Jewelers TALKING DOWN Technology, HCA, Ideal-Scope, Etc??? Are they crooks?

[Ellen]

Date: 8/8/2007 9:52:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Fabulous!!! Absolutely Fabulous Ellen

Thanks Gary, and all! Just funnin, although, with the history between local jewelers and I, and my lack of patience with them now, I''m not so sure how far-fetched that is.

I do hear what you''re saying though.

p.s. I really do know how to spell cylindrical.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/8/2007 6:49:52 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/8/2007 6:19:41 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
We need missionaries if we want to change the world Ellen

what can they do? Call security?

I can just see the headlines now...


A local woman was taken into custody today after becoming embroiled in a heated argument with the owner of a local jeweler. While details are still sketchy at this time, it is believed she had some weapons on her person. Witness''s described 2 small plastic, cylyndrical type devices that were confiscated.

While it is unknown as to why the argument arose, she was overheard yelling something about her ideal assets, which at this time we cannot explain, nor wish to comment on....

Ellen, you are superb!

 

[Ellen]

Thankies mam!

 

[chrono]

I had a good laugh at your imaginary confrontation with the jeweller, Ellen. What a great write-up.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/9/2007 8:41:05 AM
Author: Chrono
I had a good laugh at your imaginary confrontation with the jeweller, Ellen. What a great write-up.

Yeah we need more!!!!

I wonder if she could work in a pie reference somewhere in her news update * which I hope she is working on*???

just kiddin' El!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/9/2007 8:44:02 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/9/2007 8:41:05 AM
Author: Chrono
I had a good laugh at your imaginary confrontation with the jeweller, Ellen. What a great write-up.

Yeah we need more!!!!

I wonder if she could work in a pie reference somewhere in her news update * which I hope she is working on*???

just kiddin'' El!!

lol Thanks Chrono.

And I''m sure if I thought on it, I could get the pie in there, but I better not disrupt this thread anymore.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/9/2007 12:40:52 AM
Author: TheDoctor

But don''t discredit those who discredit the whole techie thing surrounding diamonds which the internet vendors DEPEND ON in order to sell diamonds. Really, what else do they have to go on? Cut criteria is damned important, I agree, but there are plenty of reports of really horrible stones with fantastic cut criteria being sold through the Internet on numbers and a lot of stroking. Yuck.

Backgroud/context please?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/9/2007 9:56:45 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 8/9/2007 12:40:52 AM
Author: TheDoctor

But don''t discredit those who discredit the whole techie thing surrounding diamonds which the internet vendors DEPEND ON in order to sell diamonds. Really, what else do they have to go on? Cut criteria is damned important, I agree, but there are plenty of reports of really horrible stones with fantastic cut criteria being sold through the Internet on numbers and a lot of stroking. Yuck.

Backgroud/context please?

EBay, it happens every day.
PS is not representative of the overall Internet market.

 

[strmrdr]

My favorite Jeweler is skeptical of the whole ideal, super-ideal thing.
He is primarily a benchman and just doesn''t care about it.
If someone wants something other than the usual lowest cost he will order in a LK.
99.99% of his business is a b2b benchman setting others diamonds and he is excellent at it and will set Internet stones for consumers so in my book he rocks.
So NO.
Someone that doesn''t care about the whole cut cult might not be a crook.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/9/2007 2:47:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/9/2007 9:56:45 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 8/9/2007 12:40:52 AM
Author: TheDoctor

But don''t discredit those who discredit the whole techie thing surrounding diamonds which the internet vendors DEPEND ON in order to sell diamonds. Really, what else do they have to go on? Cut criteria is damned important, I agree, but there are plenty of reports of really horrible stones with fantastic cut criteria being sold through the Internet on numbers and a lot of stroking. Yuck.

Backgroud/context please?

EBay, it happens every day.
PS is not representative of the overall Internet market.

Sorry, Doctor or Storm...still not getting it.

Is the point that the paper looks good, but the diamond does not?

What''s being described?

 

[oldminer]

I think you can take the arguement too far with excellent cut criteria being commonly found in ugly stones. Certainly, in unusual cases, a cutter may make a diamond with the best possible criteria and not get a superb looking result. This is due to the rough being difficult to cut, or bad decision making. The general situation is that beautiful diamonds of each shape have ranges of cut criteria that can readily be defined. The criteria must work together to make a fine result. You can go out of your way to cut all fine criteria that are at varying limits of parameters which do not work well together, but you''d have to be foolish to do it that way on purpose. THe whole purpose of cutting is to create something beautiful while remaining affordable.

Experienced cutters don''t combine parameters which fail to work well with eachother whenever possible. We know from the old AGS 0 round diamond system that cutters found very deep AGS 0 combinations that gave them the needed "ideal" rating, high weight retention, yet produced only a fair looking end result. There is a market for these, but it is not among knowledgeable consumers.

 

[elmo]

Except for some reservations with the statement that's being debated now, I agree with what David Keeling/TheDoctor is saying. An experienced dealer with a good eye doesn't need to use these tools for purchasing great stones for his inventory. The tools are for communicating aspects of performance with distance customers, and for gaining understanding about why something performs well. Traditionally, a customer would trust the dealer to select great stones. I think that's still a very valid business model. Now though a customer may ask this local dealer to demonstrate that his stones perform as well as similar ones found online at a somewhat lower price. It is clearly up to the traditional dealer to have a good answer for that sort of question. But I don't think it requires that he compete using the same tools to do this. Killer stones, nice metalwork, fair prices, and good customer service will do that very well.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/9/2007 3:58:22 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Sorry, Doctor or Storm...still not getting it.

Is the point that the paper looks good, but the diamond does not?

What''s being described?

sample:
The table is 55% and the depth is 61% therefor it is a ''exellent/ideal cut'' and the xzy-fraudexpressLab rates it a D/IF.

 

[Regular Guy]

Storm, the boxes were beginning to get a little thick, but you''ve Xed out the main point, which you agreed to. Doctor said:

"there are plenty of reports of really horrible stones with fantastic cut criteria being sold through the Internet on numbers and a lot of stroking."

Good table and depth do not make for "fantastic cut criteria." Anyone can spread misunderstanding. This was not, I don''t think, Doctor''s point. Dave was agreeing more or less with doctor, which -- without details for the basis of this -- is not too helpful.

Conventional info, pointing to not only favorable depth & table info, but also favorable crown & pavilion info, and info about symmetry...probably goes a long way. Add in the additional info we like to see, including reflector images. etc. and this starts resembling "fantastic cut criteria," in which case, the question returns to...how do you end up with a "horrible stone" out of this.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I don''t think he has commented again right? maybe he was talking about low clarity and color diamonds, perhaps even a number with large % cloud cover that are being stroked because of their excellent cut criteria--angles and so on, which even though being ideal proportions might often be less than desirable diamonds. As was recently discussed in some other threads? or perhaps not.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/9/2007 8:13:02 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
I don''t think he has commented again right? maybe he was talking about low clarity and color diamonds, perhaps even a number with large % cloud cover that are being stroked because of their excellent cut criteria--angles and so on, which even though being ideal proportions might often be less than desirable diamonds. As was recently discussed in some other threads? or perhaps not.

Working, the clouds issue for SI (only) stones...I take to be at this point a controversial topic...and without specificity, I would not grant, without Doctor saying so, this is what they mean.

Your point makes me think of the now very old Saturday Night Live skit...where the guys were waiting in line to make a claim. The couple in front of them were overheard to say they had stolen golf clubs in their trunk. When they got in line next, and were asked what was stolen, they said: "Golf Clubs."

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

sorry, I only intended that to be an example. my point was that he might dislike some of the lower clarity grades, or color grades, for various reasons--one possible reason being similar to that of a recent discussion, but all of that is theoretical, just as is all of the above as he himself has yet to comment again.

But it makes sense to me since he said excellent cut criteria but yucky diamonds. What else is there left to make a diamond yucky when the cut is excellent? price? ct? probably not those, so, the only potentially yucky elements left to stroke would be

color and clarity.

Why color and clarity? I was just Just giving one possibility intended to tie directly into recent conversation. Or perhaps he feels that color is much more apparent than many make it to be here, or that SI-2 and many SI1 type inclusions are much more significant than we make them out to be here oftentimes, or perhaps it was just a bad day and he likes really high quality diamonds for himself, and so let it be known very vocally and emotionally. regardless, I can't see many other logical rationale for his comments and am just awaiting some clarification but if it never comes I'll be happy enough anyway

Of course, perhaps he was talking about shapes that are more difficult to evaluate based on numbers alone, shapes that truly need to be seen but are being stroke at having "excellent cut criteria" when in those particular diamonds making determinations by numbers is meaningless. I am really not sure.

some final thoughts, the cloud topic would relevant with Included diamonds as well

don't forget them, also, I would prefer it if you didn't make somewhat insulting comments/connections about me.

however uneducated and presumptuous some of my comments might be.