- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Generally, I do not follow up threads on fancy shapes, because aside from princess-cuts, we are not active in them. Recently however, I have been spending some time on this, and it led to certain observations and thoughts.
Reading some of the threads pertaining to fancy shapes, I gradually started to understand how these diamonds are offered by vendors, how the average consumer approaches his or her search and how the average PS-poster reacts to this. Unfortunately, my view on current realities does not make me happy.
Most vendors do not have a lot of fancy shapes in-house. As an example, I just did a search for pear-shapes, and found hundreds of stones, while the in-house-search yielded two stones, of which I doubt that they really are in-house. So, we can safely say that most fancy-shapes are virtual to the vendor.
Considering that cut-quality is the most important C, and that PS is advocating this notion very well, we can assume that any consumer with the luck of having found PS, will try to find a fancy shape with the best cut-quality. Now, how does he approach that?
We know that we have various online assessment-tools to judge cut-quality. For rounds, we have a cut-grade from a lab, the HCA, an ideal-scope-pic and possibly H&A. None of these are available or usable for fancy shape, with the exception of the rare stone having a cut-grade of AGS.
In reality however, most fancy shapes do not have a cut-grade of AGS. If we then look at using the AGA-charts (side-note: I do not necessarily agree with these charts), most stones on the virtual list only give table size and total depth, which makes the true use of these charts impossible. Finally, we know that ASET's give great information on the potential brightness of a stone, but none of these are available when looking at the hundreds of stones on the virtual list.
So, here we have consumer X, looking at a list of hundreds of stones, trying to aim for a certain cut-quality, but having almost no clue to make a first selection. I suppose that many resort to selecting on size, colour, clarity and price, and then consider a selection of three to five stones. In reality, the probability of any of these having the desired cut-quality is extremely slim.
A smart consumer will ask about these three to five stones in a PS-thread, where he will generally get the advice to ask for an ASET. Some vendors will offer this, while others will not. The quality of these pictures varies, and the regular poster here will have to work with what is offered. Unfortunately, the assessment of a face-up ASET-pic is difficult and the variety in photo-setups of various vendors makes it more difficult. Most importantly, the variety in fancy shapes makes it impossible to refer to a standard ASET as to how that shape should look like.
I personally find it impossible to judge these ASET-pics, and it is no surprise to see that even the most regular posters are facing the same problem. As such, I fear that the general PS-advice on this is not well-founded.
The result of this is not good. We see consumers making a pre-selection and we see PS-posters giving advice without a real foundation. The first selection of the consumer most often leads to the cheapest stones being picked and the forum has no real arms to steer the consumer in another direction. Offering alternative stones leads to the same problem, how can one pick out of a huge virtual list?
I would like to get reactions to my observations. I personally have my idea about how the problem should be approached. First, let us see if my observations are agreed upon.
Live long,
Reading some of the threads pertaining to fancy shapes, I gradually started to understand how these diamonds are offered by vendors, how the average consumer approaches his or her search and how the average PS-poster reacts to this. Unfortunately, my view on current realities does not make me happy.
Most vendors do not have a lot of fancy shapes in-house. As an example, I just did a search for pear-shapes, and found hundreds of stones, while the in-house-search yielded two stones, of which I doubt that they really are in-house. So, we can safely say that most fancy-shapes are virtual to the vendor.
Considering that cut-quality is the most important C, and that PS is advocating this notion very well, we can assume that any consumer with the luck of having found PS, will try to find a fancy shape with the best cut-quality. Now, how does he approach that?
We know that we have various online assessment-tools to judge cut-quality. For rounds, we have a cut-grade from a lab, the HCA, an ideal-scope-pic and possibly H&A. None of these are available or usable for fancy shape, with the exception of the rare stone having a cut-grade of AGS.
In reality however, most fancy shapes do not have a cut-grade of AGS. If we then look at using the AGA-charts (side-note: I do not necessarily agree with these charts), most stones on the virtual list only give table size and total depth, which makes the true use of these charts impossible. Finally, we know that ASET's give great information on the potential brightness of a stone, but none of these are available when looking at the hundreds of stones on the virtual list.
So, here we have consumer X, looking at a list of hundreds of stones, trying to aim for a certain cut-quality, but having almost no clue to make a first selection. I suppose that many resort to selecting on size, colour, clarity and price, and then consider a selection of three to five stones. In reality, the probability of any of these having the desired cut-quality is extremely slim.
A smart consumer will ask about these three to five stones in a PS-thread, where he will generally get the advice to ask for an ASET. Some vendors will offer this, while others will not. The quality of these pictures varies, and the regular poster here will have to work with what is offered. Unfortunately, the assessment of a face-up ASET-pic is difficult and the variety in photo-setups of various vendors makes it more difficult. Most importantly, the variety in fancy shapes makes it impossible to refer to a standard ASET as to how that shape should look like.
I personally find it impossible to judge these ASET-pics, and it is no surprise to see that even the most regular posters are facing the same problem. As such, I fear that the general PS-advice on this is not well-founded.
The result of this is not good. We see consumers making a pre-selection and we see PS-posters giving advice without a real foundation. The first selection of the consumer most often leads to the cheapest stones being picked and the forum has no real arms to steer the consumer in another direction. Offering alternative stones leads to the same problem, how can one pick out of a huge virtual list?
I would like to get reactions to my observations. I personally have my idea about how the problem should be approached. First, let us see if my observations are agreed upon.
Live long,
300x240.png)