Is Cut Quality Over Hyped?

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 9/29/2009 9:44:04 AM
Author: RockNSake
Ok thanks for all the replys/interest.

I live just outside NYC and have been working with several people who are on PS and some other local people. No lighting games are being played and I have seen the stones in daylight. All the stones are GIA cert'd. I have not held them to my skin though, as this is the first time I have seen/heard it suggested, but i will give it a try.

I just feel like to a certain extent that I have been so bent on finding the best cut stone my budget can afford, that I am now only looking to buy a stone that has qualities that may not even really be able to be detected by the naked eye, let alone by my girlfreind and her snooty freinds. I guess the question is, at what point is enough enough in terms of cut, and how much worse would a strong performing lesser cut grade stone compare? I think maybe a strong performing VG or G (GIA) cut stone would be a good option, and allow for maybe a bit better color, or more carats ( I would prefer the latter). I have also seen a few ex cut's that perform somewhat poorly and feel that there is a problem with that. How can a stone of lesser cut quality outperform a stone with a higher graded cut?

I am fine with eye clean SI1 and would even go SI2 if it was clean enough.

The best cut stone I am looking at is an GIA Ex cut, ex polish, ex symm, SI1 (but very eye clean) in H color. It also seemed to do well under the scope, and when placed next to an identical stone w similar proportions and cut that scored a 4.1 on HCA, the one i like seems to blow it away.

The specs are:

Size: 1.5ct
Color: H (guy says its a strong H)
Clarity: SI1 (very clean)
Cut Grade: Ex
Polish: ex
Symm: ex
Floures: None
Culet: None
HCA score: .9
Table: 56
Depth: 60.9
Crown angle: 33.5
Pavillion Ang: 41.0
Facet: Thin-Med 3.0%
Table: 33.5 deg
Measures 7.38X7.47X4.52
More Proportions:
above the facet 14.5%
below the facet 43%

Also saw and liked a

1.4 ct
G
vs2
Ex cut
Ex polish
Ex symm
Depth: 61.7
Table: 57
Crown Ang: 35.5
Pav Ang: 40.8
HCA: 2.6
Branded H&A
7.16x7.20x4.43
Culet: None
Flours: None
Facet: Med 3.5%
Proportions:
Above facet: 15%
Below: 43%

One of the bigger ones (dont have the cert in front of me)

1.73 ct
J color
SI1 clarity
Good cut
good polish
good sym
Table: 56%
Depth: 64.2
7.56x7.6x4.89

(dont have the rest in front of me)


All stones are about the same $ expcept the bigger one which is a couple hundred less.


So from the overwhelming consensus on here, should I stick with my well cut H color stone? Her best freind has a 1.5 E color SI2 with an GIA good cut. Should my excellent cut H stone show better or will it look inferior because of the color difference? i am concerned it will look off white next to her E stone of avg cut...??

If you bought an idealscope than please by all means post the images here, but only you can decide how much leakage is acceptable to you, if you post the images we will certainly tell you which one has the nicest image. Using the idealscope properly on all stones and your eyes it should be easy to determine if you see a real difference between two Triple X stones or a VG stone.

1) 0.1 mm is the thickness of ten sheets of paper, so you can imagine the size difference between the H and and J is not going to be noticeable especially when set. Even the G and the J will be only slightly different. You should be looking at the size dimensions not the carat weight.
2) That J stone has a depth of 64.2 and just isn't going to be a good pick.
3) I don't know if this will ruin the surprise or not but you should find out if your future Fiance is color sensitive or not. A comparison of an G to an J side by side and apart could get you comments on how much color matters. Make sure to look at the diamonds from the side as well. If you can't do that I'd still stick with G or H to safely pass the snooty friends test.
4) There is a reality to diamond prices, you pay the biggest premium for weight > color > clarity > cut (so the cheapest thing you can optimize is cut).

If I were to rank in order of importance diamond tests it should be as follows:

Wearer's Eye (In various lighting) > Your Eyes (in various lighting) > Idealscope > AGS or GIA Grading > HCA and Numerical Analysis > Pricescope Subjective Opinions

What this means and we can all agree is that over everything said here if you are doing an honest comparison yours and your future Fiance's eyes are the most important tests in this buying process. This forum is dedicated to internet shopping where most buyers do not have a chance to see the stones beforehand so we tend to choose stones with Idealscope images that show the least leakage and have the safest ranges for numbers. There are definite merits to considering slightly larger spreadier 60% depth 60% table round stones that show some leakage but this you will have to view these exceptions carefully in person under various low lighting conditions and I wouldn't let a diamond dealers comments influence what your eyes tell you.

Good-Luck,

CCL


P.S. If you are near New York I would call Jon at GOG in Long Island and have him setup a lineup for you of potential stones (tell him your spec range) and try to get bigger lower color versus smaller higher color ideal cut and bring the GF to get her comments, he can help you view them under controlled conditions, plus you will already get to see the Idealscope and ASET images beforehand done with an optimized setup. If anyone could setup such a lineup I bet he could. You might also talk about your specs to Mark at ERD in Manhatten and he could likely line up some likely contenders at great prices as well.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/29/2009 9:44:04 AM
Author: RockNSake

The specs are:

Size: 1.5ct
Color: H (guy says its a strong H)
Clarity: SI1 (very clean)
Cut Grade: Ex
Polish: ex
Symm: ex
Floures: None
Culet: None
HCA score: .9
Table: 56
Depth: 60.9
Crown angle: 33.5
Pavillion Ang: 41.0
Facet: Thin-Med 3.0%
Table: 33.5 deg
Measures 7.38X7.47X4.52
More Proportions:
above the facet 14.5%
below the facet 43%

Also saw and liked a

1.4 ct
G
vs2
Ex cut
Ex polish
Ex symm
Depth: 61.7
Table: 57
Crown Ang: 35.5
Pav Ang: 40.8
HCA: 2.6
Branded H&A
7.16x7.20x4.43
Culet: None
Flours: None
Facet: Med 3.5%
Proportions:
Above facet: 15%
Below: 43%

One of the bigger ones (dont have the cert in front of me)

1.73 ct
J color
SI1 clarity
Good cut
good polish
good sym
Table: 56%
Depth: 64.2
7.56x7.6x4.89

(dont have the rest in front of me)


All stones are about the same $ expcept the bigger one which is a couple hundred less.

First one shows promise, the second might be ok but an Idealscope image is needed to check out that angle combo - also as it is said to be h&a images of both hearts and arrows are needed in order to prove this claim.

The third is too deep and can look small for the weight, also we don't have the critical angles for this one but it is a fair assumption that they won't be within desirable range looking at the info on this diamond.

For the first and second diamonds if you could post the star and lower girdle facet percentages too that would be useful, also find out what the grade setting inclusion/s are such as feathers, clouds etc which are noted on the clarity plot for the first SI1 diamond.

The above are all GIA graded I assume?

 

[RockNSake]

Date: 9/29/2009 5:49:08 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Amazing thread RockNSake!!
Yes, yes, and oh yes!

It''s been said that an ''ideal'' stone will look better if it''s dirty.
Of course it is likely true for those that have observed it, in their particular case,
However, although there is anecdotal proof based on some individuals experience, based on a far broader sample of ''Ideal'' versus very well cut non ideals, it''s simply not the case. We''ve seen many ideal cuts, as well as well cut non ideals after they have gotten dirty. A great cut won;t help gunk under the diamond.

The tests used to determine ''light return'' are by no means accepted by the trade as a whole. Those that don;t find value in them include companies like Harry Winston, and Cartier.
This does not mean HW is right, and those using ASET are wrong. Many buyers base decisions on visual factors over reflector tests.
If you read a lot here, it''s easy to believe you need aset to buy a well cut diamond. You do not.
It might be true that a diamond that scores well on ASET is well cut- but it''s not true that one that does not score as well is not necessarily as well cut.

Many will, as you have seen- choose a really well cut stone over a higher priced ''Ideal''
For me, this trumps all the arguments about how buying ''Ideal'' takes the guesswork out of it. Folks might actually spend a lot more, and get a stone they''d have preferred less if they actually looked.


Of the three stones you posted, the 1.73 has a number that does seem excessive- the 64.2% depth, That will make the stone appear smaller in weight than it is. I don''t buy by the numbers- but such a high depth on a colorless round would put me off......

if you love ''Ideal Cut'' diamonds, then buy one- use ASET HCA, whatever you love to use.
But your question was is there hype surrounding this subject- and the answer is unquestionably so.
It''s important to find out what appeals to you- in many cases, it''s a fairly large difference in prices.
For this reason it makes all the sense in the world to look for yourself so you can separate the hype........

This is exactly what I am talking about, and I think this website has alot of great advice/knowledge but I never felt this was really addressed on here. All you hear is cut is king, but I don''t think it is that simple, and these optical tests can be misleading and/or confusing at times. I saw plenty of ex cut stones that I thought were not strong visual performers. Keep in mind i''m a beginner, but I thought the two went hand in hand.

For example when looking at a few things with Mark at ERD he was amused by my reliance on these light return tools, he called me a typical pricescoper haha, and just kept emphasizing to let my eyes be the judge, and said he doesn''t put as much emphasis on these things. He said you can use it to rule out a very poor performing stone, but these tools and scores are not always perfect. Keep an open mind.

 

[RockNSake]

Date: 9/30/2009 7:22:39 AM
Author: Lorelei

First one shows promise, the second might be ok but an Idealscope image is needed to check out that angle combo - also as it is said to be h&a images of both hearts and arrows are needed in order to prove this claim.

The third is too deep and can look small for the weight, also we don't have the critical angles for this one but it is a fair assumption that they won't be within desirable range looking at the info on this diamond.

For the first and second diamonds if you could post the star and lower girdle facet percentages too that would be useful, also find out what the grade setting inclusion/s are such as feathers, clouds etc which are noted on the clarity plot for the first SI1 diamond.

The above are all GIA graded I assume?

Thanks for your interest, the Star % is 50% and the lower facet % is 75% for the 1.50 H SI1. There is another number on the GIA report that measures from the girdle to the culet, but offset to the right of the actual culet on the diagram and it is 43%. Girlde is 3% - medium. Culet = none. And the inclusions are just cloud(s) and crystals. The one visable crystal via the loop is not reflecting all over the stone and is not visable with the naked eye. the Idealscope seemed strong/very good-excellent, but I have no pics to post. Also the ASET seemed to be good, to the best of my knowledge.

The %'s on the 1.40 G VS2 are 50% star and 80% lower facet.....

The 1.7x stone is out of the picture....

 

[Lula]

Date: 9/30/2009 8:44:25 AM
Author: RockNSake

Date: 9/29/2009 5:49:08 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Amazing thread RockNSake!!

Yes, yes, and oh yes!


It's been said that an 'ideal' stone will look better if it's dirty.

Of course it is likely true for those that have observed it, in their particular case,

However, although there is anecdotal proof based on some individuals experience, based on a far broader sample of 'Ideal' versus very well cut non ideals, it's simply not the case. We've seen many ideal cuts, as well as well cut non ideals after they have gotten dirty. A great cut won;t help gunk under the diamond.


The tests used to determine 'light return' are by no means accepted by the trade as a whole. Those that don;t find value in them include companies like Harry Winston, and Cartier.

This does not mean HW is right, and those using ASET are wrong. Many buyers base decisions on visual factors over reflector tests.

If you read a lot here, it's easy to believe you need aset to buy a well cut diamond. You do not.

It might be true that a diamond that scores well on ASET is well cut- but it's not true that one that does not score as well is not necessarily as well cut.



Many will, as you have seen- choose a really well cut stone over a higher priced 'Ideal'

For me, this trumps all the arguments about how buying 'Ideal' takes the guesswork out of it. Folks might actually spend a lot more, and get a stone they'd have preferred less if they actually looked.




Of the three stones you posted, the 1.73 has a number that does seem excessive- the 64.2% depth, That will make the stone appear smaller in weight than it is. I don't buy by the numbers- but such a high depth on a colorless round would put me off......


if you love 'Ideal Cut' diamonds, then buy one- use ASET HCA, whatever you love to use.

But your question was is there hype surrounding this subject- and the answer is unquestionably so.

It's important to find out what appeals to you- in many cases, it's a fairly large difference in prices.

For this reason it makes all the sense in the world to look for yourself so you can separate the hype........

This is exactly what I am talking about, and I think this website has alot of great advice/knowledge but I never felt this was really addressed on here. All you hear is cut is king, but I don't think it is that simple, and these optical tests can be misleading and/or confusing at times. I saw plenty of ex cut stones that I thought were not strong visual performers. Keep in mind i'm a beginner, but I thought the two went hand in hand.


For example when looking at a few things with Mark at ERD he was amused by my reliance on these light return tools, he called me a typical pricescoper haha, and just kept emphasizing to let my eyes be the judge, and said he doesn't put as much emphasis on these things. He said you can use it to rule out a very poor performing stone, but these tools and scores are not always perfect. Keep an open mind.

Yeah, well "consider the source" of these comments. RD and Mark at ERD have something to sell you. We don't.

ETA: And I don't know about you, but if Mark said that to me, I'd be a little insulted, because it implies that it's foolish to do any research before buying a big ticket item.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/30/2009 9:02:10 AM
Author: RockNSake

Date: 9/30/2009 7:22:39 AM
Author: Lorelei

First one shows promise, the second might be ok but an Idealscope image is needed to check out that angle combo - also as it is said to be h&a images of both hearts and arrows are needed in order to prove this claim.

The third is too deep and can look small for the weight, also we don't have the critical angles for this one but it is a fair assumption that they won't be within desirable range looking at the info on this diamond.

For the first and second diamonds if you could post the star and lower girdle facet percentages too that would be useful, also find out what the grade setting inclusion/s are such as feathers, clouds etc which are noted on the clarity plot for the first SI1 diamond.

The above are all GIA graded I assume?

Thanks for your interest, the Star % is 50% and the lower facet % is 75% for the 1.50 H SI1. There is another number on the GIA report that measures from the girdle to the culet, but offset to the right of the actual culet on the diagram and it is 43%. Girlde is 3% - medium. Culet = none. And the inclusions are just cloud(s) and crystals. The one visable crystal via the loop is not reflecting all over the stone and is not visable with the naked eye. the Idealscope seemed strong/very good-excellent, but I have no pics to post. Also the ASET seemed to be good, to the best of my knowledge.

The %'s on the 1.40 G VS2 are 50% star and 80% lower facet.....

The 1.7x stone is out of the picture....

You are welcome! The measurements for star and LGF look fine thank you! One more thing, just check as there are clouds on this stone which are setting the SI1 grade by the sound of it, that these aren't impacting brilliance and dulling the diamond a bit, if not then thats fine - check with the seller or an appraiser concerning this.

The same measurements look good on the second diamond too, can you get hearts and arrows images or can the seller show you the patterns if having a h&a diamond is important to you?

 

[RockNSake]

Date: 9/30/2009 9:18:36 AM
Author: sarap333


Yeah, well 'consider the source' of these comments. RD and Mark at ERD have something to sell you. We don't.

ETA: And I don't know about you, but if Mark said that to me, I'd be a little insulted, because it implies that it's foolish to do any research before buying a big ticket item.

First of all, Mark was a very cool guy to work with, and I did not think he was trying to sell me on anything. Working with him was very different than giong to a B&M. It was more like he was trying to educate me, and let me choose for myself. He was more than happy to show me anything w/ the HCA, IS, or ASET or anything else for that matter, and even showed me several examples of what to look for in these tests to better understand them whether they were just average, good, or excellent. I think Mark's point was not to choose a diamond that scores better on HCA or whatever, if a lower scoring stone speaks to you more, especially if it fits your budget better. He said that the HCA was a great tool for interenet shopping, but that its not always perfect and there are stones that are decent performers that would not score excellently on HCA. He also agreed to some extent that you could also have a diamond that performed very well in these tests that doesn't fall into the super ideal/ ex ex ex cut category and that some of these super high performing ideal stones display qualities in these tests that are not even detectable to the naked human eye. So at what point can we say all excellent cut stones are not excellent performers and can be outperformed by lower graded cuts with the right combination of #'s, and that maybe the GIA needs a new/better way to grade these stones?

I also spoke with a man who was a former director for the GIA and had graded thousands of stones over the years tell me that you could have a well put together good or very good cut GIA stone that will visually outperform (or come very close in visual performance) to some strong performing excellent cuts, and would come without the fine cut premium.

Just something to think about and I hope I am not mis-quoting Mark!

 

[RockNSake]

Hey Lorlei

The hearts and arrows looked legit, but I am no expert, and lacked the experience to say how good of an H&A it was, even though it looked really good when glancing at my pricescope reference chart. Combine that with the fact that I would be paying a premium for the H&A branedness, and that I think a VS2 is a waste of $ compared to a strong eye clean SI1, for me. I also felt while the H&A was nice, and my eyes lit up when I first found it, that it wasn''t neccessarily going to outperform other well done non H&A stones. I think its safe to say that stone is out.

As for the first stone''s clarity, the cloud is small and faint, and there is one particular crystal that is keeping this stone from being a weak VS2, and it is off to the side and not interfering much.

Thanks to all who have responded and tried to help out thus far, it is much appreciated.

 

[Lula]

I understand what you're saying RockNSake, and it's obvious that you've done your research. Many posters have pointed out that you can get a beautiful stone that is not a GIA EX or an AGS 0. It may take a bit more investigation on your part.

But I get tired of hearing the "trust your eyes" line.
1) My eyes are not the eyes of an expert and may deceive me (or the lighting in the store or the stars in my eyes due to the emotional nature of the purchase may deceive me).
2) I suspect there is waaaaaaaaay more inventory to move at the poor cut level than at the high cut level, and I imagine the profit margins are higher on the poorly cut stones -- which would you rather sell if you're making a living selling diamonds?
3) Though I have nothing but respect for the folks at GIA and AGS, they do not live with each particular stone they grade in the real world, under various lighting conditions, day after day, like consumers do. As mentioned in an earlier post, I can see the difference in my Crafted by Infinity stones. They are better across the board performers (across lighting conditions) than other stones (others I've owned and comparing them to my friends'). This is something I notice in day-to-day wear that may not be measurable with existing tools; however, that doesn't mean it's not real.
4) As other posters have said, this is your decision, and it's highly subjective. I value superideal cut; others don't.

You and your future fiancee have to live with the stone, so should choose according to your preferences, obviously. But just because you choose to value cut differently than I do doesn't mean that cut quality is "over-hyped." To me, that sounds like something a vendor who has a lot of so-so cut stones to sell would say!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/30/2009 11:49:24 AM
Author: RockNSake
Hey Lorlei

The hearts and arrows looked legit, but I am no expert, and lacked the experience to say how good of an H&A it was, even though it looked really good when glancing at my pricescope reference chart. Combine that with the fact that I would be paying a premium for the H&A branedness, and that I think a VS2 is a waste of $ compared to a strong eye clean SI1, for me. I also felt while the H&A was nice, and my eyes lit up when I first found it, that it wasn''t neccessarily going to outperform other well done non H&A stones. I think its safe to say that stone is out.

As for the first stone''s clarity, the cloud is small and faint, and there is one particular crystal that is keeping this stone from being a weak VS2, and it is off to the side and not interfering much.

Thanks to all who have responded and tried to help out thus far, it is much appreciated.

You are most welcome, sounds like the SI is definitely worth further investigation and it also appears you have also done your homework - well done!!!

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 9/30/2009 11:29:22 AM
Author: RockNSake

Date: 9/30/2009 9:18:36 AM

Author: sarap333

Yeah, well ''consider the source'' of these comments. RD and Mark at ERD have something to sell you. We don''t.

ETA: And I don''t know about you, but if Mark said that to me, I''d be a little insulted, because it implies that it''s foolish to do any research before buying a big ticket item.

First of all, Mark was a very cool guy to work with, and I did not think he was trying to sell me on anything. Working with him was very different than giong to a B&M. It was more like he was trying to educate me, and let me choose for myself. He was more than happy to show me anything w/ the HCA, IS, or ASET or anything else for that matter, and even showed me several examples of what to look for in these tests to better understand them whether they were just average, good, or excellent. I think Mark''s point was not to choose a diamond that scores better on HCA or whatever, if a lower scoring stone speaks to you more, especially if it fits your budget better. He said that the HCA was a great tool for interenet shopping, but that its not always perfect and there are stones that are decent performers that would not score excellently on HCA. He also agreed to some extent that you could also have a diamond that performed very well in these tests that doesn''t fall into the super ideal/ ex ex ex cut category and that some of these super high performing ideal stones display qualities in these tests that are not even detectable to the naked human eye. So at what point can we say all excellent cut stones are not excellent performers and can be outperformed by lower graded cuts with the right combination of #''s, and that maybe the GIA needs a new/better way to grade these stones?

I also spoke with a man who was a former director for the GIA and had graded thousands of stones over the years tell me that you could have a well put together good or very good cut GIA stone that will visually outperform (or come very close in visual performance) to some strong performing excellent cuts, and would come without the fine cut premium.

Just something to think about and I hope I am not mis-quoting Mark!

Because everybody has different preferences and tastes with regards to what they perceive as "pretty" in a diamond, it is important for people to take the time to look at diamonds of different cut quality to determine their preference... Different combinations of proportions will result not only in different levels of visual performance, but also in different types of light return such as more brilliance, more dispersion, more of an overall balance, etc.

If I were to guess, I would say that Mark at ERD is basically saying "hey all the techno geek stuff is great, but set it aside for a moment and just look at the stones..." because in reality we don''t live in a scope. And this statement is coming from a person who likes all the gadgets and uses them in both the buying and selling processes! But understand that when buying online, all a customer has to base a decision on are the scope images, clarity photographs, computerized proportions analysis, opinion of the vendor, etc., but when buying in-person the customer has "all that" and the benefit of "just their eyes" and this is most likely the concept that Mark at ERD was trying to express - I believe this because I think it is the concept "all of us" try to get customers to grasp when we meet with them in-person. Hopefully I''m allowed to make this conceptual ''clarification'' without burning the "thou shall not comment on another vendor" clause of PS (which makes sense) and obviously I can''t read Mark''s mind, but I thought a little insight from the vendor side of the equation might be insightful.

 

[RockNSake]

Hey Sara,

You make some very good points. I appreciate your responses and you looking out for mine and other PS''ers best interests. There is nothing wrong with being cut crazy! I just think to some degree that some of this superideal cut stuff is mental/for peace of mind, simiar to, but not exactly like clarity grades. I can''t trust my novice eyes, thats why i''m on here and usuing these tools/tests, but if its is that difficult for me to discern the differences between two diamonds, than I have to go with what my eyes are telling me. And if my eyes cant tell, than I am going with the cheaper of the 2, hypothetically speaking....

 

[RockNSake]

Todd I think you are right on the money.

 

[glitterata]

RockNSake, I think what you say is very reasonable and sensible. Some people want the super-duper-all-the-bells-and-whistles cut, just the way some people want high clarity or D color. Some people are satisfied with a cut that looks like the superideal to the naked eye, but doesn''t carry the premium. And some people have the luxury of seeing the stones in person and may be able to choose a nonideal that pleases them as much or more.

For my part, I like superideals and antique, hand-cut OECs--there''s something equally romantic to me about the perfection of the superideals and the age and artistry of the antiques, and I love the perfect arrows of the superideals and the broad flashes of the OECs. I like bright white Fs and very low colors (like my S) better than JKLs. (For me Ds aren''t worth it since they look like Fs to my eye.) And I like SI2-I1s--I like to see a nice crystal inclusion in my diamond and find perfect clarity boring.

Different people will have different preferences.

 

[Lula]

RockNSake, Todd, and Glitterata, you all make excellent points.

I don't know Mark at ERD, so I trust your interpretation of what he said and how he meant it.

But at age 50, I'm an "older" PS'er who remembers the bad old days of diamond selling when there was no technology (none available to the consumer anyway), everything was purchased through the "trust your eyes" method, and cut education was defined as choosing the shape you wanted, i.e., round, oval, emerald, etc. There were a lot of women, including me, wearing some bu** ugly (and expensive -- the market is much more price competitive now) diamonds, let me tell you.

However imperfect the evaluation tools, they are better, in my view, than no tools at all, and offer some protection to consumers. For example, vendors who claim that stones are H&A need to provide visual evidence that the stone is indeed an H&A. This is why I can't agree that cut quality is over-rated.

And I agree with you, if you are trying to maximize carat size on a budget, sacrificing a bit on cut quality may be a reasonable option for you. As long as consumers are educated properly (and you seem to be) I obviously have no problem with people prioritizing cut, color, carat, clarity, and cost in a way that makes sense to them.

It's when a vendor tries to take advantage of an uneducated consumer with the "trust your eyes" line that raises a red flag for me.

 

[zabak80]

I'd agree. Trust your eyes in the end. However...

When I "bought" my diamond online, I didn't consider it a purchase until I had it appraised and I looked at it. So even though I had wired the money, I didn't consider it a purchase until I saw it. I more or less put a deposit down on it for me to view it in person.

I had a great experience with Union Diamond, but I made the determination long before buying that I wouldn't take a salesperson's word for a diamond SI1 being "eye clean" so I opted for a minimum of VS2 to be on the safe side. Sure I could have done an SI1, but I didn't want to risk it and have the hassle of returning the diamond and doing the return transaction. Also, the diamond I purchased was I color. An H color obviously would have been better, but the cut is so good (AGS0) that when I compared it to an H or G at Tiffany's, there wasn't a difference. You cannot tell color on it looking straight down on it. The only way is to view it from the side, stare at it for a little bit, and it has to be against a yellow background for it to appear at all yellow. I've learned that vendors are very trustworthy. I would definitely buy and trust an SI1 now.

Don't forget, your eyes can lie to you. Look at all the different optical illusions that are available in books and online. Remember those 3-D art prints that you stared at? Personally, comparing diamonds in a jewelry store is not the best option. There are just too many variables in lighting in real life.

Purchase a diamond and evaluate it by itself. Do you love it? Once you get your diamond, how many times are you going to be comparing it to other diamonds?

My problem was I always wanted to compare it. Like most everyone else, I was on a budget. There will ALWAYS be a diamond better than yours. Accept it. You can wait forever waiting for the "perfect diamond". Heck, I was obsessed with the Pricescope query tool because I was afraid that the perfect diamond would be posted that hour after I bought my diamond. Even after I got my diamond, I would still search.

There is no guarantee that a H&A, AGS0 diamond will sparkle. 99% of the time it will. But that is where the relationship with the vendor comes in. Have them evaluate it based on their experience. They have a reputation to maintain. They want you to have a great experience and get a diamond you are happy with. They would likely lose you as a customer FOREVER if they evaluated a diamond, said it sparkled, and when you got it, looked bland and lifeless.

Bottom line: you and your fiancee need to love the diamond. Whatever or however it takes to make that happen is up to you.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 9/30/2009 4:15:51 PM
Author: sarap333
RockNSake, Todd, and Glitterata, you all make excellent points.

I don''t know Mark at ERD, so I trust your interpretation of what he said and how he meant it.

But at age 50, I''m an ''older'' PS''er who remembers the bad old days of diamond selling when there was no technology (none available to the consumer anyway), everything was purchased through the ''trust your eyes'' method, and cut education was defined as choosing the shape you wanted, i.e., round, oval, emerald, etc. There were a lot of women, including me, wearing some bu** ugly (and expensive -- the market is much more price competitive now) diamonds, let me tell you.

Oh yea, I remember those days... Wait a second, that was just yesterday wasn''t it? Yea, I just got a referral from another jeweler in town who responded to his clients questions pertaining to cut quality and requests to see various diamonds through a scope with "Oh for that kind of thing, you need to go see Todd"

NOT KIDDING

Most jewelry stores still sell on the premise of "isn''t it pretty" (under the jewelry store lights) and this is certainly not the conditions to "trust your eyes" so I hear what you''re saying Sara! But "trusting your eyes" with the benefit of all the tools and information available is an entirely different scenario - the best of both worlds IMO.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!
Just for clarification- I have never spoken to RockNSake...my answers to the posts RockNSake made were given in a desire to share my knowledge. Although we do sell diamonds, it is possible to have a conversation.

It also seems unfair to single to me ( and Mark) out.
After all, other vendors who do use these tools are trying to sell something as well....

It also occurs to me that one would need to "trust their eyes" to read an ASET....

You're welcome RockNSake- sounds like you had a great experience- good for you and Mark!

 

[Lula]

Date: 9/30/2009 6:50:52 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI everyone!

Just for clarification- I have never spoken to RockNSake...my answers to the posts RockNSake made were given in a desire to share my knowledge. Although we do sell diamonds, it is possible to have a conversation.


It also seems unfair to single to me ( and Mark) out.

After all, other vendors who do use these tools are trying to sell something as well....


It also occurs to me that one would need to ''trust their eyes'' to read an ASET....


You''re welcome RockNSake- sounds like you had a great experience- good for you and Mark!

I wasn''t singling you and Mark out, RD; it''s just that the quotes the OP was referring to that I replied to happened to come from two vendors -- and the only two vendors who had posted on this thread at that time were you and the OP''s characterization of his conversations with Mark. Todd didn''t chime in until later.

Sometimes I think new posters give extra weight to what vendors say (the expert factor) and I wanted to point out that a vendor (any vendor) has a profit motive that pro-sumer posters do not have.

And, yes, you''re right, the OP should consider that Todd and the other vendors on PS, too (not just you and Mark), are in the business of selling diamonds.

As for using technologies, you no doubt know from my previous posts on many other threads, that I am a believer in the technologies, especially when they can be used to provide evidence for vendor claims, i.e., hearts images for the claim that a stone is a true H&A.

I know from your previous posts that you''re not the biggest fan of ASET, etc.

Viva la difference, with one caveat: the consumer should make his/her own decision, based on cut education, about how important these technologies are in the purchase of the diamond. If the consumer learns about IS, ASET, optical/physical symmetry, etc., and says, "bah, that stuff is hooey," or, in this case, "I''m not sure I can tell the difference in cut quality," then fine, that''s the customer''s choice.

Where you and I differ -- I think -- is that you feel it''s okay to tell a customer that these technologies are not useful and that "trusting your eyes" trumps the technologies. I think in doing this, a vendor runs the risk of offending a customer and coming off as patronizing. Just my opinion. Please feel free to correct me if I''m mischaracterizing.

That''s why I liked Zabak''s post above -- it was a really nice summary of how to trust (choose a stone with the aid of technology) then verify (with live inspection -- yes, using his eyes!).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 9/30/2009 8:01:08 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 9/30/2009 6:50:52 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI everyone!

Just for clarification- I have never spoken to RockNSake...my answers to the posts RockNSake made were given in a desire to share my knowledge. Although we do sell diamonds, it is possible to have a conversation.


It also seems unfair to single to me ( and Mark) out.

After all, other vendors who do use these tools are trying to sell something as well....


It also occurs to me that one would need to ''trust their eyes'' to read an ASET....


You''re welcome RockNSake- sounds like you had a great experience- good for you and Mark!

I wasn''t singling you and Mark out, RD; it''s just that the quotes the OP was referring to that I replied to happened to come from two vendors -- and the only two vendors who had posted on this thread at that time were you and the OP''s characterization of his conversations with Mark. Todd didn''t chime in until later.

Sometimes I think new posters give extra weight to what vendors say (the expert factor) and I wanted to point out that a vendor (any vendor) has a profit motive that pro-sumer posters do not have.

And, yes, you''re right, the OP should consider that Todd and the other vendors on PS, too (not just you and Mark), are in the business of selling diamonds.

As for using technologies, you no doubt know from my previous posts on many other threads, that I am a believer in the technologies, especially when they can be used to provide evidence for vendor claims, i.e., hearts images for the claim that a stone is a true H&A.

I know from your previous posts that you''re not the biggest fan of ASET, etc.

Viva la difference, with one caveat: the consumer should make his/her own decision, based on cut education, about how important these technologies are in the purchase of the diamond. If the consumer learns about IS, ASET, optical/physical symmetry, etc., and says, ''bah, that stuff is hooey,'' or, in this case, ''I''m not sure I can tell the difference in cut quality,'' then fine, that''s the customer''s choice.

Where you and I differ -- I think -- is that you feel it''s okay to tell a customer that these technologies are not useful and that ''trusting your eyes'' trumps the technologies. I think in doing this, a vendor runs the risk of offending a customer and coming off as patronizing. Just my opinion. Please feel free to correct me if I''m mischaracterizing.

That''s why I liked Zabak''s post above -- it was a really nice summary of how to trust (choose a stone with the aid of technology) then verify (with live inspection -- yes, using his eyes!).

Thanks for making some good points Sara- I do believe we agree on many things.

It''s important to remember, in these conversations- that we''re all of us very passionate about diamonds.
I am.
It''s not simply due to the fact it''s my profession- I truly love what I do.
I mention this because my feelings about the methods used to judge the cut of a diamond are clearly different than many of the other people posting here- as well as many of the other experts.

I speak out, when appropriate, about the differences, I believe they are important. Hopefully a difference of opinion enriches a conversation.

You did mention a difference of opinion you thought we had...but I think we agree. Patronizing someone is never good.
If a potential client calls to ask for an ASET, or IS, of a diamond we are offering, we would provide them.
If the consumer wanted to discuss these technologies, and why we generally do not use them, I certainly would do so honestly, as I do here.

Most consumers don''t generally ask for ASET/IS- it''s rare that they have been requested.
Same for Sarin ( or equivalent) reports. When requested, we''ve gladly complied.

Say a person calls wanting to discuss why the diamond is or is not well cut in greater detail, but does not specifically ask about reflector technologies.
In such a case, I would mention them, no question. This has happened many times.
Kudos to PS for that. Since I''ve spent time here, I am familiar with ASET/IS.

However, I still stand by my point that many of the top traders in the world do not use these tools, nor suggest consumers do so.
In fact, many have never heard of ASET/IS.
The PS community is quite large- but not in relation to the population as a whole. For every trades-person posting here there are hundreds of thousands that do not.
What this means is that there are people selling diamonds not discussing reflector technology because it is not part of their business.
These people may have carried gorgeous diamonds that may or may not do well on ASET/IS while never using ASET/IS.

Without a doubt, a fair percentage of the diamonds sold are more mediocre in nature- specifically regarding cut. It has always been a task to seek out a very high quality merchant- and always will be.

You might think that''s "behind the times"
It really goes to how people look at diamonds.

 

[Lula]

Thanks, RD, for your great post. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you said. I know you are passionate about diamonds; that is clear. And I do agree that a discussion that includes differing viewpoints is a beneficial discussion.

I''ve learned a lot from my short time on PS -- I need to learn a lot more -- and the threads I''ve learned the most from were the ones where some sort of "debate" between vendors and/or pro-sumers was going on. Very informative (and often quite entertaining, I might add!).