Guidance by parameters. Initial screening tools.

[Rockdiamond]

Hi All!!
Iota, and Dmitri- thank you so very much for your posts- they really made me feel good!

David- just to address a few points.
1) You mentioned you have "gently battled this sort of seller". I respectfully ask not to be grouped with other sellers that may have disagreed with you. I won''t lump you with other gemologists, but please return that respect.

2) You mentioned that there were VERY FEW well cut fancies 15 years ago.
Maybe it''s because I was trained by Harry Winston- who has always focused on beautiful cut- or our general different circles that we travel in- but I saw, and graded- MANY gorgeous Pear Shapes, Emerald Cuts and other Fancy Shapes back in the mid ''70''s.
They had some amazingly well cut fancy shapes at M Fabrikant in the ''80''s as well. There''s no question there were a lot of junky made stones back then- as a percentage, far higher than I see today, but make no mistake, there were amazing fancy shapes 15 years ago, 20 years ago, and 35 years ago. Well cut stones that WILL hold up to today''s best.

I''ll also address a few other points you made in a little bit....

gotta go!

 

[oldminer]

1) You mentioned you have "gently battled this sort of seller". I respectfully ask not to be grouped with other sellers that may have disagreed with you. I won''t lump you with other gemologists, but please return that respect.

You are respected and I have been treating you with carefully chosen words to prevent emotional injury. My battles over the years have not been with you, but with sellers in general. You are just the latest seller who disagrees and one of the few B&M retailers found on Pricescope. I must give you credit for participation here in the face of many disagreements, not just with me, but with the way the market has shifted. At least, you and I are cooperating with one another and not going to get into a war over explanations of our differing points of view. Both points of view have validity. It is much the same with religious discussion. No one can claim they are the only one who knows what is right without making people with other beliefs angry. We are "debating" and not tossing scalding oil on one another. The reader''s will decide who to pay more heed to. Maybe some will decide that we both have right and wrong points. It is their decision, not ours which ultimately counts.


You must admit that your experience with Harry Winston puts your knowledge and exposure to fine fancy shapes way, way above the regular diamond merchant. You saw things there which few regular jewelers every will see in a lifetime. You may know a great deal about finely cut fancy shapes, but the vast majority of sellers do not have any bit of your previous experience. They call every diamond "fine", "ideal" or "excellent" as long as they can get away with it. Your background may make you far more selective in using superlatives, but you are in a small minority of sellers. My own experince with fine makes led me to create the AGA cut Class system. I wish I had your access to these finely cut diamonds that you saw at HW, but I had a few pass my way over the years. My expertise is in organization of gather ed facts and data. This led me into the charts and system I made. It may be imperfect in places, but it is highly useful. I continue to take corrective measures when the need arises in order to fine tune it further. There are more better made diamonds today than what was common 20 years ago. Why, consumer demand, marketing pressure, education of the consumer, better measuring devices, software, technology, etc... All of this is better for consumers while the job for retailers becomes ever tighter and more challenging.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 7/1/2009 8:38:23 AM
Author: oldminer
'For example, I really do feel that many of the most beautiful pear shapes I've seen had depths outside 63-59% ( for example) no matter who is selling them.'


I'm certain most of the ones you appreciate for light return were deeper, not below 59%. These deep stones are most common because the motivation to cut less deep stones is constrained greatly by financial elements and because of the lack of accepted standards. Cutters want to keep all the weight they can and to meet the highest important weight level within a reasonable appearance of the stone. Also, due to lack of true standards, consumers and dealers have no road map to providing better diamonds than what is commonly found. However, there are better diamonds. 'Good enough' just is not good enough to always be excellent. The acceptance of cut standards and increased demand will promote the cutting of more diamonds with better proportions and create a premium category, where none currently exists, for these special cut diamonds. This premium will make up for the added weight loss to cut truly 'fine' makes.

What I have provided is a screening tool for people to sort thorugh the huge number of diamonds available and to pinpoint those most likely to have ALL the attributes of beauty, durability and reasonable spread for their weight. Anyone can make a smart compromise later if they can't find the top end. Anyone can decide that a beautiful diamond with a 66% depth is okay for them. However, I want them informed when they make this decision. Dealers and retailers have misused and abused the descriptions of 'Excellent' and 'Fine' for so long that these words virtually are left without any valuable meaning when it comes to the cut quality of a fancy shaped diamond. As I see it, nearly every fancy shaped diamond that looks passable is sold as a fine make or an excellent cut. Totally bogus! It reflects back on all of us and it is unacceptable.

We all want consumers to find a beautiful diamond in the price bracket they can afford. By learning about reasonable standards of cut, the consumers becomes better buyers and dealers are forced to become more professional in their sales approach. I see this as a good thing and progress in the right direction.

HI David,
Another few points to address:
1) Actually, there's quite a few amazing pear shapes with depths lower than your range- constructively speaking, it's way too narrow IMO.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken Storm has "designed" diamonds that would, if cut, perform very well- many of them are way off your chart in terms of depth.

To illustrate my point, I'm going to use a stone we are NOT selling- Anyone can insult it as much as they'd like, I have no personal stake.
The stone in the photos is 54.1% depth with a table size of 67%. David's chart would downgrade the diamond based on both these factors.

It's a lovely make.
I agree that the misuse of words like "Ideal" is a real problem ( although the way you have classified stones based solely on numbers may create more of the same problem in some cases)
I used the word "lovely"- what does than mean?
I would say that this is a very well made ( well cut) diamond based on it's overall appearance. It's very bright, and it has a great size for it's weight. The "bow-tie" as such- is benign. I love the "model" -which means the outline. It's totally "organic"- it looks like a drop of water coming out of a drain. Some of the stones that your system will classify as "top make" will have straight lines, and not be as graceful in their shape- your charts do not take the shape ( other than L:W ratios) into account. Nor your statements that any stone that fits your chart will be beautiful.

Clearly, this is a "promotional" diamond.
It's light brown, and likely would get an I1 grade from GIA.

Still, I find it's appearance to be quite attractive.
I'll bet YOU money Dave, that this stone will be a lot more beautiful to a fair percentage of trained observers than many of the stones that DO fit into the your top category.


SO- if, as a wholesale buyer, I were to use your chart, I'd have to eliminate this stone- or have some reasons why the stone might be acceptable based on the fact it does not fit your parameters.
For a buyer using your chart, there would be no "later consideration" for this stone as the chart tells us there's something "wrong" with the way this stone is cut, therefore it needs to be eliminated based on the chart.

As I have inspected this stone with great care, and in a thorough manner, I find NO deficit whatsoever in it's cut.
Furthermore, as a wholesale buyer I can tell you that 4 carat pear shapes don;t grow on trees.
It's important to asses each on based on it's own attributes- for the shopper's sake!

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the charts have their uses.
If someone did insist on buying based solely on numbers, than I suppose a list is a necessity. But like Iota, I really have a hard time understanding why so many shoppers would buy without so much as a photo. Clearly many do, but doesn't it make sense that people reading this are far less likely to "buy blind"

SO- there are uses for the lists, but mentioning the advantages, without the shortfalls does not seem a balanced way to discuss them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 7/1/2009 1:58:00 PM
Author: oldminer
1) You mentioned you have ''gently battled this sort of seller''. I respectfully ask not to be grouped with other sellers that may have disagreed with you. I won''t lump you with other gemologists, but please return that respect.

You are respected and I have been treating you with carefully chosen words to prevent emotional injury. My battles over the years have not been with you, but with sellers in general. You are just the latest seller who disagrees and one of the few B&M retailers found on Pricescope. I must give you credit for participation here in the face of many disagreements, not just with me, but with the way the market has shifted. At least, you and I are cooperating with one another and not going to get into a war over explanations of our differing points of view. Both points of view have validity. It is much the same with religious discussion. No one can claim they are the only one who knows what is right without making people with other beliefs angry. We are ''debating'' and not tossing scalding oil on one another. The reader''s will decide who to pay more heed to. Maybe some will decide that we both have right and wrong points. It is their decision, not ours which ultimately counts.


You must admit that your experience with Harry Winston puts your knowledge and exposure to fine fancy shapes way, way above the regular diamond merchant. You saw things there which few regular jewelers every will see in a lifetime. You may know a great deal about finely cut fancy shapes, but the vast majority of sellers do not have any bit of your previous experience. They call every diamond ''fine'', ''ideal'' or ''excellent'' as long as they can get away with it. Your background may make you far more selective in using superlatives, but you are in a small minority of sellers. My own experince with fine makes led me to create the AGA cut Class system. I wish I had your access to these finely cut diamonds that you saw at HW, but I had a few pass my way over the years. My expertise is in organization of gather ed facts and data. This led me into the charts and system I made. It may be imperfect in places, but it is highly useful. I continue to take corrective measures when the need arises in order to fine tune it further. There are more better made diamonds today than what was common 20 years ago. Why, consumer demand, marketing pressure, education of the consumer, better measuring devices, software, technology, etc... All of this is better for consumers while the job for retailers becomes ever tighter and more challenging.

Thank you David.
Actually, we don;t have a B&M store- but your points are very well taken.
Without question we both share a passion- without question we share alot of the same concerns.
We both cringe when we see a lot of the BS that gets passed off as "Ideal" cut diamonds.

The fact we can have this conversation, maintain repsect for each other- and hopefully help to inform readers is a tribute to you, and this forum.
THANK YOU!!

 

[iota]

I would like to thank both Davids'' for this dialogue.

Additionally, Mr. Atlas, I really appreciate the effort you undertook to create these parameters. I understand they provide a guide, which hopefully will net us online shoppers more beautiful and sturdy stones. As you said, the parameters may be one of many things we have to compromise due to budget constraints... and of course, for the other David, a beautiful picture and video despite the numbers may sway my opinion the other way... Overall though, Mr. Atlas, I wanted you to know that I am grateful for both your experience as well as the education.

Thank you again.

 

[Lula]

Thank you, David Atlas for your contribution that started this post. And, to the other David, rockdiamond, I'd sure like to know a little bit more about what constitutes the "BS that gets passed off as 'Ideal' cut diamonds"!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 7/1/2009 6:50:42 PM
Author: sarap333


Thank you, David Atlas for your contribution that started this post. And, to the other David, rockdiamond, I'd sure like to know a little bit more about what constitutes the 'BS that gets passed off as 'Ideal' cut diamonds'!

HI sarap,
A large part of why we have this.....juxtaposition between David Atlas and myself is that there is a large problem with misrepresentation in the jewelry business as a whole.
In this case, it has to do with how seller represent the cut of their diamonds.
It's a well known fact that 'Cut" is a very important C ( of the 4 c's)- many people who've never looked at any internet forums- or educated themselves to any great degree about diamonds know that part.
SO, unscrupulous sellers capitalize on this by categorizing their own diamonds for cut using terms that have meaning in the proper context.
"Ideal" is probably the number one abused term in this regard.
It's a safe bet that a person in the diamond business knows that the term "Ideal Cut" refers to a stone graded 0 by AGS- the knowledge of that fact, combined with the mis-use of the word is why I used the term unscrupulous.

Read through this board and you'll find dozens - maybe hundreds of cases where a new poster comes on asking about a diamond that has been classified as "Ideal" by someone other than AGS...or "Excellent" cut when GIA never examined the diamond.

This has created a situation where the consumer's need for something like David's list has become very necessary.

For me, the shame of this is that the art of diamonds gets completely swept under the rug due to the mistrust that has developed towards jewelry sellers as a whole.
Kudos again to David- as his efforts are clearly directed towards stopping the abuse by bad sellers- and to assist consumers.
What sometimes seems to get lost in all the hub-bub, is that's exactly why I designed our site- and our business the way I did- and a large part of my motivation for posting here as well.

I've thought a lot about this - how about this as a way of looking at it:
If you want to do this on your own- without the assistance of a dealer, use the list.
If you find a dealer you trust, and feel comfortable with, don't handcuff them with the list- they may very well be able to show you some remarkable stones that fall outside David's well thought out numbers.

 

[Lula]

Thank you, Rockdiamond, for your response. Your explanation mirrors my experiences at B&M stores. In many cases, the SAs gave me blatantly false information (their particular brand of ideal cuts are the only stones cut to show the full spectrum of rainbow colors is but one example) or simply ignored my requests to look at a stone's "specs" via the grading report, telling me that they only stock "the best" and that I will be wearing the diamond not the paper.

I agree with you, however, that relying on numbers alone takes the art out of diamond selling. And the discussion among you, Storm, Todd and Dave Atlas in this post about the relative merits of numbers, ASET, IS, and photos has made me more aware of the value of photos and ASET and IS technology in assessing the quality/performance of fancy cut stones (and RBs, too), especially those that fall outside the numerical guidelines for cut.

When buying online, I think it's critical to be well-versed in both the numbers and how the numbers comport with what you're seeing in the IS and ASET images and the photos of the diamond (and how all of that translates into the visual performance of the diamond IRL!). But this is not easy stuff to learn and it takes an inordinate amount of time! I have learned so much reading posts like this, as well as previous posts containing comments by Garry, Wink, Todd, Rhino, John Pollard, Storm, Loreli, Jet, Stone-cold and all the others who take the time to educate consumers on how the numbers translate to potential visual performance.

Cut education does protect the online buyer from being ripped off because, quite simply, the buyer can't see the stone in person and can't always rely on the integrity of the seller (unfortunately). Does this take some of the romance and "art" out of diamond purchasing and selling -- yes. Do consumers miss some deals on stones that may fall short of the numbers -- I'm sure they do. But IMHO, these guidelines do give consumers a) a place to start; b) some protection from online (and B&M) vendors who may seek to deceive.

How different my view of the B&M vendors I visited would have been had the sales associates said something like this, "We have several stones that fall within the cut guidelines you mentioned and would be glad to show you those. If you're interested, we can also show you some stones that fall outside the guidelines but perform well under ASET or IS."

I can tell you without a doubt, I would have asked to see both sets of stones and I would have been pleased as punch to meet a vendor who have taken the time to explain both the art and science of diamond selection to me.

That just didn't happen. Instead, I got a load of snake oil.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you as well SaraPJ.
I might be wrong, but it seemed you took what I said to mean taking the art out of diamond selling.... if only.
It''s taken the art out of diamond cutting, in some ways.
For example: Advances in technology allow cutters to plot out the rough with a great degree of accuracy- and polish it that way as well.
The current trend is for smaller tables, so they can be called "Ideal"
The result is that when it comes to round diamonds, it''s gotten very hard to find the type of stones that have a "spready" top, while giving away nothing in terms of brilliance to the eye. All the factories are cutting for 55-57% tables- and progress in technology is allowing them to succeed.
Ironically, only a few years ago, AGS 0 cut grade excluded such stones- but now they- and GIA EX cut grade includes 60% tables when all the other conditions are there....yet still, everyone''s cutting smaller tables on the larger stones.
I still see smaller RBC stones ( such as quarters.. .25ct) with the slighhtly larger tables I love.

Thank goodness for the amazing diversity in fancy shaped diamonds!


I have stated that ASET and IS are valid tools- however that does not mean that the information they provide is always relevant, or that you can''t buy a diamond effectively without them.
It''s really a matter of taste, and what kind of diamond you are looking for.

How about the art of diamond buying?
As I said, the pear shape I posted is not our stone- we''re not selling it.
But if the conditions were right for buying, should I, as a professional diamond buyer, rely on the chart, or what I see?

My point is that the diversity in fancy shapes does give us a lot more opportunities to see that sometimes a 50% depth cushion ( for example) can indeed, look amazing. If so, and it looks 30% larger than a 60% stone, but sells for the same price, or less, because it''s not "ideal", who wins? The consumer.

In those cases where it might have been a lower priced stone whose numbers fall outside the chart- yet have no durability or visible shortfalls, but the consumer feels it''s worng due to a chart, that might be a case where the chart hurt the consumer.

But I believe we all agree in essence.
It''s a numbers game, and due to the abundance of cruddy sellers, and lack of places to find the type of stones that I''m talking about, David Atlas'' lists make a lot of sense.