How can a consumer select a fancy shape?

[Rockdiamond]

Part of the problem , as I see it, is a lack of trust. Maybe jewelers have earned it, however painting with too broad a brush also leaves consumers out in the cold.

AS is being discussed on PS on another thread, it''s really not possible to grade the cut of a fancy shape by measurements.

Many here are keen on focusing on "light performance"
Although some sellers also use such stats to promote what they sell, it''s not an accepted method by the trade at large.
There is also no standard of "light performance"
Cutters who don''t use the phrase "light performance" may indeed cut diamonds as well as other cutters that might include light performance as a judgement parameter.

In other words, there is no acceptable trade standard in fancy shapes of "Excellent Cut" "Average cut", or "Mediocre cut" ( I am not including AGS cut grades here as they are extremely limited on the marketplace in general- other than the Princess Diamond Cut grades)

A big part of selecting fancy shapes is based on individual taste.

If ASET is what you feel is necessary, by all means, choose vendors who utilize ASET.
I strongly believe that an industry consensus on the interpretation and use of ASET will never happen either.

It is a generalization to claim that sellers who are not using ASET are demonstrating to lack of dedication to great cut by virtue of the fact they don''t use ASET.

As has been made clear in this, and other threads, there are many different views on exactly what is the best cut.

We are left in a position where , if there is no trust in any seller, the consumer is forced to rely on charts, or other people commenting without adequate knowledge of the specific diamonds being asked about.
Neither of which is really helping the consumer.
Can we at least allow for the fact that there are indeed cutters, and dealers who are committed to customer satisfaction, and well cut diamonds.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Rockdiamond,

Considering that consumers have for centuries bought diamonds, because they are bright, fiery and sparkling, the combination of these factors, light performance, is an important factor in reaching consumer-satisfaction.

This thread started on the basis of light performance being impossible to judge, distill or even to get a decent pre-selection out of the huge virtual list of fancy shapes.

Your last post turns this into light performance not being important for the consumer. It seems as if you are deliberately missing the ball.

One thing I do agree with is that trust is important, and that it needs to be earned.

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 3/31/2010 6:05:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

One thing I do agree with is that trust is important, and that it needs to be earned.

Following this theme, that trust needs to be earned...could it be useful to make even more transparent the needs for information.

Paul, you've asked what does a consumer need to judge, to select a top 3 to begin with...if that's their protocol.

Well...why will it be any easier for the jeweler? If I understand the situation more or less correctly, the data presented on the virtual list is essentially the same for consumer and jeweler, both. So, to say we can trust a jeweler, in this case, by way of process, what are the implications?

Let's say we even trust their perceptions enough to agree we'd like what they'd like. On what basis will they call in stones to consider them on behalf of the consumer? Surely, there are costs associated with each of their draws to review diamonds.

I don't know if this point clarifies anything, but it will go towards removing the trusted jeweler as the black box in this equation, although it has been proposed we keep the jeweler in the black box. I'm saying...free him or her.

Make the problem you've identified one open to consumer & jeweler alike. What process should any person engage in to...as efficiently as reasonable, select a fancy?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available online. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable ''black box'', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available on line. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable ''black box'', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

I was going to answer, Paul has done it well, but please allow me translate a little.

When I know what a client wants, I pick up the phone and pre screen diamonds for my client by asking the vendor to look at it and describe it to me. If it passes that then I may ask him to shoot me a full facet by facet Sarin report or preferably an ASET image, but so few people can actually take a picture with one, even if they have it.

I discuss each gem ON THE PHONE with the vendor before I bother to bring it in.

YOU, John Q Public, can not do that. Sorry, but you can not. One, it is unlikely that you can connect on the phone, and drop shippers just can not tell you what the stone looks like even if you could, because they do not have it in house and are not going to take the time to do it for the small $$ profit involved. The only way they can afford to sell an expensive stone for what they sell it for is to not have to do anything to earn their money. Two phone calls and a bring it in for a look and they are now upside down in the stone.

So, you want to buy from a list, you get what the list offers. You want to buy from a living breathing caring human being, you get better choices that are much more likely to fulfill your desires, but you will pay a little more. Of course, you will get a LOT more, but you do not get to get it for free.

Wink

 

[denverappraiser]

I would like to add a bit on this phone conversation between the dealer and their supplier and why it’s valuable to consumers to have this step involved, even though it seems to add a ‘middleman’ into the mix.

There’s a pretty good chance that when Wink (or any other dealer) rings up his supplier, he’s bought stones there before, probably quite a few. The supplier knows that Wink’s a credible client and Wink knows that the supplier is of a business style and has merchandise that he likes. The whole conversation takes 2 minutes instead of 2 hours worth of dancing about and a stream of email exchanged. Secondly, they have a shared language between them. This benefits both of them and, given that there are likely to be several such calls associated with a particular deal the benefits of this efficiency can be considerable.

Secondly, I’m confident that Wink (and any other quality dealer) is pretty good at describing what he wants and since he’s had similar discussions with this same supplier involving other stones, they both have a good idea what the other means when they use a squishy term like ‘eye clean’ or ‘faces up bright’ or 'minimal bowtie'. The supplier has some significant pressure to communicate clearly and deliver on their promises because Wink is likely to be a repeat client if things go well and Wink has significant pressure to do the same because it saves him the shipping and aggravation associated with getting goods that aren’t what was expected. Unfortunately, the dynamic between an inexperienced and one time consumer and a supplier who have never heard of each other before is very different.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 3/31/2010 6:05:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Rockdiamond,


Considering that consumers have for centuries bought diamonds, because they are bright, fiery and sparkling, the combination of these factors, light performance, is an important factor in reaching consumer-satisfaction.


This thread started on the basis of light performance being impossible to judge, distill or even to get a decent pre-selection out of the huge virtual list of fancy shapes.


Your last post turns this into light performance not being important for the consumer. It seems as if you are deliberately missing the ball.


One thing I do agree with is that trust is important, and that it needs to be earned.


Live long,

Paul- we agree that polished diamonds being shiny has attracted people for centuries.
OK, what is the best color of the light coming off the diamond?
Given that the most famous and desirable diamond ( arguably ) is the Hope Diamond, we''d have to conclude that color should be blue. But clearly white light is brighter....

I''ve used an extreme example to prove my point- which is: how do we measure which light performance is the most desirable?
The term itself is a problem as it equates how we see things into a term that sounds quantifiable.
Clearly there are really poorly cut diamonds that don''t look like a consumer expects a diamond to look like due to dark areas, bad model ( shape) or other negative aspects at the extremes.
But there are countless degrees of light return/ performance that don''t fall into this extreme category.
Judging these stones is a problem for consumers.
The premise of your thread outlines the difficulty in judging fancy shapes based on the information commonly available on lists.

If "light performance" was quantifiable, and provided meaningful insight, that might make this job easier.
However "light performance" is another subjective issue- which frequently gets turned into a "holy grail" by prosumers advising other consumers.
If the advice about light performance is given by a dealer, who has the diamond and consumer in front of him, I have no doubt that preferences can be demonstrated.
Which is entirely different than trying to advise consumers when the people advising the consumers don''t have the diamond in front of them- nor the consumer, who could compare and express a preference.

IMO a far more productive exercise, which is also common here on PS, is consumers relating experiences with dealers- and providing meaningful information about their personal experience with dealers and purchases.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available online. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable 'black box', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

Remove the reflector technologies
Remove video screening
Remove any evaluations of cut by the numbers.
Remove computer simulations and video based on accurate diamond scans.

Add Pictures with whatever lighting the vendor chooses (often the most flattering)
Add fancy adjectives and descriptions, the certificate data and comments made by the vendor.
Add blind trust of the vendors 'black box' approach and their past reputation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the scenario some jewelers seem to be advocating in this thread, not me for sure!

I ask those jewelers then do you really trust your vendors that much to do this?
The jeweler would have to make their selections from the vendors based on the same criteria above, do they really?

The answer is often YES they are guessing, some 'fancy specialists' in New York don't have to ship stones, the cutters are closeby and they bring in the stones at low cost to them and no risk to the consumer.

Does that fact in of itself make a particular jeweler a 'trusted vendor' no I think not, they don't want to waste their time and will still try to sell what they bring in no matter what the stone's light performance is. The cut standards and pool to chose from are only as good as usually the two or three vendors the jeweler 'trusts'.
The stones called in are supposed to fit the customer's preferences and if they don't well then maybe the jeweler will call in several more. If the customer still isn't happy many jeweler's reject the consumer not the stones.

If the jeweler doesn't want to guess then they can assume the risk themself of having a branded line cut to strict proportions. Alternatively they can seek out a vendor that offers a branded line and can back it up with strict cut consistancy. Either option usually lowers yield and raises the price per carat and involves taking more risk for the jeweler.

I know why the 'Black Box' can't be explained to the consumer and I know exactly one thing that is in it, LOWER and INCONSISTANT STANDARDS!
The blackbox ensures the consumer never knows how well their potential purchase performs with respect to its peers, most diamonds are beautiful and that fact is used to full advantage.

I see vendors who don't use selection criteria based on light performance or who don't explain well to consumers about their selection criteria as those that are protecting their own commercial intertests and biases. It still makes me shake my head

when I see trademembers making very subjective negative comments about selection and rejection tools but when I look at what they are selling and how these tools are incompatible with their business models its easy to see why.

 

[Karl_K]

ccl no one is saying to blindly trust any seller.
But picking and trusting the right seller is a big part of it.
The rest of the information can be used to verify or challenge what the vendor is saying.
If all the images look like crud and the vendor sings its praises well then you know the vendor and you are not on the same page and its time to move on.

btw that is the same for the vendor when they are working the chain upstream also.
If the wholesaler/cutter sings its praises and when the vendor gets it in and it is dog poo then the vendor knows not to listen to that person.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 1:14:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 3/31/2010 6:05:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Rockdiamond,


Considering that consumers have for centuries bought diamonds, because they are bright, fiery and sparkling, the combination of these factors, light performance, is an important factor in reaching consumer-satisfaction.


This thread started on the basis of light performance being impossible to judge, distill or even to get a decent pre-selection out of the huge virtual list of fancy shapes.


Your last post turns this into light performance not being important for the consumer. It seems as if you are deliberately missing the ball.


One thing I do agree with is that trust is important, and that it needs to be earned.


Live long,

Paul- we agree that polished diamonds being shiny has attracted people for centuries.
OK, what is the best color of the light coming off the diamond?
Given that the most famous and desirable diamond ( arguably ) is the Hope Diamond, we''d have to conclude that color should be blue. But clearly white light is brighter....

I''ve used an extreme example to prove my point- which is: how do we measure which light performance is the most desirable?
The term itself is a problem as it equates how we see things into a term that sounds quantifiable.
Clearly there are really poorly cut diamonds that don''t look like a consumer expects a diamond to look like due to dark areas, bad model ( shape) or other negative aspects at the extremes.
But there are countless degrees of light return/ performance that don''t fall into this extreme category.
Judging these stones is a problem for consumers.
The premise of your thread outlines the difficulty in judging fancy shapes based on the information commonly available on lists.

If ''light performance'' was quantifiable, and provided meaningful insight, that might make this job easier.
However ''light performance'' is another subjective issue- which frequently gets turned into a ''holy grail'' by prosumers advising other consumers.
If the advice about light performance is given by a dealer, who has the diamond and consumer in front of him, I have no doubt that preferences can be demonstrated.
Which is entirely different than trying to advise consumers when the people advising the consumers don''t have the diamond in front of them- nor the consumer, who could compare and express a preference.

IMO a far more productive exercise, which is also common here on PS, is consumers relating experiences with dealers- and providing meaningful information about their personal experience with dealers and purchases.

RD,

When you posted that ASET image before I thought you would follow up(was hoping) with the small changes I suggested to make your ASET image univerally comparable to other retailers. I thought that cushion had the possibility of being one that I would normally reccomend based on light performance in cushion threads.

Whether you agree or not, many consumers, prosumers and trademembers accept that comparing well taken ASETs is a lot easier than comparing photographs because they are not as dependant on the lighting environment. Its far easier to standardize lighting for an ASET image than it is for a plain photograph especially with white background ASET, yours was already pretty close on your intiial attempt.

Even you can see what a boon to your business you might receive by embracing a technology that allows prosumers and consumers to compare your in house inventory with that of other vendors. You may just silence your biggest critics who might actually view you as a potential reccomended vendor and actively look at your website for potential options in future fancy shape searches.

Cutting and Selection tools are only going to get better and the public will continue to be better educated. You can fight this trend or try to adopt it, I wonder if you will feel differently when you have seen with your own eyes the correlation (or lack thereof) between the ASET images and the real world appearance of a larger sample of Fancy Shaped Diamonds that you hold in your inventory. Having a library of images at your disposal from your own diamonds may help you notice a lot more patterns than you initially realized by justi using unfiltered lighting. The "Chaos" of diamond selection may become a little less chaotic.

 

[Karl_K]

Where some of the conflict and confusion comes in is that while ASET/IS/HCA/gem/B-scope/videos/brands/grading reports/pictures can all be used as grading tools with some being better than others a lot of the time they are used online as communication tools.

The vendor already knows if the diamond is good or bad.
How does he/she communicate that to a client the other side of the world that it is a good one they should buy?
Just saying so isn''t going to cut it 100% most of the time, maybe 80% with the right vendor, so they back up what they are saying with:
ASET/IS/HCA/gem/B-scope/videos/brands/grading reports/pictures

Where this tends to fall down is if the vendor does not know the cut well or is in it just for the sale.
Then the tools become by default grading tools with the consumer trying to make a decision.
That is hard to do with any degree of success and very few people can pull it off.
That is where we are at with many fancy cuts so it is important to pick the right vendor.
How to pick that vendor?
Track record, reviews, and talking to them.

 

[oldminer]

It would be of great interest to consumers who are going to shop for a fancy shaped diamond to be able to give certain proportions they wished to search for to various dealers in hopes of seeing a diamond or two which met those parameters. No doubt a dealer might suggest some increased range to these parameters based on their own inventories and their own judgement of beauty rather than only use such exact ones. That comes under salesmanship and is part of the trust quotient.

I know that if a person described the parameters of an oval as follows: Table 58% to 60%, crown height approx 14%, faceted girdle slightly thin to slightly thick, depth 62% to 63.5%, a length to width ratio of 1.4:1 to 1.45:1, pointed to small culet, with excellent to very good polish and symmetry, that client probably was searching for a very well cut stone. Would I know the ASET image? No. Could I know if weight was kept in the pavilion that should have been polished away? No. Could I be 100% certain that the customer would think the diamond was beautiful and that they would think the bow tie effect was nominal enough for their taste? No.

But, considering that all these parameters taken together have such good potential properties do we actually want to say we would know nothing about such a diamond? I think the answer is that we would know a lot about the potential for this diamond to be a good one. This is the purpose of developing screening tools which require no expertise on the part of a consumer. How many dealers know how to interpret an ASET image? I think more pro-sumers here know way more about ASET than the vast majority of diamond dealers.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 12:32:48 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available on line. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable ''black box'', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

I was going to answer, Paul has done it well, but please allow me translate a little.

When I know what a client wants, I pick up the phone and pre screen diamonds for my client by asking the vendor to look at it and describe it to me. If it passes that then I may ask him to shoot me a full facet by facet Sarin report or preferably an ASET image, but so few people can actually take a picture with one, even if they have it.

I discuss each gem ON THE PHONE with the vendor before I bother to bring it in.

YOU, John Q Public, can not do that. Sorry, but you can not. One, it is unlikely that you can connect on the phone, and drop shippers just can not tell you what the stone looks like even if you could, because they do not have it in house and are not going to take the time to do it for the small $$ profit involved. The only way they can afford to sell an expensive stone for what they sell it for is to not have to do anything to earn their money. Two phone calls and a bring it in for a look and they are now upside down in the stone.

So, you want to buy from a list, you get what the list offers. You want to buy from a living breathing caring human being, you get better choices that are much more likely to fulfill your desires, but you will pay a little more. Of course, you will get a LOT more, but you do not get to get it for free.

Wink

I think most concede that picking stones from the numbers without visual verification is a total crap shoot.
The problem still exists though even for your model which invollves calling in stones to examine them first.

You are using the selection tools available to you(that some posters have shunned) to make your selection, as well as your experience with the numbers and the vendor''s descriptions to help limit the rejection rate of stones you call in.

What would you say your rejection rate % is on average?
Do you find its larger for particular fancy outline shapes than for others?

 

[Serg]

CCL

re:Add blind trust of the vendors ''black box'' approach and their past reputation.

Thank you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Oldminer- I believe that most stones in your 1A parameters will be ( in general) extremely pretty, and also well cut.

Where I feel the system falls short is that it assigns numerical ( absolute) ratings to things that are subjective.
Even though I agree most stones in your 1A category will be pretty, I also find that I may prefer other stones which the charts downgrade.
What this means is that a consumer using the charts may be needlessly prejudiced against stones that they may actually prefer.
Furthermore, there''s no reason a 2B is necessarily worth less, or less desirable than a 1A- the market bears this out.


CCL- I will admit- your post the other day that bordered on a congenial tone was extremely encouraging to me.
I would so welcome the opportunity to actually sit down with you ( and some others) face to face with diamonds, ASETs and IS''s in hand- just to "shoot the breeze" about diamonds..

My experience taking that photo ( man, was it hard to get!!) was that it would be far more difficult to get consistent results using the ASET ( it was a hand held model, maybe other versions are easier)
Therefore I made a decision to focus those resources on posting photos, and videos.
If there was a more reliable, easier way to photograph with ASET it would make a lot of sense to use it.

I still think that for most people shopping, ASET would not add meaningful info- however clearly it''s a vital tool if one wanted to be recommended by many posters here on PS.

 

[oldminer]

Where I feel the system falls short is that it assigns numerical ( absolute) ratings to things that are subjective.
Even though I agree most stones in your 1A category will be pretty, I also find that I may prefer other stones which the charts downgrade.
What this means is that a consumer using the charts may be needlessly prejudiced against stones that they may actually prefer.
Furthermore, there''s no reason a 2B is necessarily worth less, or less desirable than a 1A- the market bears this out.

Your point is well taken. I don''t see the market for fancy shapes ever being priced by the AGA system''s grading structure. It is my unique opinion that it could have happened, but it is a free market that has decided not to do it my way. I don''t control it and don''t let it bother me. You are right, too, that there are many beautiful diamonds in other AGA grades that could be very worthy of consideration. While there are nice combinations of parameters in the 2B range, there are more possible weaker parametric combinations as one goes into the 2B and lower categories than in the higher categories. The risk becomes greater that there may be a durability or visual size fault in lower graded stones, but they still may look lovely and be very nice for someone to buy if they wish.

There is no way to buy diamonds strictly from parameters or we would all be doing it that way already. There is no way to judge beauty just with I-S or ASET devices or we all would be doing it that way, too. One must combine a certain set of acceptable parameters based on the inherent nature of diamond with their own personal taste in beauty to know what diamond to select. We can describe light return characterisitics forever without being able to quantify the most elusive and highly personal aspect of diamond, its beauty. Yesterday I appraised a 6.50 ct pear shape with only a 44.4% depth that was definitely shallow, but did have a wonderful look for the necklace it was going to be placed into. It looked very large and very showy and had its own special version of beauty.

I only wish consumers would take the time to understand that parameters are useful tools which can help them better understand certain features of diamonds, but do not dictate what they ought to buy. Consumers should be aware that how the diamond looks, so long as it is durable and of acceptable visual size for weight, will be the primary component of how to select their stone. Beauty is not dictated by parameters or visual aids although we can do some good work with these tools to make shopping more productive and comfortable.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks David- I can understand your views.
This thread, and the other discussion about spread and depth %''s have brought forward many important aspects of this.
For me, a poignant one is how it''s possible for perceived demand to drive how cutters utilize the rough.
An obvious one would be marquises and ovals.
Lately I''ve seen quite a few "Marq-ovals"- long oval stones that would have been cut into marquise if the shape was still popular.
In the ''80''s it was the opposite- we''d see a lot of of chubby little marquises that shold have been cut to oval as MQ''s were more far more popular than ovals in those days- I''m sure you are familiar with this- us both being "old diamond guys"

The danger I see is a lack of creativity if cutters feel they need to cut in one particular style.
Just look at round diamonds today.
It''s as if almost every cutter is afraid to cut anything larger than 58% tables due to the current craze for "Ideal Cut" stones

 

[oldminer]

Everyone chases fashion and current style. You won''t find much variety in men''s necktie widths in major stores. You really have to shop to find "different" looking items when you want to buck current fashion. Diamond dealers need to turn inventory faster and faster. They barely have time to think creatively with the financial pressure that must exist for many of them. They naturally take the most popular demand as the way to get the job done rapidly. It is too bad we don''t see greater choice and more innovation. Karl can come up with some novel cuts, but getting them cut and then getting them commrecially accepted is a huge undertaking. There is a herd mentality in buying many fashion items that is very difficult to change.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David, I am thrilled to see tremendous variety in fancy shapes on the market every day.

Rounds, not so much......

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 3/31/2010 4:36:57 PM
Author: oldminer
Karl can come up with some novel cuts, but getting them cut and then getting them commercially accepted is a huge undertaking.

The biggest problem is capital.
The diamond industry has been self financed for years so much so that no one outside wants to invest in it above the retail level and not even there.
Very few inside have any room for more risk.
Therefor innovation is very very very slow to come.
Hopefully that will change someday but until then it is small steps.
That is another subject however.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- consider ANY Octavia cut in colors between M down to Fancy Vivid Yellow SOLD ( to me)- and I''ll even pay in advance.....

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/31/2010 2:38:02 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/31/2010 12:32:48 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available on line. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable ''black box'', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

I was going to answer, Paul has done it well, but please allow me translate a little.

When I know what a client wants, I pick up the phone and pre screen diamonds for my client by asking the vendor to look at it and describe it to me. If it passes that then I may ask him to shoot me a full facet by facet Sarin report or preferably an ASET image, but so few people can actually take a picture with one, even if they have it.

I discuss each gem ON THE PHONE with the vendor before I bother to bring it in.

YOU, John Q Public, can not do that. Sorry, but you can not. One, it is unlikely that you can connect on the phone, and drop shippers just can not tell you what the stone looks like even if you could, because they do not have it in house and are not going to take the time to do it for the small $$ profit involved. The only way they can afford to sell an expensive stone for what they sell it for is to not have to do anything to earn their money. Two phone calls and a bring it in for a look and they are now upside down in the stone.

So, you want to buy from a list, you get what the list offers. You want to buy from a living breathing caring human being, you get better choices that are much more likely to fulfill your desires, but you will pay a little more. Of course, you will get a LOT more, but you do not get to get it for free.

Wink

I think most concede that picking stones from the numbers without visual verification is a total crap shoot.
The problem still exists though even for your model which invollves calling in stones to examine them first.

You are using the selection tools available to you(that some posters have shunned) to make your selection, as well as your experience with the numbers and the vendor''s descriptions to help limit the rejection rate of stones you call in.

What would you say your rejection rate % is on average?
Do you find its larger for particular fancy outline shapes than for others?

I do not know the exact %, although it is quite low with repeat vendors. Higher with one time, never to be used again vendors. As Neil so well put it, if it is dog doo, I do not need to repeat the experience to know this is not someone who speaks my language.

Yes, of course.

Wink

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 11:19:28 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 3/31/2010 2:38:02 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/31/2010 12:32:48 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available on line. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable 'black box', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

I was going to answer, Paul has done it well, but please allow me translate a little.

When I know what a client wants, I pick up the phone and pre screen diamonds for my client by asking the vendor to look at it and describe it to me. If it passes that then I may ask him to shoot me a full facet by facet Sarin report or preferably an ASET image, but so few people can actually take a picture with one, even if they have it.

I discuss each gem ON THE PHONE with the vendor before I bother to bring it in.

YOU, John Q Public, can not do that. Sorry, but you can not. One, it is unlikely that you can connect on the phone, and drop shippers just can not tell you what the stone looks like even if you could, because they do not have it in house and are not going to take the time to do it for the small $$ profit involved. The only way they can afford to sell an expensive stone for what they sell it for is to not have to do anything to earn their money. Two phone calls and a bring it in for a look and they are now upside down in the stone.

So, you want to buy from a list, you get what the list offers. You want to buy from a living breathing caring human being, you get better choices that are much more likely to fulfill your desires, but you will pay a little more. Of course, you will get a LOT more, but you do not get to get it for free.

Wink

I think most concede that picking stones from the numbers without visual verification is a total crap shoot.
The problem still exists though even for your model which invollves calling in stones to examine them first.

You are using the selection tools available to you(that some posters have shunned) to make your selection, as well as your experience with the numbers and the vendor's descriptions to help limit the rejection rate of stones you call in.

What would you say your rejection rate % is on average?
Do you find its larger for particular fancy outline shapes than for others?

I do not know the exact %, although it is quite low with repeat vendors. Higher with one time, never to be used again vendors. As Neil so well put it, if it is dog doo, I do not need to repeat the experience to know this is not someone who speaks my language.

Yes, of course.

Wink

If your rejection rate is low than either you have some "Super" vendors with branded lines (like Infinity

) or your customers standards are lower than what mine would be.

I think finding consistant and high quality unbranded fancy shapes especially the less popular outlines (radiant, pear, marquise, oval, emerald and some cushion varieties) is very tough and I wouldn't expect to see such a low rejection rate even from the best factories.

I would expect rejection rates even from the best factories to be quite high due to differing rough proportions and unavoidable weight retention strategies.

You can and probably are a great jeweler by providing the more demanding consumers with a sarin report, ASET and Idealscope images once you have the stone in house and let the customer decide for themself thats all that could be realistically expected, but it sounds like on average most of your clients trust your selection process.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 4:36:57 PM
Author: oldminer
Everyone chases fashion and current style. You won't find much variety in men's necktie widths in major stores. You really have to shop to find 'different' looking items when you want to buck current fashion. Diamond dealers need to turn inventory faster and faster. They barely have time to think creatively with the financial pressure that must exist for many of them. They naturally take the most popular demand as the way to get the job done rapidly. It is too bad we don't see greater choice and more innovation. Karl can come up with some novel cuts, but getting them cut and then getting them commrecially accepted is a huge undertaking. There is a herd mentality in buying many fashion items that is very difficult to change.

OldMiner,

Men's narrow necktie widths have recently become fashionably again and both thicker and thinner styles are really quite common in major fashion cities and centres so that statement is quite false.

Fashion trends change every year (or sooner) which gives consumers an excuse to buy the same items over and over again. I think clothing stores would go out of business if the fashion world acted like the diamond trade.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 3/31/2010 3:09:27 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Oldminer- I believe that most stones in your 1A parameters will be ( in general) extremely pretty, and also well cut.

Where I feel the system falls short is that it assigns numerical ( absolute) ratings to things that are subjective.
Even though I agree most stones in your 1A category will be pretty, I also find that I may prefer other stones which the charts downgrade.
What this means is that a consumer using the charts may be needlessly prejudiced against stones that they may actually prefer.
Furthermore, there''s no reason a 2B is necessarily worth less, or less desirable than a 1A- the market bears this out.


CCL- I will admit- your post the other day that bordered on a congenial tone was extremely encouraging to me.
I would so welcome the opportunity to actually sit down with you ( and some others) face to face with diamonds, ASETs and IS''s in hand- just to ''shoot the breeze'' about diamonds..

My experience taking that photo ( man, was it hard to get!!) was that it would be far more difficult to get consistent results using the ASET ( it was a hand held model, maybe other versions are easier)
Therefore I made a decision to focus those resources on posting photos, and videos.
If there was a more reliable, easier way to photograph with ASET it would make a lot of sense to use it.

I still think that for most people shopping, ASET would not add meaningful info- however clearly it''s a vital tool if one wanted to be recommended by many posters here on PS.

Not so easy for me either with a handheld but the task is made simpler by a lightbox like ideal light and placing the diamond culet in the holder. Easier with an AGS ASET camera which sends video feed to the compueter, no photograph needed.

The average consumer won''t understand the ASET images unless you explain what they mean on your website as well.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 3/31/2010 1:33:51 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/31/2010 11:09:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira, a good jeweler has advantages, not available to the consumer.

Not only has he access to a lot more diamonds than just the ones available online. Many cutting houses or suppliers are not in the business of virtual lists and drop-shipping and they prefer to work strictly B2B with their information. So, to start, jewelers have a much bigger pond with a lot more fish to fish in.

More importantly, jewelers also have relationships and communications with their suppliers. The better that relationship and communication, the higher the chance of their joint selection-process delivering better candidates. It is not uncommon that such good jewelers do not charge their customers for calling in such candidates, unlike the virtual-list-vendors. Somebody is eating that cost, if the sale does not go through, either the jeweler or the supplier, which is a sign that these people believe in their selection up to the point of possibly losing on the shipment-cost.

Finally, these jewelers have experience, not only in judging stones, but also in the reliability of suppliers and what their words mean.

As such, they are a very valuable ''black box'', that can be understood but is difficult to copy.

Live long,

Remove the reflector technologies
Remove video screening
Remove any evaluations of cut by the numbers.
Remove computer simulations and video based on accurate diamond scans.

Add Pictures with whatever lighting the vendor chooses (often the most flattering)
Add fancy adjectives and descriptions, the certificate data and comments made by the vendor.
Add blind trust of the vendors ''black box'' approach and their past reputation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the scenario some jewelers seem to be advocating in this thread, not me for sure!

I ask those jewelers then do you really trust your vendors that much to do this?
The jeweler would have to make their selections from the vendors based on the same criteria above, do they really?

The answer is often YES they are guessing, some ''fancy specialists'' in New York don''t have to ship stones, the cutters are closeby and they bring in the stones at low cost to them and no risk to the consumer.

Does that fact in of itself make a particular jeweler a ''trusted vendor'' no I think not, they don''t want to waste their time and will still try to sell what they bring in no matter what the stone''s light performance is. The cut standards and pool to chose from are only as good as usually the two or three vendors the jeweler ''trusts''.
The stones called in are supposed to fit the customer''s preferences and if they don''t well then maybe the jeweler will call in several more. If the customer still isn''t happy many jeweler''s reject the consumer not the stones.

If the jeweler doesn''t want to guess then they can assume the risk themself of having a branded line cut to strict proportions. Alternatively they can seek out a vendor that offers a branded line and can back it up with strict cut consistancy. Either option usually lowers yield and raises the price per carat and involves taking more risk for the jeweler.

I know why the ''Black Box'' can''t be explained to the consumer and I know exactly one thing that is in it, LOWER and INCONSISTANT STANDARDS!
The blackbox ensures the consumer never knows how well their potential purchase performs with respect to its peers, most diamonds are beautiful and that fact is used to full advantage.

I see vendors who don''t use selection criteria based on light performance or who don''t explain well to consumers about their selection criteria as those that are protecting their own commercial intertests and biases. It still makes me shake my head

when I see trademembers making very subjective negative comments about selection and rejection tools but when I look at what they are selling and how these tools are incompatible with their business models its easy to see why.

CCL,

I understand your emotional reaction, but it has no relation to the topic. We are talking about a consumer, looking at the virtual list, trying to pre-select a few stones to evaluate more in detail. Such a consumer does not have reflector-images, video-screening, meaningful numbers nor computer simulations based on scans. The sad fact is that he has nothing tangible to base his initial selection on.

Live long,

 

[Rockdiamond]

My experience is similar to Wink''s.
If I call a supplier for a fancy shape, I''ll ask him what he thinks.
I know by the way he answers how much he likes the stone.
Of course that does not mean I will also love the stone- but if there''s clear problems, I will know by how the stone is described to me.

Given that our suppliers are around the block- as opposed to across the country, I also have the opportunity to pick through massive amounts of stones to select what I want.
Generally speaking, if I''m looking for a single stone for a client, it''s much better simply asking the cutter to suggest a few stones. It can take a lot of time going through a large number of parcel papers looking at each stone- and most cutters are quite familiar with what they have.
In many ways this is similar to the premise of the thread- how to select from a large pool of stones.

We use our knowledge of vendors to maximize the chances of finding a great stone.
Which is the same advice that is being advocated in this thread by a lot of people.

 

[oldminer]

Here is an unedited and unsolicited email that someone sent to me today. I think this goes to the heart of the issue in this thread. We currently have partial solutions and half way measures in place to help consumers find good looking fancy shaped diamonds. We should work to improve these tools and systems in order to make the shopping experience better, easier and have a smaller learning curve.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just wanted to send a thank you, as I believe you are behing the AGA cut grade chart.
I have just decided on a princess 2.05 f/vs2 , and your chart was a great reference to help narrow down the preliminary choices. It is quite a minefield, particularly when looking through the internet, and introducing ASET images, AGS 0, etc. I did however read another post, and you basically mentioned no amount of data can compare to physically inspecting the diamond.

I am very technical by nature (I.T. background), and I felt that all these details actually took the romance away from finding the perfect stone. I actually preferred being able to go to a physical vendor, view the stone a number of times, and even take my mum along with me!

The stone I ended up picking did not have an ASET or AGS 0 cert. It was a GIA Ex/Vg , and the only strike in regards to the AGA chart was that it has a 71% table (73% depth). I think I''m rattling on a bit, but I have read a few interesting debates on Pricescope, and I really prefer your approach - stick to same basic guidelines, and LOOK at the stone. I''m pretty sure "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" fits well within your recommended selection criteria.

So, once again, thanks for the huge amount of time that must have gone into developing the chart. I may still buy an ASET scope to check out my diamond, but then again, I might be disappointed that "it doesn''t have enough red" (or something along those lines ) .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I''m all for making the best improvements possible to all consumers shopping experiences. I don''t expect the AGA Cut Class system will become the gold standard of cut grading advice, but I think it does assist people who have little in the way of a road map otherwise in finding the diamond of their dreams. The system probably does inhibit some choice for them, but here above is a perfect example of how someone used the system and stiill made a reasonable adjustment when they made their purchase. To my way of thinking, this is a relatively perfect example of the direction that we should be heading in while making the variety of safe possible choices larger and broader so as to lessen the restrictions on choice by pre-screening.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/1/2010 1:53:59 PM
Author: oldminer


Here is an unedited and unsolicited email that someone sent to me today. I think this goes to the heart of the issue in this thread. We currently have partial solutions and half way measures in place to help consumers find good looking fancy shaped diamonds. We should work to improve these tools and systems in order to make the shopping experience better, easier and have a smaller learning curve.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just wanted to send a thank you, as I believe you are behing the AGA cut grade chart.
I have just decided on a princess 2.05 f/vs2 , and your chart was a great reference to help narrow down the preliminary choices. It is quite a minefield, particularly when looking through the internet, and introducing ASET images, AGS 0, etc. I did however read another post, and you basically mentioned no amount of data can compare to physically inspecting the diamond.

I am very technical by nature (I.T. background), and I felt that all these details actually took the romance away from finding the perfect stone. I actually preferred being able to go to a physical vendor, view the stone a number of times, and even take my mum along with me!

The stone I ended up picking did not have an ASET or AGS 0 cert. It was a GIA Ex/Vg , and the only strike in regards to the AGA chart was that it has a 71% table (73% depth). I think I'm rattling on a bit, but I have read a few interesting debates on Pricescope, and I really prefer your approach - stick to same basic guidelines, and LOOK at the stone. I'm pretty sure 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' fits well within your recommended selection criteria.

So, once again, thanks for the huge amount of time that must have gone into developing the chart. I may still buy an ASET scope to check out my diamond, but then again, I might be disappointed that 'it doesn't have enough red' (or something along those lines ) .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm all for making the best improvements possible to all consumers shopping experiences. I don't expect the AGA Cut Class system will become the gold standard of cut grading advice, but I think it does assist people who have little in the way of a road map otherwise in finding the diamond of their dreams. The system probably does inhibit some choice for them, but here above is a perfect example of how someone used the system and stiill made a reasonable adjustment when they made their purchase. To my way of thinking, this is a relatively perfect example of the direction that we should be heading in while making the variety of safe possible choices larger and broader so as to lessen the restrictions on choice by pre-screening.

Paul started this thread with perhaps drop shippers in mind. The consumers that are attracted to a drop shipper are attracted to the price, and have to accept that there are tradeoffs in terms of cut and uncertainties involved.

This customer does not have strict light performance standards in mind and is precisely the type of consumer who would benefit from your AGA charts.
Someone who wants to avoid a "nasty" stone and use some reasonable guidelines, but itsn't overly concerned about finding the best in light performance, they need to find one reasonably cut stone and will use their eyes in person to determine if its passable. Someone like this shouldn't be terribly upset if they walk around the corner and find better cut stones but at the same time you just saved them a lot of time and helped them avoid obviously flawed stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think that this thread makes clear that no consensus will ever be reached on this issue.
I could post hundreds of letters from consumers that were very pleased with the way our photos and videos depicted stones.

No matter how much anyone objects, the AGA charts will continue to be referred to by some consumers.
I suppose we should all be able to agree that if people have been satisfied using a system , then the system has shown merit.

CCl- with all due respect, your last post was presumptuous.
How could you know what this customer has in mind- or that there are other stones are better cut- or that the consumer will perceive as better cut?

Your use of the term "finding the best in light performance" implies some concrete standard, where none exists.
The guy may be just as interested as anyone in getting a well cut diamond