How can a consumer select a fancy shape?

[oldminer]

Clearly,consensus on this subject is a distant dream, but a very good one. Having had a good deal of experience with using highly technical light return measuring equipment,I believe it would be fair to say that maximized light return characteristics do not equate to maximization of beauty. People simply see differently and have their own sense of what suits them as the best and prettiest. We can surely give technical people direct measurements, handy tools and ray tracing analysis, but just having maximum measures does not insure the diamond is the best one for any individual. Maybe we will someday grade based on these light return characterisitics, but it is a good argument that beauty remains subjective and what we can grade are objective facts which may assist consumers to locate a stone which is right for them. Just as not everyone needs or wants a D-IF, not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

 

[Karl_K]

The only thing I think most can agree on is that talking to someone who has seen the stone and you can connect with is an important part of buying a diamond both for dealers and consumers.
Which is why in my opinion the drop shipper business model is not optimal for consumers and the only advantage is low price.

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/1/2010 3:02:10 PM
Author: oldminer
not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

This is nonsensical to me. What would they want instead?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/1/2010 3:02:10 PM
Author: oldminer
Clearly,consensus on this subject is a distant dream, but a very good one. Having had a good deal of experience with using highly technical light return measuring equipment,I believe it would be fair to say that maximized light return characteristics do not equate to maximization of beauty. People simply see differently and have their own sense of what suits them as the best and prettiest. We can surely give technical people direct measurements, handy tools and ray tracing analysis, but just having maximum measures does not insure the diamond is the best one for any individual. Maybe we will someday grade based on these light return characterisitics, but it is a good argument that beauty remains subjective and what we can grade are objective facts which may assist consumers to locate a stone which is right for them. Just as not everyone needs or wants a D-IF, not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

+1
I would only add that a stone can be said to have greater light return based on light return measurement can not only be just s pretty as another showing less light return, it can also be just as well cut.

This point is important as I've seen far too many cases of people equating maximized light return with quality of cut.

ETA- Sara- light return is not an agreed upon standard of either beauty, nor quality of cut

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/1/2010 3:21:13 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 4/1/2010 3:02:10 PM

Author: oldminer

Clearly,consensus on this subject is a distant dream, but a very good one. Having had a good deal of experience with using highly technical light return measuring equipment,I believe it would be fair to say that maximized light return characteristics do not equate to maximization of beauty. People simply see differently and have their own sense of what suits them as the best and prettiest. We can surely give technical people direct measurements, handy tools and ray tracing analysis, but just having maximum measures does not insure the diamond is the best one for any individual. Maybe we will someday grade based on these light return characterisitics, but it is a good argument that beauty remains subjective and what we can grade are objective facts which may assist consumers to locate a stone which is right for them. Just as not everyone needs or wants a D-IF, not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

+1

I would only add that a stone can be said to have greater light return based on light return measurement can not only be just s pretty as another showing less light return, it can also be just as well cut.


This point is important as I've seen far too many cases of people equating maximized light return with quality of cut.


ETA- Sara- light return is not an agreed upon standard of either beauty, nor quality of cut

ETA: Deleted post. Don't want to go down this road.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No need for anyone to go anywhere they don;t want to go!

But if a PS reader has an interest in learning about diamonds, this point is essential

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/1/2010 12:34:17 AM
Author: 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.

To even guess at my standards you’d need to know the scope and depth of my contacts, the criteria I’ve developed over 30 years and especially the discovery process I use with my clients. And unless you have tapped my phone, email or my brain (scary!

) you cannot possibly know those things. In fact I consider my experience, know-how and long-term relationships as my own personal “brand.” It is the reason I suspect some of my clients have developed long-term trust and loyalty to me - they have not blindly given it to me. The things I describe are invaluable and have everything to do with my success rate versus rejections.

Yes, I consider Infinity a super-supplier. It would be absurd of me not to classify them as such. Another super-supplier I talk about often is Richard Homer, who never misses with colored stones. When sourcing fancy shapes, fancy colors and other items I do have my own “super” go-to’s but I’m pretty sure neither I nor any other jeweler who has worked his whole life to make and keep such one-in-a-million contacts will reveal them here.

Now perhaps you were just joking about my standards, or perhaps I was not clear in my process: I do reject hundreds of stones but the vast majority of them never even make it to my doorstep. Why? Because I’m a picky veteran who is pretty good at communicating what is needed to my chosen suppliers. If someone wastes my time that also wastes my client’s time and I do not work with them again.

Wink

 

[coati]

Date: 4/1/2010 3:17:21 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 4/1/2010 3:02:10 PM

Author: oldminer

not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

This is nonsensical to me. What would they want instead?

Date: 3/27/2010 12:33:45 PM
Author: DiaGem

but IMO light performance is just a piece of the beauty pie

.

I share this opinion.

There are a myriad of characteristics that can make a beautiful diamond. While I understand the need for quantitative light performance studies, I do not subscribe to the quantification of beauty (subjective) imposed on others.

I have an Old European Cut that defies all odds. A typical "steep deep" that stuns me every time I look at it.

How can a consumer select a fancy shape?

Get out and see as many fancies as you can-in person. Read, learn, and train your eye. And definitely, work with a reputable vendor who is versed in the shape you desire.

Oh, and try not to take the romance out of it.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/1/2010 5:09:51 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/1/2010 12:34:17 AM
Author: 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.

To even guess at my standards you’d need to know the scope and depth of my contacts, the criteria I’ve developed over 30 years and especially the discovery process I use with my clients. And unless you have tapped my phone, email or my brain (scary!

) you cannot possibly know those things. In fact I consider my experience, know-how and long-term relationships as my own personal “brand.” It is the reason I suspect some of my clients have developed long-term trust and loyalty to me - they have not blindly given it to me. The things I describe are invaluable and have everything to do with my success rate versus rejections.





Yes, I consider Infinity a super-supplier. It would be absurd of me not to classify them as such. Another super-supplier I talk about often is Richard Homer, who never misses with colored stones. When sourcing fancy shapes, fancy colors and other items I do have my own “super” go-to’s but I’m pretty sure neither I nor any other jeweler who has worked his whole life to make and keep such one-in-a-million contacts will reveal them here.






Now perhaps you were just joking about my standards, or perhaps I was not clear in my process: I do reject hundreds of stones but the vast majority of them never even make it to my doorstep. Why? Because I’m a picky veteran who is pretty good at communicating what is needed to my chosen suppliers. If someone wastes my time that also wastes my client’s time and I do not work with them again.

Wink

Wink,

Clearly you have your own selection tools some of which you prefer not to mention here with good reason. Since you mentioned many of your suppliers don't use a sarin or an ASET, I guess you've developed your own methods based on the certificate data and other information provided by the cutters to increase your odds of calling in winners.

Hmmm.. maybe judging fancy diamonds by the numbers and vendor descriptions is possible afterall just not within absolutes or in the hands of a novice.

As you guessed I'm not challenging your standards or that of your clients, but I do question in general someone who calls in stones without images and then also has a low rejection rate. I beleive that was part of Paul's original statement when he started this thread.

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/1/2010 3:43:47 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 4/1/2010 3:21:13 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 4/1/2010 3:02:10 PM


Author: oldminer


Clearly,consensus on this subject is a distant dream, but a very good one. Having had a good deal of experience with using highly technical light return measuring equipment,I believe it would be fair to say that maximized light return characteristics do not equate to maximization of beauty. People simply see differently and have their own sense of what suits them as the best and prettiest. We can surely give technical people direct measurements, handy tools and ray tracing analysis, but just having maximum measures does not insure the diamond is the best one for any individual. Maybe we will someday grade based on these light return characterisitics, but it is a good argument that beauty remains subjective and what we can grade are objective facts which may assist consumers to locate a stone which is right for them. Just as not everyone needs or wants a D-IF, not everyone wants a maximized light return diamond.

+1


I would only add that a stone can be said to have greater light return based on light return measurement can not only be just s pretty as another showing less light return, it can also be just as well cut.



This point is important as I've seen far too many cases of people equating maximized light return with quality of cut.



ETA- Sara- light return is not an agreed upon standard of either beauty, nor quality of cut

ETA: Deleted post. Don't want to go down this road.

RD, What I meant was I don't want to go down the road of arguing about the use of tools that measure light return in this thread.

What I was objecting to in David's (oldminer's) post was the implication that a typical customer would know enough about "maximum light return" to express a preference for stones without maximum light return -- saying something like, "Show me your best low light return stones." And an educated customer who is aware of the tools to measure light return may indeed prefer a stone with "less" light return, due to budget constraints, color/clarity preference, etc., but when they make the choice to go with the "less light return" stone, it is an educated choice.

I have no problem with educated choices!

A few weeks ago, I visited several local jewelry stores. Anytime I visit a B&M, I ask to see their emerald cut diamonds. I love emerald cuts, but I rarely see nice ones, on people's hands or in stores.

The owner of the first store showed me an emerald cut that she said was one of the best she'd ever seen in her years of business. It was very white with high clarity. But that's all it was. No fire, no bars of color, no life, even under the lights of the store! She encouraged me to take it outside to see how it looked in the sunlight. So I did. Still nothing...meh. I thanked her for showing it to me, and commented on its beautiful color and clarity.

The SA at the second store showed me the most beautiful emerald cut I've ever seen. The stone flashed large bars of light and color -- beautiful prisms of color -- in the case and outside of the case. Outside in the sun, the bars of white light and colored light were truly blinding. Had I had the 20 grand handy, the stone would have gone home with me that day.

So, yes, I agree with those who say looking, comparing, and evaluating as many stones with your own eyes, and with the help of a trusted vendor's eyes, is crucial to choosing a beautiful fancy shape.

But maybe you're thinking what I'm thinking -- the light performance of the second stone, as measured by the tools debated on this forum, likely blew the light performance of the first stone out of the water.

Do the tools tell the whole story? No. I don't think they do with "cookie cutter rounds" (a Karl K term!) either. I think that you must educate your brain (via cut education), you must educate your eyes (viewing lots of stones in person), and you must choose your vendor wisely in order to find a fancy cut that meets your budget and pleases your eyes.

See, I found one that pleased my eyes, but not my budget! Imagine if I was a typical uneducated consumer shopping for emerald cuts -- I would have chosen the first emerald cut diamond (no doubt based on the assurances of the store owner that it was one of the best she'd ever seen), or another one like it, because I did not have the tools at hand and the experience to select a better stone.

ETA: But, had I been able to attain the crown/depth/table, etc., numbers of the second stone, I do not think that I could simply use those numbers to find a stone that was an identical visual match. I think there's more to fine cutting than that.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/1/2010 6:03:54 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/1/2010 5:09:51 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/1/2010 12:34:17 AM
Author: 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.

To even guess at my standards you’d need to know the scope and depth of my contacts, the criteria I’ve developed over 30 years and especially the discovery process I use with my clients. And unless you have tapped my phone, email or my brain (scary!

) you cannot possibly know those things. In fact I consider my experience, know-how and long-term relationships as my own personal “brand.” It is the reason I suspect some of my clients have developed long-term trust and loyalty to me - they have not blindly given it to me. The things I describe are invaluable and have everything to do with my success rate versus rejections.






Yes, I consider Infinity a super-supplier. It would be absurd of me not to classify them as such. Another super-supplier I talk about often is Richard Homer, who never misses with colored stones. When sourcing fancy shapes, fancy colors and other items I do have my own “super” go-to’s but I’m pretty sure neither I nor any other jeweler who has worked his whole life to make and keep such one-in-a-million contacts will reveal them here.







Now perhaps you were just joking about my standards, or perhaps I was not clear in my process: I do reject hundreds of stones but the vast majority of them never even make it to my doorstep. Why? Because I’m a picky veteran who is pretty good at communicating what is needed to my chosen suppliers. If someone wastes my time that also wastes my client’s time and I do not work with them again.

Wink

Wink,

Clearly you have your own selection tools some of which you prefer not to mention here with good reason. Since you mentioned many of your suppliers don''t use a sarin or an ASET, I guess you''ve developed your own methods based on the certificate data and other information provided by the cutters to increase your odds of calling in winners.

Hmmm.. maybe judging fancy diamonds by the numbers and vendor descriptions is possible afterall just not within absolutes or in the hands of a novice.

As you guessed I''m not challenging your standards or that of your clients, but I do question in general someone who calls in stones without images and then also has a low rejection rate. I beleive that was part of Paul''s original statement when he started this thread.

You’re aiming in the right direction but the target could be larger than you realize. To explain I need to provide historical perspective, but first I will proudly admit that I’m an old fogie who embraces modern tools and numbers. With that said I learned my business long before they were around.

Many of us were doing this decades before Pricescope and decades before the internet. We survived or perished based on our ability to get introductions-to, communicate-with and critically assess cutters and suppliers of different stripes. We had to do this long before email, long before reflector images and long before the Sarin scanner. A handshake at a trade show was the first step, not cold-calls or e-spam, and we built relationships at a time when it cost money to talk long-distance, there was no easy overnight shipping and reputations and trust took years and years of hard and consistent work.

You “question” someone who calls in stones without images with a low rejection rate. Wow! That’s interesting to me, because the world’s best diamantaires built their businesses operating that way - efficiently! - for longer than you or I have been alive. I think numbers and reflector images help but they are still a “newfangled” blip on the radar. The internet has allowed new companies to come and go overnight, and to saturate me with spam and virtual listings. They are largely off my radar because that’s not the system I came up in. Conversations and relationships are still what have teeth. Low rejection rates imply effective communication, not low standards. This kind of communication requires understanding beyond certs or images. For example “clean” has a dozen different meanings. Joseph in NY may be on a different level than Pieter in Antwerp using that word. The words may even be different. When Pieter describes “windows” or “silk” he is applying colored stone terms in a certain way, unique to him, with a diamond (understandable if English is his third language). I must know him well enough to understand how much is implied when he uses them. This kind of communication which has little to do with numbers or images but between two professionals it can go far beyond that, with the goal of not wasting time on a sent-stone that I will reject. Both of us want to avoid that! Not just me!!

Of course this old dog appreciates the leaning of new tricks and I do welcome certs, numbers, ASET etc as supplements. But they are young in this business and just pieces of a much larger puzzle.

In my opinion your posts are illuminating, and helping to reinforce the whole reason Paul started this thread - which has nothing to do with Sarin or ASET. Others may feel differently, but I believe virtual lists are just that. A list which gives little insight into reality. Furthermore, in my experience cheapest rarely equals best, and so long as people go forth with fancies based on nonsense numbers and cheapest price they will likely get substandard looking diamonds. Just some thoughts from an old man who loves his business.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I had a discussion with Sergey 2 weeks ago about setting rules for preselection of potential nice fancy shapes. A debate actually.

Using all the tools available to me, and because I often can not call stones in as Wink or others can, I now find that my buying face to face is done best when I also have good 3D files and can use DiamCalc.

Sergey thinks I would find it difficult to impossible to share my selection rules and guide lines with others. He may be right (he usually is). But I would like to try it, and have some ideas how to go about it.
If it led to an HCA for fancies then that would be great. But i will be wary of going down the AGS path of a system limiting to specific cuts.
Still it is a mind numbing task since the closer you come to it, the faster the problems mount and the further away becomes the achievement.

The idea that light return is essential or not the only factor is an interesting point. If it was the only point then princess cuts would not have taken off as they did.
Consider the 2 gems shown here in DiamCalc - the round would never be considered for purchase by people raound here. Yet based on light return it leaves this potentially good princess cut for dead.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 4/2/2010 2:19:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I had a discussion with Sergey 2 weeks ago about setting rules for preselection of potential nice fancy shapes. A debate actually.

Using all the tools available to me, and because I often can not call stones in as Wink or others can, I now find that my buying face to face is done best when I also have good 3D files and can use DiamCalc.


Sergey thinks I would find it difficult to impossible to share my selection rules and guide lines with others. He may be right (he usually is). But I would like to try it, and have some ideas how to go about it.

If it led to an HCA for fancies then that would be great. But i will be wary of going down the AGS path of a system limiting to specific cuts.

Still it is a mind numbing task since the closer you come to it, the faster the problems mount and the further away becomes the achievement.


The idea that light return is essential or not the only factor is an interesting point. If it was the only point then princess cuts would not have taken off as they did.

Consider the 2 gems shown here in DiamCalc - the round would never be considered for purchase by people raound here. Yet based on light return it leaves this potentially good princess cut for dead.
low

I have seen better princess cuts but even the very best cut top out in the high .80s rarely low .90s.
The reason that round would be rejected is the contrast patterns are bleh and it does not match what the cut can do.
Put a DC stereo .88 princess next to a dc stereo .99RB and a significant percentage of people will choose the princess cut.

What your attempting to do is put custom cuts in a box that is what we are trying to escape to start with.

 

[Karl_K]

here is the very best a princess can do... at what cost?
Very deep pavilion and shallow crown. (even for a princess cut)
Very limited rough available to cut it from.
Spread is nothing to write home about.
It is twitchy to the point that very few cutters could cut it consistently.
Cost +20%+ current prices.
What is interesting about the princess cut design is the performance with no crown at all.

 

[Karl_K]

like this....

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Having started this thread and having described a very specific situation, it is frustrating to see how most posters here are handsomely avoiding the issue in order to steer it in another direction, which gives them the opportunity to promote their own ideas and position. Luckily, I see other posters understanding and confirming my observations. Let me first try to re-hash the original post.

We are looking at the situation of a non-expert consumer looking to buy a fancy shape diamond. I have established that most vendors have very little supply in-house, and that most supply is offered through a virtual list.

The second observation is that these stones do not have an AGS-report generally (the only lab-graded cut for certain fancy-shapes), nor do they have the data to use the AGA-charts or an ASET. Briefly, there is no information on the cut-quality of any of the stones on this list.

In the absence of any such information, that consumer makes a pre-selection of a few stones, without anyone knowing the criteria of this selection. The probability of any of these stones being of the desired cut-quality by the consumer is obviously low.

As such, if such a consumer presents his pre-selection on the PS-forum, I think that it is the duty of a consumer-protection-forum to critically assess the reasons of this pre-selection, and not to take it as a given out of which one advises the ''best'' upon scarce information. This point is extremely important, because forum-rules do not allow professionals to intervene in such a way, this will need to be done by consumer-posters.

All this does not mean that we need to throw away the baby with the badwater (Dutch expression, I do not know if something similar exists in English).

I see professional posters claiming here that ''light return'' should be dismissed, because it does not equal beauty. I am sorry, but this is an abuse of the original topic, which explains that in the original pre-selection, the consumer does not have any tools available to check cut-quality. It has often been repeated that all available rejection-tools essentially assess brightness, and these posters essentially use an unacceptable tactic of changing definitions to disprove valid tools. In any case, the discussion does not relate to the original topic.

In the same way, I am surprised to see defendants of parametric approaches suddenly jump up again. The non-relational parametric approach was proven not to work on round brilliants over a decade ago, and both GIA and AGS have abandoned the non-relational approach in the past years. So why would one expect it to work on a fancy shape, if it was proven wrong in rounds years ago? The idea surprises me even more, since David Atlas in this same thread explained that the AGA-charts are a ''craftsmanship screening tool'', and not a ''light return estimation tool''. In any case, even if one wanted to use a parametric approach, with table and depth being the only data on the virtual list, one cannot.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Paul, that was pretty much answered several pages ago.

The best way to help sort the better diamonds out from the list is to know the cutter.
While I managed to do that it is not something that most consumers can do.
Once that is done talking to the cutter is something that streamlines the process and helps to avoid calling in unsuitable stones.
There is no way a consumer can do that.

There is not enough information on the lists to make a sound decision on which stones to call in without the added information.
Once the stones are called in and the information provided it can be compared to known excellent samples either real or virtual and an informed decision can be made.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:31:29 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Having started this thread and having described a very specific situation, it is frustrating to see how most posters here are handsomely avoiding the issue in order to steer it in another direction, which gives them the opportunity to promote their own ideas and position. Luckily, I see other posters understanding and confirming my observations. Let me first try to re-hash the original post.

We are looking at the situation of a non-expert consumer looking to buy a fancy shape diamond. I have established that most vendors have very little supply in-house, and that most supply is offered through a virtual list.

The second observation is that these stones do not have an AGS-report generally (the only lab-graded cut for certain fancy-shapes), nor do they have the data to use the AGA-charts or an ASET. Briefly, there is no information on the cut-quality of any of the stones on this list.

In the absence of any such information, that consumer makes a pre-selection of a few stones, without anyone knowing the criteria of this selection. The probability of any of these stones being of the desired cut-quality by the consumer is obviously low.

As such, if such a consumer presents his pre-selection on the PS-forum, I think that it is the duty of a consumer-protection-forum to critically assess the reasons of this pre-selection, and not to take it as a given out of which one advises the 'best' upon scarce information. This point is extremely important, because forum-rules do not allow professionals to intervene in such a way, this will need to be done by consumer-posters.

All this does not mean that we need to throw away the baby with the badwater (Dutch expression, I do not know if something similar exists in English).

I see professional posters claiming here that 'light return' should be dismissed, because it does not equal beauty. I am sorry, but this is an abuse of the original topic, which explains that in the original pre-selection, the consumer does not have any tools available to check cut-quality. It has often been repeated that all available rejection-tools essentially assess brightness, and these posters essentially use an unacceptable tactic of changing definitions to disprove valid tools. In any case, the discussion does not relate to the original topic.

In the same way, I am surprised to see defendants of parametric approaches suddenly jump up again. The non-relational parametric approach was proven not to work on round brilliants over a decade ago, and both GIA and AGS have abandoned the non-relational approach in the past years. So why would one expect it to work on a fancy shape, if it was proven wrong in rounds years ago? The idea surprises me even more, since David Atlas in this same thread explained that the AGA-charts are a 'craftsmanship screening tool', and not a 'light return estimation tool'. In any case, even if one wanted to use a parametric approach, with table and depth being the only data on the virtual list, one cannot.

Live long,

Paul,

I don't see a problem as you do.

In fancy threads on PS I see the following scenario come up quite often.

The first selection(s) by the novice consumer from virtual lists are usually poor or with too little information available initially.

This is followed by:

1) Questions about what their specific preferences are.
2) Requests for a photograph, ASET and sometimes a Sarin for their choices.
3) Comparison of these images to the library of images and selections of in house stones viewable online form other vendors.
4) Suggestions and alternatives are presented most often from in house stones where the data is avaialable.
5) At times none of the selections are very good and/or suitable alternatives cannot be found in which case particular vendors known to be knowledgeable on a particular fancy shape are suggested.

I see nothing wrong with this method except that these threads usually end the same way over and over again, the same vendors who have many fancy shapes posted online with reflector images get reccomended over and over again. Experienced PS posters predominantly reccomend in house stones and the consumer then can make an educated choice of a cheaper unknown stone from a drop shipper versus the reccomended but usually more expensive in house alternatives.

In most cases if the novice consumers cares enough about cut to start a thread on Pricescope than the in house stones are chosen as more information and a "safer" choice can be made. With online libraries of stones available the initial virtual selections and the "Black Box" has already been taken out of the equation.

In some cases if the consumer rejects any of the in house stones and prefers to select from a virtual list we reccomend using an appraisor or choosing a vendor with a reaosnable return policy.

In my opinion this method is only as good as the size of the library of online stones available that have ASET images and/or video. I've mentioned this before but this library may increase dramatically if cutting houses provide sarin or helium scans of their diamonds and then simulated video via .gem files can become available for a much larger number of stones.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:09:23 AM
Author: Karl_K
here is the very best a princess can do... at what cost?
Very deep pavilion and shallow crown. (even for a princess cut)
Very limited rough available to cut it from.
Spread is nothing to write home about.
It is twitchy to the point that very few cutters could cut it consistently.
Cost +20%+ current prices.
What is interesting about the princess cut design is the performance with no crown at all.

Interesting example and post. Not enough contrast though?

http://www.vimeo.com/10464275 here is another amazing princess cut perhaps with a bit too much contrast or so says the AGS PGS which gives it a 1. Gorgeous diamond though IMO.

CCl

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 4/2/2010 12:40:01 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/2/2010 9:09:23 AM

Author: Karl_K

here is the very best a princess can do... at what cost?

Very deep pavilion and shallow crown. (even for a princess cut)

Very limited rough available to cut it from.

Spread is nothing to write home about.

It is twitchy to the point that very few cutters could cut it consistently.

Cost +20%+ current prices.

What is interesting about the princess cut design is the performance with no crown at all.

Interesting example and post. Not enough contrast though?



http://www.vimeo.com/10464275 here is another amazing princess cut perhaps with a bit too much contrast or so says the AGS PGS which gives it a 1. Gorgeous diamond though IMO.


CCl

plenty of contrast... that little shows in ASET is one major weakness of ASET/AGS systems.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Given the original premise, and question, I do not see how it is at all possible to "divorce" reflector images, and AGA charts as both of these technologies are constantly used here on PS.
If the rules of the discussion are that we must ignore the usage on PS of ASET and AGA charts, then Karl is correct- it was answered pages ago.

Sara''s experience was that she saw two stones- one of which she loved, the other she did not.

This experience seems to be very relevant to Paul''s original question.

But maybe you''re thinking what I''m thinking -- the light performance of the second stone, as measured by the tools debated on this forum, likely blew the light performance of the first stone out of the water.

If the measurement of light performance can answer this question, then the problem is solved.

"Light Performance" is clearly important to people looking at diamonds, even if they don''t know what light performance is.
My point is that interpreting light return, or light performance in ways that seem quantitative may not produce results consistent with what each of us wants to see in a diamond. What one person finds to be the "best performing light" may not appeal to another person.

It seems to me that interpretation of light return either is or isn''t indicative.
if it is, then why not use it all the time to select fancy shaped diamonds off a list.

Or, it''s not a consistent indicator, meaning we''re back to depending on human observations.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 4/2/2010 1:03:15 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Given the original premise, and question, I do not see how it is at all possible to ''divorce'' reflector images, and AGA charts as both of these technologies are constantly used here on PS.

If the rules of the discussion are that we must ignore the usage on PS of ASET and AGA charts, then Karl is correct- it was answered pages ago.

AGA charts(fully) and ASET can''t be used until you have more information most likely the stone has already been called in.
At that point if the vendor was picked well then the vendors opinion is an important part of the information backed up by the rest.

How to get top end fancy diamonds to consider off a list with no other listed info other than maybe a grading report is the problem presented. (b2b will also list the wholesaler/cutter/whatever)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:22:12 AM
Author: Karl_K
like this....

Test the high light return stone for fire with DiamCalc Karl.
Ha - I just did it - and it looks pretty damm good!

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 4/2/2010 7:38:25 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/2/2010 9:22:12 AM

Author: Karl_K

like this....

Test the high light return stone for fire with DiamCalc Karl.

Ha - I just did it - and it looks pretty damm good!

I was amazed how well the princess pavilion works with no crown.
While it isn''t anything that hard to come up with it is the kind of thing putting custom cuts in a box will hurt.
Designers need the freedom to be creative not designing to fit a box.

Sorry Paul but had to respond,,,,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

No worries, Karl.

It is not uncommon for people presented with unconvenient realities to resort to virtual games instead of trying to solve the problem at hand.

Sorry, could not resist this either.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 4/3/2010 2:26:25 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
No worries, Karl.


It is not uncommon for people presented with unconvenient realities to resort to virtual games instead of trying to solve the problem at hand.

Sorry, could not resist this either.


Live long,

LOL that cracked me up.

Back on topic:
It is a process not a single act to go from a list of diamonds to the best selection for the person buying it.
How that process should be structured is the real question and there are many ways to do it.
Some better than others.
My thoughts are as previously stated that communication up and down the chain by people that can communicate with each other in an efficient/trustworthy manner is the best way to do it.
Part of that communication can be images/scans/video.

 

[ChazzB]

I have learned so much reading this thread so I wanted to get help deciding between two diamonds. They are both in by limited budget but as the title says, it is hard to judge acceptable stones in fancy cuts. But here are the specs for the stones.

1. Blue Nile site, 1.33 Carat with E color, VS2 clarity, VG polish, G symmetry, girdle thin to very thick, 64% depth, 57% table , 1.48 LxW ratio which we like. BN rates the cut as VGIt is GIA cert.

2. Union Diamond, 1.33 carat, D color, VS2 clarity, also VG and G on polish and sym, girdle thin to thick 62% depth, 52% table, with a 1.38 ratio. Union rates the cut as Premium. Also GIA cert.

Although I know a EGL cert isn''t as strict on color, I like the fact they give you crown and pavillion info. So how do I really tell cut quality without some of that info? i don''t trust the sites themselves to rate the cut. I don''t know if those sites give you a Ideal scope pic or an ASET pic (are they the same thing? just learning here)

So any advise you knowledgeable folks can lend me is much appreciated, either which diamond is better (or are they a toss up?) and how to get more info from them.

Thanks
Chazz

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Chazz,

Your post is off-topic, and you will likely get an answer, if you start a new thread with your question.

However, your post also offers the perfect example of what this thread is about.

So, you are a consumer, who has done his homework and has selected two stones out of the virtual list as your favourites. The big question is, presuming that you probably want a sparkling well-cut diamond, what did you base your selection on?

Looking at the two stones (you did not mention the shape), I suppose that part of your selection was on carat weight, a very high colour and a reasonably high clarity. Also, depth and table-size may be part of your selection, but neither actually tells us anything about cut-quality. So, finally, as you kind of mentioned, I suppose that your final selection is based upon them being within your budget, possibly the biggest within your budget.

Considering potential reactions of consumers posting here, they will probably advise you to get an ASET from the vendor. The current information contains nothing valuable as to cut-information.

Then, one of these vendors might supply that, the other not, which complicates your decision. And, if you do get the ASET-pic, I truly wonder if you will end up with a uniform assessment of it. Me, for sure, if I would see that ASET, I could probably tell you if it does not suffice, but I definitely could not tell you if the stone is great.

Anyway, contributors here could also suggest you other alternatives, but they are also limited by the virtual list not giving suitable information to judge cut-quality. So, those recommendations will most probably be based upon prefering a certain vendor. The sad fact here is that this will be a recommendation of a stone with a certain vendor, while the vendor generally has not ever seen the stone. Shocking, no?

In that sense, this selection-process is flawed. The best advice resulting from this thread is for the consumer to pay more attention to the selection of the vendor, and less to the stones. I am sure that a good vendor would get you a great stone, if you asked him for a great-cut F+ VS2+, the biggest possible within your budget. Granted, he might have you weigh the option of going bigger with a G, H or SI1, but in any case, the attention to cut-quality will be focused.

And that kind of summarizes this long thread, I think.

Live long,

 

[ChazzB]

Paul

I really appreciate your reply. I have started another thread with my request but I did want to add something here about getting more info on stones from some sites. Now I have to say I did look on WF and GOG to see if they had any stones in my criteria and budget and they didn''t. My stone of choice is an oval and they are harder to find I think. GOG had almost none in their list.

I got a reply back from one of my two above vendors and here is their reply to my request for a ASET or Idealscope pic.

Unfortunately we are not able to provide IdealScope reports for our diamonds. This is primarily because the majority of the vault locations where we store our diamonds do not have these machines on site, but also because we do not believe that the majority of our customers would be able to properly interpret these kinds of reports. A cut appraisal machine is only as good as its calibration, and unless these machines are meticulously calibrated, they will not produce accurate results. Even when perfectly calibrated, the same diamond run through the same machine three times will produce three different results. (This is an experiment I would recommend trying if you ever happen to be at a jewelry store with one of these machines.)

Another reason we stay away from these kinds of reports is that the new AGS and GIA reports have largely superseded the need for additional cut grade assessment. The GIA and AGS are the undisputed leaders and gold standard for diamond grading in America, and their new cut grade assessments are the result of many years of research. Other assessments are neither as widely recognized nor as highly valued as GIA reports, so we have decided that the price increases that would result from providing these reports would not be acceptable to the majority of our customers.

I wonder if the person reponding to me noticed my stone was an oval. I DID have that info in my e-mail to him. Maybe I should roll the dice on one of these stones and then try to judge its brilliance and fire by eye, or maybe get a independent appraisal of the stone, and send it back if not happy?

Thanks again for this forum and the wealth of knowledge here

Chazz

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 4/18/2010 9:50:09 AM
Author: ChazzB
Paul


I really appreciate your reply. I have started another thread with my request but I did want to add something here about getting more info on stones from some sites. Now I have to say I did look on WF and GOG to see if they had any stones in my criteria and budget and they didn't. My stone of choice is an oval and they are harder to find I think. GOG had almost none in their list.


I got a reply back from one of my two above vendors and here is their reply to my request for a ASET or Idealscope pic.


Unfortunately we are not able to provide IdealScope reports for our diamonds. This is primarily because the majority of the vault locations where we store our diamonds do not have these machines on site, but also because we do not believe that the majority of our customers would be able to properly interpret these kinds of reports. A cut appraisal machine is only as good as its calibration, and unless these machines are meticulously calibrated, they will not produce accurate results. Even when perfectly calibrated, the same diamond run through the same machine three times will produce three different results. (This is an experiment I would recommend trying if you ever happen to be at a jewelry store with one of these machines.)


Another reason we stay away from these kinds of reports is that the new AGS and GIA reports have largely superseded the need for additional cut grade assessment. The GIA and AGS are the undisputed leaders and gold standard for diamond grading in America, and their new cut grade assessments are the result of many years of research. Other assessments are neither as widely recognized nor as highly valued as GIA reports, so we have decided that the price increases that would result from providing these reports would not be acceptable to the majority of our customers.


I wonder if the person reponding to me noticed my stone was an oval. I DID have that info in my e-mail to him. Maybe I should roll the dice on one of these stones and then try to judge its brilliance and fire by eye, or maybe get a independent appraisal of the stone, and send it back if not happy?


Thanks again for this forum and the wealth of knowledge here



Chazz

Hmmm. That’s a boilerplate answer for folks asking for a Brilliancescope report. It’s a reasonable answer for that, but they’re answering the wrong question. ASET and Idealscope have nothing to calibrate nor does it result in any sort of analysis. It's just data. GIA does not offer any sort of cut grade on ovals (AGS does, but the market presence is so low that it’s effectively irrelevant. You’ld be hard pressed to find an AGSL graded oval even if that was your only spec). I do agree with them that interpretation of the data can be tricky and it’s often a problem that people will draw invalid conclusions and I can certainly imagine a dealer deciding that it’s not worth opening the can ‘o worms by providing it. It’s also worth noting that many dealers are selling diamonds that are in the possession of someone else and so their ability to provide images and additional information is dependent on that 3rd party, who may not have the tools and/or the skills or may just be unwilling to do the extra work for ‘free’. I suspect this is the root of the resistance.

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