal" "triple Zero" mantra, they are like leaves falling off trees.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/4/2005 5:13:20 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

I disagree that AGS would ever ''trounce'' GIA because the percentage of diamond sales which fit this narrow parameter ( that being, round, AGS0 Cut grade) is miniscule.
AGS has no reputation for anytthing else. Ever see anyone promoting AGS''1'' cut grade stones?

Actually, yes, I have seen people promoting AGS1 stones.....and frankly, I can see why. Many are lovely stones and still far superior to the chain store stock out there.

I know you have a penchant for doing this, but you overlooked a very important qualifier to my comment: If AGS were to succeed in becoming more of a "household" name to the average consumer the way GIA is, I think they''d trounce them.

In order for that to happen, though, the general public as a whole would have to become more aware of the importance cut plays in selecting a diamond, and that''s the Achilles heel. People get too confused; cut is too complex and they don''t have an easily graspable way to measure it, so they ignore it.

You mistakenly interpret my comments as "everyone would want an AGS0" stone.....and that''s not what I''m saying. I''m saying that John Smith may decide to go with an AGS3 because that''s where he can get the most bang for his buck...but at least he would KNOW it''s a 3 and understand what that means: not the best, but still superior to a good percentage.

People do that all the time with other things. Banks pay anywhere from 1% up to 5% for accounts with them depending on the schematic. I know that 5% earns more, but if it ties up my money, I may not want that type of account. I may accept that I''m making less on my account at 3%, but I gain flexibility, and that value is worth the trade-off to me.

If people could do this with diamonds....understand a measurement scale so they could *intelligently* decide how to make trade-offs with cut, etc., I think that would helpful. At least AGS could give that kind of measureable scale......GIA doesn''t.

But again, my comment was only applicable IF, IF, IF the diamond buying public were aware enough to comprehend/care about a scale at all.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 8/4/2005 5:45:57 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/4/2005 5:13:20 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

I disagree that AGS would ever ''trounce'' GIA because the percentage of diamond sales which fit this narrow parameter ( that being, round, AGS0 Cut grade) is miniscule.
AGS has no reputation for anytthing else. Ever see anyone promoting AGS''1'' cut grade stones?

Actually, yes, I have seen people promoting AGS1 stones.....and frankly, I can see why. Many are lovely stones and still far superior to the chain store stock out there.

I know you have a penchant for doing this, but you overlooked a very important qualifier to my comment: If AGS were to succeed in becoming more of a ''household'' name to the average consumer the way GIA is, I think they''d trounce them.

In order for that to happen, though, the general public as a whole would have to become more aware of the importance cut plays in selecting a diamond, and that''s the Achilles heel. People get too confused; cut is too complex and they don''t have an easily graspable way to measure it, so they ignore it.

You mistakenly interpret my comments as ''everyone would want an AGS0'' stone.....and that''s not what I''m saying. I''m saying that John Smith may decide to go with an AGS3 because that''s where he can get the most bang for his buck...but at least he would KNOW it''s a 3 and understand what that means: not the best, but still superior to a good percentage.

People do that all the time with other things. Banks pay anywhere from 1% up to 5% for accounts with them depending on the schematic. I know that 5% earns more, but if it ties up my money, I may not want that type of account. I may accept that I''m making less on my account at 3%, but I gain flexibility, and that value is worth the trade-off to me.

If people could do this with diamonds....understand a measurement scale so they could *intelligently* decide how to make trade-offs with cut, etc., I think that would helpful. At least AGS could give that kind of measureable scale......GIA doesn''t.

But again, my comment was only applicable IF, IF, IF the diamond buying public were aware enough to comprehend/care about a scale at all.

Aljdewey-
My intention is to read the post, and respond in context- I apologize because the wording of my response did not take into account the first part of your statement- thank you for the critisism, and I will make every effort to be more thourough in the future.
What I said

"I disagree that AGS would ever ''trounce'' GIA because the percentage of diamond sales which fit this narrow parameter ( that being, round, AGS0 Cut grade) is miniscule.

When I should have written: "I disagree that AGS could ever ''trounce'' GIA because the percentage of diamond sales which fit this narrow parameter ( that being, round, AGS0 Cut grade) is miniscule."
In either case, I stand by my statement : as a percentage, the number of Ideal Cut diamonds sold is small- so the chance of AGS becoming a household name is very slim.
Of course we agree that many stones which AGS would grade 1 are beautiful.
I have not really seen anyone use this as a selling tool, as you have.
We also agree that a lot of what the chain stores have ( in terms of cut) is not even close to a nicely cut AGS1.

The essence of a "Cut Grade" is to say one diamond is better than another. I think we can ALL agree a well cut diamond is better than a poorly cut diamond.
The way I see it, GIA has made it clear, by their actions , that the smaller table of an ideal cut is not the only way for the cut of a diamond to be "Excellent".

I mean, if we say that a light return machine can tell if a diamond is "better" than another, what happens to all those stones - like an Emerald Cut- which do not, by their very nature, return as much light as an RBC- are they less beautiful?
If not, then why would a round be less beautiful simply because it returned less light to a machine? Again- I''m not talking about off made diamonds-


We also agree aljdewey, that AGS 0 cut grade stones are a desirable commodity- hard to find, and only sold by knowledgable dealers. There''s no question that they are worth a premium over typical well cut stones- the actions of dealers and consumers have proven it.
I think that won''t change too.....

 

[oldminer]

The way we intend to grade fancy shapes is only by comparing each shape to others of the same shape. There is little point in comparing an emerald cut to a round. We know which is livelier most of the time, but beauty is for the consumer to appreciate even if we tell them which is highest in performance. Not everyone has the same taste or appreciation for appearance. Some people, especially many of the young guys searching for a super diamond, really don''t have the eye for it or the time to develop it. They just don''t want a dog stone, but will spend enough to get a superb one. Why should they settle for less if technology can give them qualified guidance?

Beauty remains an elusive target. Performance is not. We can tell how strong a light show a diamond makes for our eyes, but not everyone will agree the highest perfromer is the one they prefer. It just is not that simple. Money, color, clarity, outline shape, carat size....and more, all play into the final choice. If anything, we will have more variables and more choices as we progress.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Dave, do you feel light performance=beauty?


I respect the work being done in these areas- but I don''t see how we can quantify, for example, which emerald cut is better?
There are some really horrible cut emerald cuts out there, so it is a great goal to try and find a way of tagging them- but the range of desirable emerald cuts is so very wide, with varying shapes appealing to different buyers- that it seems to me to be "un-classifiable"

I will watch with interst!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2005 2:15:27 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/4/2005 12:27:38 AM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Seriously- does anybody feel there''s a real challenge to GIA?

Yes, I feel that AGS is a real challenge to GIA, but right now, that challenge only applies to the minority segment of the market that wants exceptionally well cut stones.

I prefer AGS stones because I want the cut information. Until GIA rectifies that, they are second-place to me as a consumer.

If AGS were to succeed in becoming more of a ''household'' name to the average consumer the way GIA is, I think they''d trounce them.

That won''t come, though, unless AGS educates their consumers as they go along.

Excellent assessment Al. I have to admit more people walk into our store who KNOW of GIA but to them mentioning AGS is akin to mentioning EGL, IGI, HRD etc. I straighten out that situation REAL fast though.

As far as the cut grading systems go ... with the more newly released info by GIA (both their Facetware program plus the Sarin plug in we''ve been beta testing) and AGS (with their ASET plus Performance Grading Software) it''s no surprise that AGS''s system is going to be considerably more tighter as they will be incorporating actual ray tracing of the precise measurements (more accurate models = more accurate results) plus the fact that they are incorporating reflector based technology into their assessment will eliminate more duds than the GIA system will. At least that''s how it appears at the moment.

On a more positive note regarding GIA''s upcoming reports, the fact that they will be including lower girdle and star data on their reports is one up on AGS IMO. Lower girdle and star data are IMO crucial if a person is to truly get a perspective on how a stone is to *really* appear. I don''t agree with the outer fringes of stones getting Grade 1 classifications but when you have minor facet information, this definitely gives a more accurate picture of the diamond in question and is easier to make a model of (even if it is rounding). If I were to suggest one change to the AGS Reports it would be to include minor facet information. If they included upper girdle angles they''d one up GIA, at least regarding the amount of data provided on the report.

The future of PriceScope ...

For people concerned about AGS grading ... models.
For people concerned about GIA grading ... basic Sarin''s don''t cut it anymore. Lower girdles and star data (and preferably upper girdle angles as well while we''re at it) will be the minimum criteria. That is if people are looking for the a better educated opinion. Anything less IMO is half-ass.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/4/2005 7:04:25 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren


When I should have written: ''I disagree that AGS could ever ''trounce'' GIA because the percentage of diamond sales which fit this narrow parameter ( that being, round, AGS0 Cut grade) is miniscule.''
In either case, I stand by my statement : as a percentage, the number of Ideal Cut diamonds sold is small- so the chance of AGS becoming a household name is very slim.

David, again, you are preaching to the choir on this........we agree that the percentage of ideal cut diamonds purchased is small as a percentage. I don''t know why you keep trying to argue this point when we agree on it.

What I''m trying to convey is this: IF the general public realized there was a scale that provided a measureable way to evaluate cut proportions (underlined because I want you to read that again......cut proportions, Dave, not "beauty"), I believe they would gravitate toward stones that they could identify in terms of scale placement. Society likes to interpret the relative value of a thing by pecking order......it''s like saying "on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most expensive and 1 being least."

The only example that comes to mind at the moment is milk. Crazy, I know....I must need calcium at the moment. Skim milk has the least amount of butterfat; whole milk has the most (for purposes of this example). So, if we were rank them on an ascending scale, it would look like this:

Skim milk: Scale rank: 1
1% milk: Scale rank 2
2% milk: Scale rank 3
Whole milk: Scale rank 4

By expressing it in terms of a scale, in this way, it is easy to determine where the milk you prefer falls on the scale. Does that mean you are FORCED to like whole milk, or that it is the "best"? NO......your personal taste (which is subjective) may prefer the taste of 1% milk. The scale just means that whole milk has the highest butterfat contact, which also affects its PRICE.

Similarly, if folks realized that the AGS cut grade scale would provide a way for them to comprehend a scale that measures cut proportions and to understand where a given diamond falls on that scale, I believe the public would find value in that measurement tool. The problem is that many don''t know it exists.

If they did, there are some folks whose eyes would likely still prefer an AGS4 stone, for example, based on the money they have to spend. There are some who may have UNLIMITED money to spend, and they *prefer* the look of the AGS4 stone.

The point is, preference and beauty are subjective things that cannot be measured. Precision of proportions is a far less subjective thing, it can be measured, and it''s something that affects price. If the general public realized that, I think AGS would surpass GIA.

Just my opinion, and you certainly don''t have to agree. It''s just *my* thoughts.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

What I''m trying to convey is this: IF the general public realized there was a scale that provided a measureable way to evaluate cut proportions (underlined because I want you to read that again......cut proportions, Dave, not "beauty"), I believe they would gravitate toward stones that they could identify in terms of scale placement. Society likes to interpret the relative value of a thing by pecking order......it''s like saying "on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most expensive and 1 being least."

Al- wouldn''t most people be interested in beauty- as opposed to presice measurement, or cut proportion?
YOu know what, I am trying to be as open minded as possible- in looking at what I just wrote, I can see my own prejudice. I love art.
Maybe it would be a fairly even split- certain people certainly will gravitate towards a numerical system based on cut proportions, while others rebel against such things and go for the most "artful" in their eyes..

- it is great that we can agree to disagree!




PS- My diamonds are not milky

 

[Kaleigh]

A lot of us go by numbers but I have always felt that they are there to give you a guideline a point of reference so to speak. Many stones can have great numbers and can be dogs. You can''t make a blanket statement that all 60/60 are great, nor can you say they are dogs. I am old fashioned and use my eyes. Thank the lord I have 20/20 vision and I trust what god gave me. I am not interested in buying a piece of paper, I am intersted in buying a beautiful stone. I have seen many 60/60 that are just that.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/4/2005 10:32:37 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

What I'm trying to convey is this: IF the general public realized there was a scale that provided a measureable way to evaluate cut proportions (underlined because I want you to read that again......cut proportions, Dave, not 'beauty'), I believe they would gravitate toward stones that they could identify in terms of scale placement. Society likes to interpret the relative value of a thing by pecking order......it's like saying 'on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most expensive and 1 being least.'

Al- wouldn't most people be interested in beauty- as opposed to presice measurement, or cut proportion?
YOu know what, I am trying to be as open minded as possible- in looking at what I just wrote, I can see my own prejudice. I love art.
Maybe it would be a fairly even split- certain people certainly will gravitate towards a numerical system based on cut proportions, while others rebel against such things and go for the most 'artful' in their eyes..

Ah............and therein lies the whole conundrum.

It seems you believe people must value ONLY one of these......beauty or cut proportions. They must forsake one in the name of the other, right? If they like one, it seems you believe they cannot find the other useful. If they appreciate the diamond's beauty, measurement information is useless, right? And if I like the geeky infomation, that means I don't care about beauty to the eye?

I disagree. Why do you see it as either/or? I don't see them as mutually exclusive. I think people can appreciate both subjective and objective information at the same time. I think I could appreciate an AGS3 diamond for the beauty it may have to my eye while recognizing that it may not be among the most well-proportioned stones as a matter of measurement. I could realize that an AGS0 may be more technically superior in terms measurement tightness, but that doesn't make my eye like the AGS3 stone less....it doesn't make it less beautiful.

Does knowing where it falls on the chart make it less beautiful to me? No. Does knowing where it falls on the chart impact how much I might pay for that beauty? YOU BET. Therefore, to me, BOTH assessments are valuable. I can select a diamond for beauty, but I can appreciate the measurements that signify its precision and affect its price.

Maybe cars would make more sense to you. (Bear with me.....I know nearly nothing about cars. To me, they are a way to get around, so pardon the crude forthcoming examples).

I know that a GEO Metro is at the lower end of the price/cool features scale of car prices, and I know that a Ferrari Spider is at a considerably higher position on that relative scale. My husband drives an Acura TL S-type, and he LOVES that car. You could give him a Ferrari FREE and he wouldn't like it more than his Acura. He just doesn't really care for the Ferrari.

That said, he can appreciate the Ferrari's superior position on the car scale and the souped up capabilities that his Acura doesn't have. The presence of the scale (value in $$) is still helpful to him in determining what a fair price is for his car.....it falls somewhere between the Geo and the Ferrari.

The fact that his car isn't a $100K car doesn't mean he loves it any less, but it's sure meaningful to him to know where on the scale his car falls for pricing purposes between the Metro and the Ferrari.

If this doesn't make sense, I give.....uncle.

 

[aljdewey]

Ah.....maybe a better example.

Hamburger costs a lot less than Prime Rib. Prime Rib in turn costs a lot less than Caviar. I know Caviar is more expensive, but that doesn''t mean I prefer the taste more than prime rib. I actually don''t like the taste of Caviar; I prefer the cheaper Prime rib. KNOWING that Caviar is more expensive doesn''t affect my preference for prime rib.

Still, there''s value to me in knowing that prime rib doesn''t sell for $80 an ounce the way some Caviar does.

Ok, NOW I''m done. Uncle.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/4/2005 11:08:34 PM
Author: aljdewey
Ah.....maybe a better example.

Hamburger costs a lot less than Prime Rib. Prime Rib in turn costs a lot less than Caviar. I know Caviar is more expensive, but that doesn''t mean I prefer the taste more than prime rib. I actually don''t like the taste of Caviar; I prefer the cheaper Prime rib. KNOWING that Caviar is more expensive doesn''t affect my preference for prime rib.

Still, there''s value to me in knowing that prime rib doesn''t sell for $80 an ounce the way some Caviar does.

Ok, NOW I''m done. Uncle.

And out of the three...I''d prefer the Hamburger (make mine with mayo and extra pickles, please!) Even though I can afford the prime rib or the caviar, I''d still rather have a nice juicy Hamburger, or even a plate of Hamburger Helper Stroganoff any day of the week, so what does that say about me?


P.S...I''d always want the best diamond for my money, though...

 

[Iiro]

Date: 8/4/2005 5:19:23 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 4:15:03 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 3:43:41 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 3:39:29 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 4:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/3/2005 4:06:04 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 3:42:30 PM
Author: Rhino
Dave, you're too funny. 60/60 is not the main criteria for determining if the stone is grade 1 or not. It's the crown/pavilion/lg/star combo's that are important (and even then there are some probs with the software as well). Here's another 60/60 that gets 2 scores lower at a Grade 3.

Heh, why settle with Grade 3 when we can have Grade 4

Iiro- please take a look at the side veiw created by plugging in the numbers you have Iiro- NO ONE that knows what a diamond is supposed to look like- I'm NOT talking about experts here- any laymen would look at a stone wit the angles you plugged in and ask- Is that a diamond???? NO cutter worth their salt would ever cut such a stone.

I HAVE seen really badly cut stones in my day- and they are quite simple top spot if they are as bad as that one.

Quite often young couples buy their first diamond without knowing how a diamond is supposed to look. I have seen, you have seen and everyone of us in trade have seen these horribly cut stones, they are out there. What is better sales pitch for this stone than 60/60 argument?

Iiro- the part of your response that does not make sense is this: If a couple has NO idea what a diamodn looks like, why should they be impressed with the fact a diamond is 60/60?
I have seen horribly cut stones- but has anyone here seen a 60/60 that looked like Iiro's projection??? The really really badly cut stones I've seen , for the most part, were not accompanied by a GIA report.

One of the positive aspects of GIA's new tool is that the pictograph shows ONLY a profile. This is a lot more accurate than devices that project what the top of the diamond looks like.
Again- I say that the '60/60' Iira concocted would be so utterly horrible looking that NO ONE would see it as a beautiful diamond.
NOt so with Rhino's less extremem example

60/60 has nothing to do with GIA cert. I am sure no one will ever try to sell Grade 4 60/60 with GIA cert. There must be a reason for that...
Anyway, 60/60 is meaningless argument, oh sorry, it has some value, some may sell horrific stones as good ones using 60/60 sales pitch...

I am not saying you are, I have no idea of your business or diamonds you sell. My only purpose is to show the weakness of 60/60 mantra.

60/60 has nothing to do with a GIA cert?
Well, we only have GIA REPORTS- but when one needs to know precise measurements of a diamond, exactly how is the GIA report NOT relavent?
If some poor schnook cutter cuts a stone like the monstrosity created with the horrific crown and pavillion anges you selected, why send it to GIA at all??
And if that's the case ( no GIA report), how exactly would we know what the table size is?


PLEASE!!! Show me someone using a 60/60 'mantra' to sell diamonds.
Now, if you wanted to find folks selling the 'Ideal' 'triple Zero' mantra, they are like leaves falling off trees.

You asked for someone to using 60/60 mantra? I thought you were one of them. Your heading for this thread is " Guess who else thinks 60/60 is as good as Ideal- GIA!!!!" Doesn't your heading say 1) You think 60/60 is as good as ideal and 2) you say GIA thinks 60/60 is as good as ideal? What part I did not understand correctly?

 

[Iceman]

Ok, Im going to go out here on a limb.


Yes, in a technical world we can argue this point till the cows come home.


But I sell in the real world. A customer sees the diamond sparkle or they see it dead. If I show them a 60/60 that sparkles as much as a triple 0 for less money what do you think they will take. Machines and readouts are great selling tools in the store and proving points , but I show people what they look like in the real world. I show both in my office with average lights.

We have a jeweler that shoves a HOF diamond under everybodys noise and raves that is what you have to have and then put a lumpy diamond next to the HOF to prove his point.

I have not lost a sale to them. Yes, People want sparkle but to pay a higher price for one pinpoint of light return better, you will have to be a better sales person then I am to have the consumer part with their money. People also dont want to pay more money just because you call a diamond a different name. I really think the consumer is going to catch on to this branding diamonds thing and its going to come around and bite everybody in the A$$.

I tell the consumer that if you take two diamonds that are twins, both the same in every way and you call one "Wallets on Fire" and you do not name the other, its just a diamond. But you ask more money for the one you named "Wallets on fire" ? Dont you think the consumer is going to catch on !

Sorry Im rambling and off the subject. Just my two cents

Remember, live in the real world and dont fall for hype.

 

[Iiro]

Hi Iceman,

Wallets on Fire...

 

[moremoremore]

LMAO!!! Wallets on Fire!!!

I agree...Once we are in the world of very well cut stones at good prices, and I've seen enough at this point to be able to identify what actaully looks well cut as well as is well cut on paper to a certain extent, I'm always going to take the one that looks better to my eyes!

 

[Rhino]

Hey Corey,

Good to cya round man.

Aljedewey,

You have a wonderful way with words girl. Excellent dichotomy.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 8/5/2005 3:23:34 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 5:19:23 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 4:15:03 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 3:43:41 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 3:39:29 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 4:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/3/2005 4:06:04 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 3:42:30 PM
Author: Rhino
Dave, you''re too funny. 60/60 is not the main criteria for determining if the stone is grade 1 or not. It''s the crown/pavilion/lg/star combo''s that are important (and even then there are some probs with the software as well). Here''s another 60/60 that gets 2 scores lower at a Grade 3.

Heh, why settle with Grade 3 when we can have Grade 4

Iiro- please take a look at the side veiw created by plugging in the numbers you have Iiro- NO ONE that knows what a diamond is supposed to look like- I''m NOT talking about experts here- any laymen would look at a stone wit the angles you plugged in and ask- Is that a diamond???? NO cutter worth their salt would ever cut such a stone.

I HAVE seen really badly cut stones in my day- and they are quite simple top spot if they are as bad as that one.

Quite often young couples buy their first diamond without knowing how a diamond is supposed to look. I have seen, you have seen and everyone of us in trade have seen these horribly cut stones, they are out there. What is better sales pitch for this stone than 60/60 argument?

Iiro- the part of your response that does not make sense is this: If a couple has NO idea what a diamodn looks like, why should they be impressed with the fact a diamond is 60/60?
I have seen horribly cut stones- but has anyone here seen a 60/60 that looked like Iiro''s projection??? The really really badly cut stones I''ve seen , for the most part, were not accompanied by a GIA report.

One of the positive aspects of GIA''s new tool is that the pictograph shows ONLY a profile. This is a lot more accurate than devices that project what the top of the diamond looks like.
Again- I say that the ''60/60'' Iira concocted would be so utterly horrible looking that NO ONE would see it as a beautiful diamond.
NOt so with Rhino''s less extremem example

60/60 has nothing to do with GIA cert. I am sure no one will ever try to sell Grade 4 60/60 with GIA cert. There must be a reason for that...
Anyway, 60/60 is meaningless argument, oh sorry, it has some value, some may sell horrific stones as good ones using 60/60 sales pitch...

I am not saying you are, I have no idea of your business or diamonds you sell. My only purpose is to show the weakness of 60/60 mantra.

60/60 has nothing to do with a GIA cert?
Well, we only have GIA REPORTS- but when one needs to know precise measurements of a diamond, exactly how is the GIA report NOT relavent?
If some poor schnook cutter cuts a stone like the monstrosity created with the horrific crown and pavillion anges you selected, why send it to GIA at all??
And if that''s the case ( no GIA report), how exactly would we know what the table size is?


PLEASE!!! Show me someone using a 60/60 ''mantra'' to sell diamonds.
Now, if you wanted to find folks selling the ''Ideal'' ''triple Zero'' mantra, they are like leaves falling off trees.

You asked for someone to using 60/60 mantra? I thought you were one of them. Your heading for this thread is '' Guess who else thinks 60/60 is as good as Ideal- GIA!!!!'' Doesn''t your heading say 1) You think 60/60 is as good as ideal and 2) you say GIA thinks 60/60 is as good as ideal? What part I did not understand correctly?

Hi Iiro,
This is a discussion, and I have stated my opinion.

I am NOT here offering any diamonds.
As a matter of fact, I currently do not own ONE diamond which is 60/60.
If you have a look at our site, we never mention the term 60/60.
Can you find anyone else?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 8/4/2005 10:59:29 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/4/2005 10:32:37 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

What I''m trying to convey is this: IF the general public realized there was a scale that provided a measureable way to evaluate cut proportions (underlined because I want you to read that again......cut proportions, Dave, not ''beauty''), I believe they would gravitate toward stones that they could identify in terms of scale placement. Society likes to interpret the relative value of a thing by pecking order......it''s like saying ''on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most expensive and 1 being least.''

Al- wouldn''t most people be interested in beauty- as opposed to presice measurement, or cut proportion?
YOu know what, I am trying to be as open minded as possible- in looking at what I just wrote, I can see my own prejudice. I love art.
Maybe it would be a fairly even split- certain people certainly will gravitate towards a numerical system based on cut proportions, while others rebel against such things and go for the most ''artful'' in their eyes..

Ah............and therein lies the whole conundrum.

It seems you believe people must value ONLY one of these......beauty or cut proportions. They must forsake one in the name of the other, right? If they like one, it seems you believe they cannot find the other useful. If they appreciate the diamond''s beauty, measurement information is useless, right? And if I like the geeky infomation, that means I don''t care about beauty to the eye?

I disagree. Why do you see it as either/or? I don''t see them as mutually exclusive. I think people can appreciate both subjective and objective information at the same time. I think I could appreciate an AGS3 diamond for the beauty it may have to my eye while recognizing that it may not be among the most well-proportioned stones as a matter of measurement. I could realize that an AGS0 may be more technically superior in terms measurement tightness, but that doesn''t make my eye like it less....it doesn''t make it less beautiful.

Does knowing where it falls on the chart make it less beautiful to me? No. Does knowing where it falls on the chart impact how much I might pay for that beauty? YOU BET. Therefore, to me, BOTH assessments are valuable. I can select a diamond for beauty, but I can appreciate the measurements that signify its precision and affect its price.

Maybe cars would make more sense to you. (Bear with me.....I know nearly nothing about cars. To me, they are a way to get around, so pardon the crude forthcoming examples).

I know that a GEO Metro is at the lower end of the price/cool features scale of car prices, and I know that a Ferrari Spider is at a considerably higher position on that relative scale. My husband drives an Acura TL S-type, and he LOVES that car. You could give him a Ferrari FREE and he wouldn''t like it more than his Acura. He just doesn''t really care for the Ferrari.

That said, he can appreciate the Ferrari''s superior position on the car scale and the souped up capabilities that his Acura doesn''t have. The presence of the scale (value in $$) is still helpful to him in determining what a fair price is for his car.....it falls somewhere between the Geo and the Ferrari.

The fact that his car isn''t a $100K car doesn''t mean he loves it any less, but it''s sure meaningful to him to know where on the scale his car falls for pricing purposes between the Metro and the Ferrari.

If this doesn''t make sense, I give.....uncle.

A conundrum- well, I love drums- ..........heheh

Al- let''s say that I agree. It is not either/or- people who are considering the numbers are clearly interested in beauty too.
BUT- I still feel that many people interested in beauty do not want to deal with such technical aspects.

IF Corey was in front of me I''D HUG HIM!!!
( don''t get the wrong idea, I like girls)
Corey''s post was 100% RIGHT ON!!!

 

[Iiro]

Date: 8/5/2005 2:15:38 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/5/2005 3:23:34 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 5:19:23 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 4:15:03 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/4/2005 3:43:41 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/4/2005 3:39:29 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 4:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 8/3/2005 4:06:04 PM
Author: Iiro

Date: 8/3/2005 3:42:30 PM
Author: Rhino
Dave, you''re too funny. 60/60 is not the main criteria for determining if the stone is grade 1 or not. It''s the crown/pavilion/lg/star combo''s that are important (and even then there are some probs with the software as well). Here''s another 60/60 that gets 2 scores lower at a Grade 3.

Heh, why settle with Grade 3 when we can have Grade 4

Iiro- please take a look at the side veiw created by plugging in the numbers you have Iiro- NO ONE that knows what a diamond is supposed to look like- I''m NOT talking about experts here- any laymen would look at a stone wit the angles you plugged in and ask- Is that a diamond???? NO cutter worth their salt would ever cut such a stone.

I HAVE seen really badly cut stones in my day- and they are quite simple top spot if they are as bad as that one.

Quite often young couples buy their first diamond without knowing how a diamond is supposed to look. I have seen, you have seen and everyone of us in trade have seen these horribly cut stones, they are out there. What is better sales pitch for this stone than 60/60 argument?

Iiro- the part of your response that does not make sense is this: If a couple has NO idea what a diamodn looks like, why should they be impressed with the fact a diamond is 60/60?
I have seen horribly cut stones- but has anyone here seen a 60/60 that looked like Iiro''s projection??? The really really badly cut stones I''ve seen , for the most part, were not accompanied by a GIA report.

One of the positive aspects of GIA''s new tool is that the pictograph shows ONLY a profile. This is a lot more accurate than devices that project what the top of the diamond looks like.
Again- I say that the ''60/60'' Iira concocted would be so utterly horrible looking that NO ONE would see it as a beautiful diamond.
NOt so with Rhino''s less extremem example

60/60 has nothing to do with GIA cert. I am sure no one will ever try to sell Grade 4 60/60 with GIA cert. There must be a reason for that...
Anyway, 60/60 is meaningless argument, oh sorry, it has some value, some may sell horrific stones as good ones using 60/60 sales pitch...

I am not saying you are, I have no idea of your business or diamonds you sell. My only purpose is to show the weakness of 60/60 mantra.

60/60 has nothing to do with a GIA cert?
Well, we only have GIA REPORTS- but when one needs to know precise measurements of a diamond, exactly how is the GIA report NOT relavent?
If some poor schnook cutter cuts a stone like the monstrosity created with the horrific crown and pavillion anges you selected, why send it to GIA at all??
And if that''s the case ( no GIA report), how exactly would we know what the table size is?


PLEASE!!! Show me someone using a 60/60 ''mantra'' to sell diamonds.
Now, if you wanted to find folks selling the ''Ideal'' ''triple Zero'' mantra, they are like leaves falling off trees.

You asked for someone to using 60/60 mantra? I thought you were one of them. Your heading for this thread is '' Guess who else thinks 60/60 is as good as Ideal- GIA!!!!'' Doesn''t your heading say 1) You think 60/60 is as good as ideal and 2) you say GIA thinks 60/60 is as good as ideal? What part I did not understand correctly?

Hi Iiro,
This is a discussion, and I have stated my opinion.

I am NOT here offering any diamonds.
As a matter of fact, I currently do not own ONE diamond which is 60/60.
If you have a look at our site, we never mention the term 60/60.
Can you find anyone else?

Ok, it is your opinion then, but dont have any diamond for sale to honor your opinion. I can understand that.
To find another person using 60/60 rule is Mr H. Puolakka, do you know him? Years ago he sold diamond jewelry to me. Heavy priced wedding rings, but I bought because I did not know of anything better.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/5/2005 2:54:47 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Al- let's say that I agree. It is not either/or- people who are considering the numbers are clearly interested in beauty too.
BUT- I still feel that many people interested in beauty do not want to deal with such technical aspects.

I agree there are *some* people interested in beauty who wouldn't/don't want to deal with technical aspects. But it's much easier to assume that when no one knows any better, isn't it? For all of those people who appreciate beauty, I believe SOME of them *would* at least be intrigued by technical aspects IF they knew they existed. That doesn't mean they'd select differently, it just means they would find SOME value in the information, even if only for entertainment value.

There are many INDIVIDUAL reasons that motivate people to appreciate beauty.

To further illustrate......Corey (who you want to hug) said this: "A customer sees the diamond sparkle or they see it dead. If I show them a 60/60 that sparkles as much as a triple 0 for less money what do you think they will take? "

By that logic, no one should/would ever buy an IF or VVS diamond.....and no one should/would ever buy a D/E. After all, if I take an E, IF diamond and I place it next to a G, VS diamond, Joe Consumer will not be able to discern any difference between them under average lighting conditions with the naked eye. Therefore, no one should/would ever be willing to pay more for the E, IF.

Ah.....but that's not true. *Some* people.....not ALL, but SOME....DO appreciate the technical aspects of that which they cannot possibly see. They want perfection even if it only shows on paper, right? Over my years here, I've seen those folks who flat out say "I KNOW I won't be able to see the difference, but I want to know I have a VVS stone or an E stone. Their perception of perfection/rarity/whatever has a mental value that they are willing to pay more for. How do you really think that differs at all from cut?

Back to Corey's example above: "If I show them a 60/60 that sparkles as much as a triple 0 for less money what do you think they will take?"

Hmmm.....that's tough. Let's see, where is the incentive to Corey in trying to educate the customer about cut? At least when people come into his store today, they have *heard* the terms color/clarity, so they at least are more receptive to hearing about those elements. But many of them have never heard of cut proportions described in measureable terms, and the concept of cut proportions is not as easily grasped by the lay person as color/clarity.

Corey can either spend 15 minutes cooing over the less expensive diamond and make the sale, or he could potentially spend 1.5 hours trying to explain about cut to make $1,000 more. Oh, and don't forget, even if he does that, some proportion of folks will still prefer the less expensive diamond. Gee, if you were Corey, which would YOU choose?

He would have to begin from absolute scratch since most folks don't even know what the pavilion of the diamond is, much less how the minutest angle of it might matter. Sometimes, having to begin that far back just isn't worth the effort.....especially when you can sell something else in 15 minutes, right?

If, though, the general public as a whole were to glean even the smallest idea of the importance of cut (the way they have the smallest idea of what the differences are in color/clarity), I believe it would be much different.

Now, does that mean everyone would then pick a top cut? NO. Some people, armed with that information and knowledge, would still choose the AGS3 or 60/60. Why? "Because that's good enough for me." No problem there.

In fact, I'm a perfect example of that, David: I DO appreciate the technical aspects of diamonds, but I still don't want to pay a premium for an H&A pattern when well-cut non-H&A diamonds look just as nice to me.

I think you prefer to think that people don't want to know because that might bring about questions that you think are a waste of time and shouldn't be part of a consumer's vocabulary.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/5/2005 2:58:18 PM
Author: Iiro

Years ago he sold diamond jewelry to me. Heavy priced wedding rings, but I bought because I did not know of anything better.

This is precisely what I've been saying.

If all those folks who bought not knowing of anything better were told that there are technical aspects of cut that affect diamonds, some would not even bother to hear about it. Some would hear about it and think, gee that's neat, but I'm not paying more for it. Some would hear about it and WANT it, and that's the group some dealers are most afraid of.

Once Pandora's out of the box.......

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Iiro,
You know, if I was paranoind, I''d swear you had it in for me.

OK- this Mr H. Puolakka- I''ve never heard of him.
Are you implying he sold you defective diamonds claiming them to be 60/60?
Can you post a link to his site?
Or maybe his ad showing the use of the term 60/60?


Funny thing how people seem to attack 60/60.
There was the case of one member that swore up and down they had the ugliest 60/60 EVER.
Except, in the end, it was simply their idea of what 60/60 was- they had NO gia rpeort to prove the ugly diamond was 60/60

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Al- I would suggest to you that a VVS1 diamond is demonstrably more valuable than a VS1. The prescence if an imperfection in a diamond can be seen- no lght return or high tech tools- only a loupe. Same for color differences- the difference between an E and a G is easily visible to most people.
Yes, I agree- people want to know their diamond is a great quality, even if they can''t make out a IF from a VS1- simply knowing it''s flawless means a lot to these folks.
And yes, there ARE people who want the best diamond in the eyes of a light retun machine- and it is WELL WORTH the money for these people.


The advantage to Corey, or any jeweler, to selling well cut diamonds are many.
First of all, people talk- and reputaiton is one of the most important thing a seller can have. Corey- are you trying to sell $3000 diamonds in 15 minutes????
Second of all, money.
If Corey owns diamonds, he likely wants to own stones which are desirable and saleable- well cut diamonds are the best to own- even if the color and clarity are low.

Maybe Corey also believes that a wel cut 60/60 is just as nice as a H&A- which does bring a higher price.
If Corey is an honest man, and believes that a 60/60 is just as beautiful- isn;t he following concience and doing the right thing by advocating what he believes in?


I too, do not try to sell diamonds in "15minutes" it takes a lot of time to properly answer folks'' questions.
If a seller is NOT prepared to do that, how successful will they be?
If someone was looking for a H&A diamond, and asked me to explain the technical aspects, I woud gladly refer then to an expert.
If a person asked me to explain why I prefer a 60/60, I would take the time to do that.


Al- you inidacte that you yourself would lilely choose a non H&A dimaond "becasue that''s good enough for me". Well, I do not believe folks that prefer and choose 60/60 diamonds feel like they are sacrifcing anything- I honestly feel they are not.

I am suggesting here, that GIA is agreeing. GIA is saying that a well cut 60/60 is equal in value to an Ideal Cut diamond.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Al- I would suggest to you that a VVS1 diamond is demonstrably more valuable than a VS1.

Of course it is, just as a fine make diamond is demonstrably more valuable than one that isn't.

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
The prescence if an imperfection in a diamond can be seen- no lght return or high tech tools- only a loupe.

Yes, and the differences in cut can be appreciated with a tool (Sarin, etc.), just as the differences in clarity can be appreciated with a tool (loupe).

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Same for color differences- the difference between an E and a G is easily visible to most people.

Honestly, David, "most people" you know must be gemologists then....you don't get out much, do you?

. Don't you know any non GG people? Sheesh.

MOST PEOPLE cannot *easily* see the difference between an E and a G stone under everyday viewing conditions. Um....that means not upside down on a stark white paper, either, sir......but face up next to each other in average everyday conditions.

But hey, for the sake of argument cause I like you, let's modify - go ahead and be brazen enough to tell me that the average untrained consumer can also readily see the difference between a D and an E.

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Maybe Corey also believes that a wel cut 60/60 is just as nice as a H&A.

Al- you inidacte that you yourself would lilely choose a non H&A dimaond 'becasue that's good enough for me'. Well, I do not believe folks that prefer and choose 60/60 diamonds feel like they are sacrifcing anything- I honestly feel they are not.

For the love of God, David, you really do work the nerve with your tunnel vision.

Who said I felt I was sacrificing with a non H&A? I didn't. What I said is "I can't see the difference between an H&A and a well-cut non H&A, so I don't wish to pay any premium for something I can't see." I realize conceptually that the more precisely patterned H&A may outrank my preference, but I don't feel I'm "settling" when I pick MY preference.....a well-cut non H&A.

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

I am suggesting here, that GIA is agreeing. GIA is saying that a well cut 60/60 is equal in value to an Ideal Cut diamond.

David, there is a HUMONGUOUS difference between the statement above "well cut 60/60 is equal in value to an Ideal cut diamond" and the title of your thread....."guess who thinks 60/60 IS AS GOOD AS an Ideal".

"Equal in value" is a quantifiable, non-subjective measurement. "As good as" is NOT....that is a completely SUBJECTIVE measurement.

Look, let's just simplify this, ok? Some people will prefer 60/60s. Some will prefer AGS0 properties. Why can't that be okay for you? Those people who don't prefer 60/60 aren't KNOCKING YOUR PREFRENCE, for goodness' sake.....they just prefer something else. No one is picking on your 60/60 stones, and it's an exercise in futility trying to prove your preference is just "as good as" anyone else's. They are different animals, with different admirable properties. 60/60 stones don't need to be defended as though there is an inferiority complex mentality to them.

Why don't we just argue instead over which is better.....vanilla or chocolate? That would be about as relative as this one.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/5/2005 4:39:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Al- I would suggest to you that a VVS1 diamond is demonstrably more valuable than a VS1.

hmm kinda off topic but the industry has planted the idea it is more valuable as long as it isnt eye visible and doesnt effect light return then it adds no real value to the diamond for it to have more clarity.
Clarity grading and color grading for that matter are both somewhat of a joke.
2 top labs cant often agree on the rating and the same lab cant often agree on the rating on 2 different runs yet one grade is more valuable than another??

(edited for clarity)

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Al- do you see anybody claiming chocolate is "better" and therefore charging more for it?
I believe that cut is a crucial aspect of a diamonds'' beauty- and what I''ve been saying all along is that ideal cut is not better than well cut 60/60.
GIA is responding to demand to assist people in choosing a well cut diamond. Excellent is the best cut grade, and apparently they feel 60/60 can fit into this category.
I guess we will now live with a new reality- an Excellent is worth more than a Good, yes?
I guess I equate Value, and quality ( is it a good one?)- in other words, If GIA says it''s better ( Like an Ex vs a Good) it will go for a higher price.
Who could argue that VS1 is a better quality than VVS2?


As far as being able to see color differences- many of our clients, and friends ( yes, believe it or not I actually have friends)- who have been here and looked- not gemologists- have been able to see the difference in a ring set with an E color center, and one with a G in the center.
I''ll bet many a Pricescoper would be able to see it too

No, I do not believe that the difference between D and E is easily discernable under the same conditions- or even loose. Even for a Pricescoper.....

Storm- I guess, you could make the case that one diamond is worth the same as any other one.
Makes a lot of wonder what we''ve been doing for a lot of years splitting hairs though....heheheh

 

[mdx]

Hi Guys
For those that may not have it, here is a direct link to the calculator http://facetware.gia.edu. It will open by itself on your browser, No need t go through the GIA site
Johan

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 8/5/2005 6:25:05 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Al- do you see anybody claiming chocolate is ''better'' and therefore charging more for it?
I believe that cut is a crucial aspect of a diamonds'' beauty- and what I''ve been saying all along is that ideal cut is not better than well cut 60/60.
GIA is responding to demand to assist people in choosing a well cut diamond. Excellent is the best cut grade, and apparently they feel 60/60 can fit into this category.
I guess we will now live with a new reality- an Excellent is worth more than a Good, yes?
I guess I equate Value, and quality ( is it a good one?)- in other words, If GIA says it''s better ( Like an Ex vs a Good) it will go for a higher price.
Who could argue that VS1 is a better quality than VVS2?


As far as being able to see color differences- many of our clients, and friends ( yes, believe it or not I actually have friends)- who have been here and looked- not gemologists- have been able to see the difference in a ring set with an E color center, and one with a G in the center.
I''ll bet many a Pricescoper would be able to see it too

No, I do not believe that the difference between D and E is easily discernable under the same conditions- or even loose. Even for a Pricescoper.....

Storm- I guess, you could make the case that one diamond is worth the same as any other one.
Makes a lot of wonder what we''ve been doing for a lot of years splitting hairs though....heheheh

Hi David....

I think its obvious that the term "better" is a relative point. What some perceive as better, another person doesn''t. Sometimes the person who thinks one thing is better, makes the decision to take that position because they haven''t really been taught to tell the very succint differences.

As far as the color comparisons you made, I have to disagree but in part. I would probably agree that the average person, would be able to tell a two to four grade difference in diamonds in the face up position. However color graded face up is not the proper, accurate or accepted method for color grading. Diamond can face up differently than their actual color grade. There are other attributes that affect the face up color as well. Fluoresence, and the quality of the cutting can have a very drastic affect on the face up position of the color grade. The consistent way to determine a diamond''s color grade needs to be observed using special lighting, lexan filters, and face down on a color grading tray. The color and transmission of UV of that tray can also have significant differences.

The face up appearance of a diamond can vary several grades from its table down appearance. Some times it makes me wonder why the face down body color gets such consideration in pricing and value, as for the consumer, he only really cares about the face up appearance.

At a diamond "round table" function, the legendary William Goldberg looked at the stone that Richard von Sternberg ( the 8 star manufacturer in the US) had in a ring that he wears. I have seen the stone. It is a K color that faces up like a G. Bill Goldberg remarked to the attendees at that function, that it was the most beautifly cut diamond he had seen, and wanted to sell 8 star diamonds. Now here''s a man who really knows diamonds. I will assume you agree about his experience with diamonds and diamond cutting. His name is legendary in the diamond community. He was absolutely amazed at the ability of this stone to face up so differently from its graded color. Some of Gabi Tolkowsky''s stones face up different than their gradings too. But this is mentioned by me for color difference face up. So your opinion about consumers being able to separate diamonds in the face up appearance I think is a bit askew, but if the diamonds being compared face up appear the same as the face down color grade, I will say yes, the consumer can tell the difference.

But back to cutting and light performance. So there is a difference, I agree that everyone cannot discern the differences, but for some of us, we can see it, and many find it significant, even though to a consumer it might not be able to be seen unless the differences are pointed out visually.

As far as chocolate... doesn''t Godiva claim their chocolate is better? Do they charge more for it. I believe they do. Just last week in a mall a friend of mine who loves chocolate and I stopped in the Godiva store. I don''t remember the price exactly but I think one piece was $ 2.00. Compare that to the price of Hershey''s chocolate bar, and I think there is a big difference in the price.( I am not a fan of chocolate, so I probably wouldn''t buy either product). Maybe I misunderstood the quote about chocolate above, but if you are saying there isn''t anyone who claims they have better chocoloate and charges more, I have to disagree.


Cordially,

Rockdoc