shape
carat
color
clarity

our own John Pollard in a AGS podcast advertisement

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Anyway enough fun...

Yes AGS's type of Ideal cut or one that its software gives good marks to is a fairly safe bet.
But it is not the only one and to lose sight of that the consumers will lose a lot.
I love well cut RB's and they have a place on the market but lets leave room for other designs.
What this thread comes down to is some believe that the cut grades limit choice and creativity and some believe that it don't.
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 4:32:16 PM
Author: strmrdr


I mainly did this for fun but it does show why limiting diamond design in a box is a bad thing.
If everyone wants THE Ideal cut there is no room for designs like this one.
I asked myself how deep could I design a diamond that was high performance and beautiful.
Talk Paul into cutting one and you can have it :}
With all seriousness, Karl, I knew the question was loaded.
2.gif


I don''t disagree that other cuts may be beautiful that fall outside the AGS0 label.

What I disagree with is the notion that the existence of the AGS0 grading report actually stifles innovation. It doesn''t. It doesn''t say "all diamonds that aren''t AGS0 aren''t beautiful"; it simply says ''this is our opinion of a top-make stone''.

Innovation comes when those who believe in a product are willing to do whatever it takes to fund the production of enough samples to create demand in the marketplace. When the marketplace wants to pay for it and enough people want it to make it worth a cutter''s while economically to cut, it will happen.

I know someone who is into long distance target shooting. On their forum, several contributors lamented the lack of desired features for rifle scopes among the already offered products. Several of them built a ''wish-list'' of things they''d like to have in a scope. They approached a scope manufacturer, who said "this is how many I''d need to produce to make it a worthwhile endeavor for me.'' Once they had enough people committed to buy, the manufacturer produced a run of them. Those buyers'' raved about the end result, and that testimonial created enough demand to create a second run. Now that manufacturer has added the scope to his line of offerings.

When it was economically worthwhile to the manufacturer, he produced them, even though they wouldn''t bear the name of the ''big boy'' scope name. Didn''t seem to matter......just as the existence of AGS0 grading reports for rounds didn''t stop enough people in the market from wanting princess stones.
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 4:43:46 PM
Author: strmrdr
Anyway enough fun...

Yes AGS''s type of Ideal cut or one that its software gives good marks to is a fairly safe bet.
But it is not the only one and to lose sight of that the consumers will lose a lot.
I love well cut RB''s and they have a place on the market but lets leave room for other designs.
What this thread comes down to is some believe that the cut grades limit choice and creativity and some believe that it don''t.
Amen.

I agree that ''it''s not the only flavor'', and I think most people who support AGS0 grading reports would already acknowledge that and agree with that, too.

Agreeing that there is more than one flavor besides vanilla doesn''t diminish the respect for one who wants to distinguish what true ''madagascar vanilla'' is.
2.gif
 

jasontb

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
226
Date: 8/20/2008 5:12:33 PM
Author: Allison D.

Agreeing that there is more than one flavor besides vanilla doesn''t diminish the respect for one who wants to distinguish what true ''madagascar vanilla'' is.
2.gif

"There is only one true Madagascar vanilla" is not the same as "Madagascar vanilla is the only true vanilla"
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
Date: 8/20/2008 3:29:40 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/20/2008 2:26:16 PM
Author: DiaGem



Date: 8/19/2008 3:54:37 PM
Author: Allison D.


Therein lies the real problem.

I think, Diagem, that YOU think the market would want tons of other options.....if only those options were available. I have to somewhat disagree.

Alj..., maybe in your neck of the woods you might be correct..., but the world is much larger (than you might think) and I will disagree with your narrow way of looking at the market!
2.gif
DiaGem.....with due respect, since AGS/GIA happen to play IN ''my neck of the woods'', it makes sense that they''d develop information/tools that apply to ''my neck of the woods.''
2.gif


That’s not the argument! That’s not even (AGS/GIA) their agenda…

I agree with you that what flies outside the U.S. might be far broader/bolder than what flies within, but if that''s your argument, then why the heck are you blaming grading reports from an American lab for stifling a world-wide market for other shapes? Heck, most of the people WITHIN the U.S. don''t even know that AGS exists.....I''d imagine that percentage drops even more considerably for non-U.S. consumer markets.

Again…, wrong argument…, I am not blaming any Labs…, US based or world based (I don’t fully agree with some of their system either)…, I am blaming the fact that due to the Ideal cut parameters AGS marked, cutters take advantage and cut the BEST/MOST BEAUTIFUL Diamonds (BUT an extremely narrow and limited range even though a much wider range is acceptable by the AGS) , vendors and jewelers take advantage and market (with the help of the tools “in your neck of the woods”) these VERY limited BUT BEAUTIFUL Diamonds as “the BEST Diamond a consumer can buy”, and as the “new quality benchmark for BEAUTY…”, and the “…ONLY WAY to be sure or certain you have something special… stick with AGS Ideal…”

Get the picture..., or do I need to re-sharpen my English (which unfortunately is not my first language...)


You can''t have your cake and eat it too. If you''re saying that U.S. grading labs are influencing demand (or lack thereof) for other cuts, then the U.S. market (which drives the U.S. lab) has relevance. If you''re arguing that the *majority* of the world outside the U.S. *does* want/demand other cuts and is willing to pony up the $$ for them, it''s hard to imagine how a national lab in the U.S. would have the power override the inherent economic incentive that non-U.S. demand would represent.

IF there were a significant demand outside the U.S. for other shapes (as you seem to be claiming there is) AND that demand represented an economic win for cutter, they''d be cutting for it. If they aren''t, I have to imagine it''s because there''s not enough MONEY in it for them. What people WANT and what they are willing to PAY FOR are sometimes different things.




Date: 8/20/2008 2:26:16 PM
Author: DiaGem



Alj..., question for ya..., do you classify a Princess cut as a ''Classic'' shaped Diamond? Secondly..., with all do respect to PriceScope traffic..., its still a drop in the Ocean if compared to the jewelry/Diamond consumer world...
No, actually, I don''t consider a Princess cut as classic. Yet apparently, there has been enough demand for that cut to make it economically worthwhile for cutters to produce it, right? Oh, and let''s point out........princess cuts were in demand because the *MARKET* liked them/wanted them/were willing to PAY for them.

I am surprised you said that…, no particular reason…, just surprised.

All of that, by the way, happened well before AGS offered an AGS0 grade for princess stones and only offered grading reports for rounds.
9.gif
By your argument (American lab calling certain shapes ideal stifles innovation of other cuts), that should never have been possible because after all, AGS0 was touting only round stones as ''ideal''. How, then, did it become worthwhile to cut princess stones despite not having the ''ideal'' label from AGS??????? Because there were enough people willing to PAY for them, and that made it economically worthwhile for cutters to produce them.

I notice "stifles" is a new word used numerous times lately..., (I had to look the meaning up in the dictionary...
9.gif
)
But again..., not my argument…, I agree with it…, but its not my argument…
My argument is that I don’t think good, experienced and honest professionals should show the other’s bad to justify their good!



The market demand wasn''t shaped by a lab report (or lack thereof); it was shaped because enough people saw them, liked them, and were willing to buy them. Same holds true for other innovative cuts.

If you''re going to blame labels, you should be blaming MARKETING labels. It''s easy to see why a gal might want a diamond called PRINCESS. I don''t think most gals consider the terms ASSCHER
23.gif
or Emerald to imply romantic connotations.
2.gif


Where am I blaming labels??? I guess you are out of focus regarding my arguments completely…, I am arguing the techniques/ways used to MARKET the labels…
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,422
Date: 8/20/2008 5:09:29 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/20/2008 4:32:16 PM
Author: strmrdr


I mainly did this for fun but it does show why limiting diamond design in a box is a bad thing.
If everyone wants THE Ideal cut there is no room for designs like this one.
I asked myself how deep could I design a diamond that was high performance and beautiful.
Talk Paul into cutting one and you can have it :}
With all seriousness, Karl, I knew the question was loaded.
2.gif


I don''t disagree that other cuts may be beautiful that fall outside the AGS0 label.

What I disagree with is the notion that the existence of the AGS0 grading report actually stifles innovation. It doesn''t. It doesn''t say ''all diamonds that aren''t AGS0 aren''t beautiful''; it simply says ''this is our opinion of a top-make stone''.

Innovation comes when those who believe in a product are willing to do whatever it takes to fund the production of enough samples to create demand in the marketplace. When the marketplace wants to pay for it and enough people want it to make it worth a cutter''s while economically to cut, it will happen.

I know someone who is into long distance target shooting. On their forum, several contributors lamented the lack of desired features for rifle scopes among the already offered products. Several of them built a ''wish-list'' of things they''d like to have in a scope. They approached a scope manufacturer, who said ''this is how many I''d need to produce to make it a worthwhile endeavor for me.'' Once they had enough people committed to buy, the manufacturer produced a run of them. Those buyers'' raved about the end result, and that testimonial created enough demand to create a second run. Now that manufacturer has added the scope to his line of offerings.

When it was economically worthwhile to the manufacturer, he produced them, even though they wouldn''t bear the name of the ''big boy'' scope name. Didn''t seem to matter......just as the existence of AGS0 grading reports for rounds didn''t stop enough people in the market from wanting princess stones.
Allison, pifle I say, pifle.
11.gif

The history of our industry shows your example is irrelevant
14.gif


It was probably a normal rational development, but it is now time for our industry to behave like a normal one - not a closed book cottage industry.


DiaGem - your posts inside posts are illegible - try segmenting them up. You can hit quote button 3 times and get 3 sets of quotes, then delete bits that are irrelevant
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,620
Date: 8/20/2008 5:09:29 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/20/2008 4:32:16 PM
Author: strmrdr


I mainly did this for fun but it does show why limiting diamond design in a box is a bad thing.
If everyone wants THE Ideal cut there is no room for designs like this one.
I asked myself how deep could I design a diamond that was high performance and beautiful.
Talk Paul into cutting one and you can have it :}
With all seriousness, Karl, I knew the question was loaded.
2.gif


I don''t disagree that other cuts may be beautiful that fall outside the AGS0 label.

What I disagree with is the notion that the existence of the AGS0 grading report actually stifles innovation. It doesn''t. It doesn''t say ''all diamonds that aren''t AGS0 aren''t beautiful''; it simply says ''this is our opinion of a top-make stone''.

Innovation comes when those who believe in a product are willing to do whatever it takes to fund the production of enough samples to create demand in the marketplace. When the marketplace wants to pay for it and enough people want it to make it worth a cutter''s while economically to cut, it will happen.

I know someone who is into long distance target shooting. On their forum, several contributors lamented the lack of desired features for rifle scopes among the already offered products. Several of them built a ''wish-list'' of things they''d like to have in a scope. They approached a scope manufacturer, who said ''this is how many I''d need to produce to make it a worthwhile endeavor for me.'' Once they had enough people committed to buy, the manufacturer produced a run of them. Those buyers'' raved about the end result, and that testimonial created enough demand to create a second run. Now that manufacturer has added the scope to his line of offerings.

When it was economically worthwhile to the manufacturer, he produced them, even though they wouldn''t bear the name of the ''big boy'' scope name. Didn''t seem to matter......just as the existence of AGS0 grading reports for rounds didn''t stop enough people in the market from wanting princess stones.

re:What I disagree with is the notion that the existence of the AGS0 grading report actually stifles innovation. It doesn''t. It doesn''t say ''all diamonds that aren''t AGS0 aren''t beautiful''; it simply says ''this is our opinion of a top-make stone''.

Innovation comes when those who believe in a product are willing to do whatever it takes to fund the production of enough samples to create demand in the marketplace.

AGS000 promotion changes demand. It is simple point what you do not like accept or see
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,620
Date: 8/20/2008 5:29:09 PM
Author: DiaGem


Date: 8/20/2008 3:29:40 PM
Author: Allison D.



Date: 8/20/2008 2:26:16 PM
Author: DiaGem





Date: 8/19/2008 3:54:37 PM
Author: Allison D.


Therein lies the real problem.

I think, Diagem, that YOU think the market would want tons of other options.....if only those options were available. I have to somewhat disagree.

Alj..., maybe in your neck of the woods you might be correct..., but the world is much larger (than you might think) and I will disagree with your narrow way of looking at the market!
2.gif
DiaGem.....with due respect, since AGS/GIA happen to play IN 'my neck of the woods', it makes sense that they'd develop information/tools that apply to 'my neck of the woods.'
2.gif


That’s not the argument! That’s not even (AGS/GIA) their agenda…

I agree with you that what flies outside the U.S. might be far broader/bolder than what flies within, but if that's your argument, then why the heck are you blaming grading reports from an American lab for stifling a world-wide market for other shapes? Heck, most of the people WITHIN the U.S. don't even know that AGS exists.....I'd imagine that percentage drops even more considerably for non-U.S. consumer markets.

Again…, wrong argument…, I am not blaming any Labs…, US based or world based (I don’t fully agree with some of their system either)…, I am blaming the fact that due to the Ideal cut parameters AGS marked, cutters take advantage and cut the BEST/MOST BEAUTIFUL Diamonds (BUT an extremely narrow and limited range even though a much wider range is acceptable by the AGS) , vendors and jewelers take advantage and market (with the help of the tools “in your neck of the woods”) these VERY limited BUT BEAUTIFUL Diamonds as “the BEST Diamond a consumer can buy”, and as the “new quality benchmark for BEAUTY…”, and the “…ONLY WAY to be sure or certain you have something special… stick with AGS Ideal…”

Get the picture..., or do I need to re-sharpen my English (which unfortunately is not my first language...)


You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're saying that U.S. grading labs are influencing demand (or lack thereof) for other cuts, then the U.S. market (which drives the U.S. lab) has relevance. If you're arguing that the *majority* of the world outside the U.S. *does* want/demand other cuts and is willing to pony up the $$ for them, it's hard to imagine how a national lab in the U.S. would have the power override the inherent economic incentive that non-U.S. demand would represent.

IF there were a significant demand outside the U.S. for other shapes (as you seem to be claiming there is) AND that demand represented an economic win for cutter, they'd be cutting for it. If they aren't, I have to imagine it's because there's not enough MONEY in it for them. What people WANT and what they are willing to PAY FOR are sometimes different things.






Date: 8/20/2008 2:26:16 PM
Author: DiaGem





Alj..., question for ya..., do you classify a Princess cut as a 'Classic' shaped Diamond? Secondly..., with all do respect to PriceScope traffic..., its still a drop in the Ocean if compared to the jewelry/Diamond consumer world...
No, actually, I don't consider a Princess cut as classic. Yet apparently, there has been enough demand for that cut to make it economically worthwhile for cutters to produce it, right? Oh, and let's point out........princess cuts were in demand because the *MARKET* liked them/wanted them/were willing to PAY for them.

I am surprised you said that…, no particular reason…, just surprised.

All of that, by the way, happened well before AGS offered an AGS0 grade for princess stones and only offered grading reports for rounds.
9.gif
By your argument (American lab calling certain shapes ideal stifles innovation of other cuts), that should never have been possible because after all, AGS0 was touting only round stones as 'ideal'. How, then, did it become worthwhile to cut princess stones despite not having the 'ideal' label from AGS??????? Because there were enough people willing to PAY for them, and that made it economically worthwhile for cutters to produce them.

I notice 'stifles' is a new word used numerous times lately..., (I had to look the meaning up in the dictionary...
9.gif
)
But again..., not my argument…, I agree with it…, but its not my argument…
My argument is that I don’t think good, experienced and honest professionals should show the other’s bad to justify their good!



The market demand wasn't shaped by a lab report (or lack thereof); it was shaped because enough people saw them, liked them, and were willing to buy them. Same holds true for other innovative cuts.

If you're going to blame labels, you should be blaming MARKETING labels. It's easy to see why a gal might want a diamond called PRINCESS. I don't think most gals consider the terms ASSCHER
23.gif
or Emerald to imply romantic connotations.
2.gif


Where am I blaming labels??? I guess you are out of focus regarding my arguments completely…, I am arguing the techniques/ways used to MARKET the labels…

re:
Where am I blaming labels??? I guess you are out of focus regarding my arguments completely…, I am arguing the techniques/ways used to MARKET the labels


Good point. Not only Allison has such misinterpretation in WF.

Allison,

We do not attack H&A, AGS, WF
our point what current marketing Ideal diamonds is misleading for consumers and dangerous for diamond market

Before you continuo could you please account this difference ? Just it



I do not like lost more my time in such type discussions. May be your posts in PS is part your job, but it is not job for me, Diagem, Strdmr
Please give a little bit respect to our time and statements, please do not do such misinterpretation our statements
We need time to our business m we can not live in PS . At least I can not do it.

I happy discuss with you if you understand but disagree with our primary statements.

Thank you

 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 5:28:26 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 8/20/2008 5:12:33 PM
Author: Allison D.

Agreeing that there is more than one flavor besides vanilla doesn''t diminish the respect for one who wants to distinguish what true ''madagascar vanilla'' is.
2.gif

''There is only one true Madagascar vanilla'' is not the same as ''Madagascar vanilla is the only true vanilla''
Jason, I''m extremely flattered at the attention I''m getting from you, but I honestly don''t understand why you seem fixated on my contributions.
2.gif


Beyond that, I agree that there is not only one true ideal. There is only one true AGS-Ideal. We AGREE on that.

That said, I agree with AGS'' position of saying "not all ideals are AGS-Ideals" and explaining the differences. It''s like saying, ''sure, there are several kinds of vanilla, but only vanillas made with real vanilla beans can be called Vanilla Bean Vanilla.''
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 5:29:09 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/20/2008 3:29:40 PM
Author: Allison D.


Date: 8/20/2008 2:26:16 PM
Author: DiaGem

Again…, wrong argument…, I am not blaming any Labs…, US based or world based (I don’t fully agree with some of their system either)…, I am blaming the fact that due to the Ideal cut parameters AGS marked, cutters take advantage and cut the BEST/MOST BEAUTIFUL Diamonds (BUT an extremely narrow and limited range even though a much wider range is acceptable by the AGS) , vendors and jewelers take advantage and market (with the help of the tools “in your neck of the woods”) these VERY limited BUT BEAUTIFUL Diamonds as “the BEST Diamond a consumer can buy”, and as the “new quality benchmark for BEAUTY…”, and the “…ONLY WAY to be sure or certain you have something special… stick with AGS Ideal…”

Get the picture..., or do I need to re-sharpen my English (which unfortunately is not my first language...)
So because an otherwise worthy set of standards (AGS Ideal parameters) has the potential for spin/marketing by others with vested interests (to help them sell their wares), the standards should be abolished?

Because if that''s not what you''re saying, then you''re just complaining that some people are smarter at marketing their products than others. If that''s the case, I have no sympathy. If you think there is a market for the other shapes, then it''s up to you to market them to the appropriate audiences. I don''t think others should have to subsidize that effort for you by being handicapped in presenting what THEY believe in.


Date: 8/20/2008 5:29:09 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/20/2008 3:29:40 PM
Author: Allison D.


My argument is that I don’t think good, experienced and honest professionals should show the other’s bad to justify their good!


..........I am arguing the techniques/ways used to MARKET the labels…
I''ve been in sales my entire adult life, so I can say with certainty that most successful sales efforts come by highlighting what you think is special about your product, not by tearing apart someone else''s product. Basis of comparison has ALWAYS been a way of making those distinctions....compare this with that and see the features of my product that I think are superior.

I don''t expect that to readily change, nor do I necessarily think it should.
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 5:47:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/20/2008 5:09:29 PM
Author: Allison D.


Date: 8/20/2008 4:32:16 PM
Author: strmrdr


I mainly did this for fun but it does show why limiting diamond design in a box is a bad thing.
If everyone wants THE Ideal cut there is no room for designs like this one.
I asked myself how deep could I design a diamond that was high performance and beautiful.
Talk Paul into cutting one and you can have it :}
With all seriousness, Karl, I knew the question was loaded.
2.gif


I don''t disagree that other cuts may be beautiful that fall outside the AGS0 label.

What I disagree with is the notion that the existence of the AGS0 grading report actually stifles innovation. It doesn''t. It doesn''t say ''all diamonds that aren''t AGS0 aren''t beautiful''; it simply says ''this is our opinion of a top-make stone''.

Innovation comes when those who believe in a product are willing to do whatever it takes to fund the production of enough samples to create demand in the marketplace. When the marketplace wants to pay for it and enough people want it to make it worth a cutter''s while economically to cut, it will happen.

I know someone who is into long distance target shooting. On their forum, several contributors lamented the lack of desired features for rifle scopes among the already offered products. Several of them built a ''wish-list'' of things they''d like to have in a scope. They approached a scope manufacturer, who said ''this is how many I''d need to produce to make it a worthwhile endeavor for me.'' Once they had enough people committed to buy, the manufacturer produced a run of them. Those buyers'' raved about the end result, and that testimonial created enough demand to create a second run. Now that manufacturer has added the scope to his line of offerings.

When it was economically worthwhile to the manufacturer, he produced them, even though they wouldn''t bear the name of the ''big boy'' scope name. Didn''t seem to matter......just as the existence of AGS0 grading reports for rounds didn''t stop enough people in the market from wanting princess stones.
Allison, pifle I say, pifle.
11.gif

The history of our industry shows your example is irrelevant
14.gif
33.gif
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/20/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: Serg



Good point. Not only Allison has such misinterpretation in WF.
I don't understand your implication here, Serg?



Date: 8/20/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: Serg

Allison,

We do not attack H&A, AGS, WF
Serg.....I never took anything in this thread to be an attack on Whiteflash. Why would you think otherwise?



Date: 8/20/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: Serg



our point what current marketing Ideal diamonds is misleading for consumers and dangerous for diamond market

I understand that's your point, but I disagree that the current marketing of ideal diamonds is a more serious or immediate consumer threat than unscrupulous vendors trying to suggest that dead, small-for-their-weight, lifeless diamonds are on par with top-make stones.



Date: 8/20/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: Serg



Before you continuo could you please account this difference ? Just it

I'm sorry, Serg - I don't understand this comment?



Date: 8/20/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: Serg



I do not like lost more my time in such type discussions. May be your posts in PS is part your job, but it is not job for me, Diagem, Strdmr
Please give a little bit respect to our time and statements, please do not do such misinterpretation our statements
We need time to our business m we can not live in PS . At least I can not do it.
For the record, Serg, I work PART-TIME for Whiteflash. I have another VERY FULL TIME job on top of that. If you think I"m participating in this discussion for the sheer purpose of wasting your time, think again. I'm trying to contribute in a meaningful way to this discussion out of personal interest, and I don't appreciate your inference otherwise.

If you feel your time is better spent on your business, then spend it there. Participation in this discussion is voluntary. If you do want to continue participating, and you feel I'm misinterpreting your intent, then explain it better. I'm not trying to 'misinterpret' your intent deliberately, but you're not being especially clear........at least to me.
 

jasontb

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
226
Date: 8/20/2008 10:12:42 PM
Author: Allison D.

Jason, I''m extremely flattered at the attention I''m getting from you, but I honestly don''t understand why you seem fixated on my contributions.
2.gif

Ah, you flatter yourself. It is not you I am drawn to. I am drawn to weak and potentially misleading analogies.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,422
Date: 8/20/2008 10:32:46 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/20/2008 5:47:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Allison, pifle I say, pifle.
11.gif

The history of our industry shows your example is irrelevant
14.gif
33.gif
So I have 2 icon''s and you have only 1 Allison. I win 2:1 and raise you
9.gif


I speak on Sergey''s behalf at risk of death, but he is playing the ball, not the man (or woman in your case). He will change his opinion if you win the debate. Although he is very hard to beat.
Personanlly I have found it is worth the while to understand him, and if you believe you have a better arguement, to pursue and persist because you either:
win
or
loose and learn
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 298px">Date: 8/20/2008 10:31:21 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/20/2008 5:29:09 PM
Author: DiaGem


I am blaming the fact that due to the Ideal cut parameters AGS marked, cutters take advantage and cut the BEST/MOST BEAUTIFUL Diamonds (BUT an extremely narrow and limited range even though a much wider range is acceptable by the AGS) , vendors and jewelers take advantage and market (with the help of the tools “in your neck of the woods”) these VERY limited BUT BEAUTIFUL Diamonds as “the BEST Diamond a consumer can buy”, and as the “new quality benchmark for BEAUTY…”, and the “…ONLY WAY to be sure or certain you have something special… stick with AGS Ideal…”

So because an otherwise worthy set of standards (AGS Ideal parameters) has the potential for spin/marketing by others with vested interests (to help them sell their wares), the standards should be abolished?

Again..., not my argument!
Date: 8/20/2008 10:31:21 PM
Author: Allison D.


Because if that''s not what you''re saying, then you''re just complaining that some people are smarter at marketing their products than others. If that''s the case, I have no sympathy. If you think there is a market for the other shapes, then it''s up to you to market them to the appropriate audiences. I don''t think others should have to subsidize that effort for you by being handicapped in presenting what THEY believe in.

You can call it smarter..., I call it taking advantage of the situation by offering consumers only a fraction of a segment that is within the (in this case) AGS 0 range of possibilities!
Alj..., I am not even talking about "other shapes" (unlike you
2.gif
), what I am saying is:

In rounds for example I understand the range for AGS 0 cut grade achievement is smaller/narrower than in fancy cuts..., for the sake of this argument "Princess Cuts"...

I could be wrong in my assumption, and if I am (wrong), then rounds should be included in my argument as well (but I am realy not so familiar with that segment)! I believe Strmrd has a great point showing that rounds actually have a "much" wider range than AGS''s limited vision and research on potentially well cut beautiful round Diamonds in which they offer the magic *0* grade.

But when it comes to fancy (Princess in this case) cuts which is my ''neck of the woods''
1.gif
, the range for achieving the AGS 0 grade is much wider than the large majority I see being offered to the consumers, so if you call it "smarter marketing" to offer and educate the consumer very limited types of beautiful fancy cut Diamonds (in this case Princess cuts) then I think I am out of words!
7.gif


Thats why when John P asked me a few pages ago the following:

"If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance?
Same question with rounds."

My answer was:

"See John...., (and I am surprised as you have learned some of of ways of thinking already...)...., your meaning of "highest cut quality and overall performance" is not the same as my meaning..., I would never "take delivery" of any Princess or modern "high performance" rounds as I wouldnt know what to do with them..., I guess I could walk into a colleague''s office of mine and sell the lot as-is at the current market price..., but then your question would mean the same to me if you added 100 Kilo''s of gold to the mix (or any other commodity)...

But if you would make me make a decision (please dont point...)..., I would definitely go with the GIA Princess cuts or rounds..., why??? Because I would have a greater range of beauties rather than an assembly line production of AGS 0''s... (sorry, but thats the way I feel and think...)


I asked you previously what the AGS 0 Princess TD''s ranges are and you replied (I think) 55-80%..., can you then explain to me why would I settle for 100 AGS 0 princess cuts that only range between 74-80% +/-???..., I maybe wrong..., but I have not seen (yet) an AGS 0 Princess with a depth of 55-65%..., I am pretty certain that at-least a significant portion of GIA Princess cuts (especially in the good - Ex range) would fall into that TD% range..., and my opinion is that I will have an assortment of prettier Diamonds than the AGS''s way...


hummm..., surprised? "


Date: 8/20/2008 10:31:21 PM
Author: Allison D.


I''ve been in sales my entire adult life, so I can say with certainty that most successful sales efforts come by highlighting what you think is special about your product, not by tearing apart someone else''s product. Basis of comparison has ALWAYS been a way of making those distinctions....compare this with that and see the features of my product that I think are superior.

I don''t expect that to readily change, nor do I necessarily think it should.
I agree with you on your thoughts about "sales efforts come by highlighting what you think is special about your product."

But unfortunately I cant seem to NOT notice the excessive usage of "...tearing apart someone else''s product." let alone notice the labeling of the competition in a bad light! (its not aimed at you personally so please dont blow-up at me...
17.gif
)

I strongly believe that showing the other side as "crooks" (and some could be as in every industry
29.gif
) or "advantage takers"..., will stain even the best most reputable vendors/jewelers in the short and long run!

This type of attempts MUST change and stop FAST! It is hurting us all!
38.gif







 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,422

Guys AGS does not even have a limited range - it is a very wide range.


Have you ever seen a 47% table AGS round? It is possible to make it (may not be easy though)


The reason is BECAUSE of AGS ideal Tolkowsky perception. None of the retailers would "buy it" - why? That, dear Watson, that is the problem.

 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/21/2008 1:41:40 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/20/2008 10:32:46 PM
Author: Allison D.


Date: 8/20/2008 5:47:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Allison, pifle I say, pifle.
11.gif

The history of our industry shows your example is irrelevant
14.gif
33.gif
So I have 2 icon''s and you have only 1 Allison. I win 2:1 and raise you
9.gif


I speak on Sergey''s behalf at risk of death, but he is playing the ball, not the man (or woman in your case). He will change his opinion if you win the debate. Although he is very hard to beat.
Personanlly I have found it is worth the while to understand him, and if you believe you have a better arguement, to pursue and persist because you either:
win
or
loose and learn
Garry, you have two icons??? and I have one? HUH?

FOR ME, the point of exchange of ideas is to understand each other''s point of view, not to "win".

Let''s just simplify this. As far as I understand his view (which is a challenge given the language barrier), I don''t share it. I have no vested interest in ''changing'' anyone''s opinion.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,422
Date: 8/21/2008 8:34:13 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/21/2008 1:41:40 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Date: 8/20/2008 10:32:46 PM
Author: Allison D.



Date: 8/20/2008 5:47:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Allison, pifle I say, pifle.
11.gif

The history of our industry shows your example is irrelevant
14.gif
33.gif
So I have 2 icon''s and you have only 1 Allison. I win 2:1 and raise you
9.gif


I speak on Sergey''s behalf at risk of death, but he is playing the ball, not the man (or woman in your case). He will change his opinion if you win the debate. Although he is very hard to beat.
Personanlly I have found it is worth the while to understand him, and if you believe you have a better arguement, to pursue and persist because you either:
win
or
loose and learn
Garry, you have two icons??? and I have one? HUH?

FOR ME, the point of exchange of ideas is to understand each other''s point of view, not to ''win''.

Let''s just simplify this. As far as I understand his view (which is a challenge given the language barrier), I don''t share it. I have no vested interest in ''changing'' anyone''s opinion.
Sadly Allison, that can also be read to say that you are not prepared to loose.
I prefer to loose 9 out of 10 debates, because I usually remember (= learn). Winning is not my purpose. My comment about icon''s was intended to be light hearted.
I do not believe you do understand Sergey''s POV yet. I do not think you understand that he is not attacking AGS or the assistance it provides to people buying round and princess cut diamonds.
 

purrfectpear

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
4,079
Well no wonder Allison is confused. The language barrier is pretty high.

Maybe someone could summarize the Cliff Notes version?
33.gif
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/21/2008 8:59:38 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Sadly Allison, that can also be read to say that you are not prepared to loose.
Garry, if YOU choose to read it that way, that's your choice, but it's not my intent. Why do you have to approach this as being adversarial? I certainly don't see it that way.
33.gif



Date: 8/21/2008 8:59:38 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
My comment about icon's was intended to be light hearted.
If so, I can assure you it missed the mark. Perhaps instead of trying to be clever, you could help explain what you think isn't being understood and help bridge the communication gap. Wouldn't that be a better use of the space?


Date: 8/21/2008 8:59:38 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I do not believe you do understand Sergey's POV yet. I do not think you understand that he is not attacking AGS or the assistance it provides to people buying round and princess cut diamonds.
I'll confess it's mighty hard to wade through Serg's POV; I can barely understand what he writes. Add to that the fact that the conversation seems to have moved off with six additional tangents, and it's easy to see why we might NOW be speaking of different things.

That which I've thought was his point I've disagreed with. If you think I'm missing his point and focusing on the wrong thing and you think his perspective has merit, then instead of being derisive, why don't you jump in and try to HELP explain it better? Instead of stooping to the level of making it some ridiculous sort of 'contest', why don't you try to help everyone reach common ground and understanding?
14.gif


Here, Garry.....I'll even start, ok? I understood Serg's point to say that every time someone tries to create a global brand, it has the effect of diminishing consumer confidence in all other existing brands. He doesn't like the descriptive 'real ideal' because he thinks that suggests all others are inferior or imposters. That's what I understood; if you think I'm missing his point, please jump in and enlighten me. If that was his point, I emphatically disagree.

I believe that creating a brand says "this is the hallmark of MY product". Were I the one creating a brand, I'd be trying to appeal to those who might appreciate the features of my brand. I'd also realize that there are others who won't. The fact that I'd want to develop my brand to cater to MY perceived target market doesn't mean there isn't room for SEVERAL other players for different market segments, NOR does it mean that some of my perceived market members might not also be consumers in other markets.
 

ribbit

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
25
Date: 8/21/2008 10:09:23 AM
Author: purrfectpear
Well no wonder Allison is confused. The language barrier is pretty high.


Maybe someone could summarize the Cliff Notes version?
33.gif

I agree-I''m rather confused. I interpreted the podcast to be basically saying "hey uneducated-just-want-to-buy-a-good-diamond-ering-and-get-on-with-life person, if you want a normal/modern/whatever round brilliant, an easy way to know you''re getting at least a good one with the minimum of knowledge is to buy an AGS0." This makes sense to me although I know that the nuts here on PS could use the report data, etc. to find a top performer that isn''t officially a triple 0.

After that, I get confused...
But, I think, then Sergei (and storm?) started arguing that AGS hindered new cut development-which I just don''t see. A new cut, even a round shape one, isn''t a normal modern brilliant so it won''t be graded as one and hence receive a bad grade that would make average Joe that remembers the podcast''s advice run away. Make a new pretty diamond cut and get consumers to realize it exists and they''ll buy it. AGSO has nothing to do with ''fancy'' shapes.

Antique gem guy really confused me. I think he doesn''t like normal modern round brilliants but I don''t know how that fits into what the podcast was saying or Sergei''s argument.

Oh, and someone started something about just trusting your local jeweler to find a good stone. Now, I feel that none of the jewelers I visited for either my ering or studs were deliberately trying to cheat/mislead me. But, most of them had only a few, if any, GIA stones and most didn''t know that AGS or AGS0 existed. Instead, they sold poor quality modern round brilliants for the price of an AGS0 or H&A ACA type stone from a PS vendor. Of course they thought their HCA 5+ stone was ''great'' because it was as nice as anything they themselves had ever seen.
 

stone_seeker

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
482
I didnt realize AGS0 is a brand. Tiffany, Cartier are brands. AGS0 is a cut grade. Thats like saying GIA G color or VS1 clarity is a brand.

As for Serg''s point, I agree with it a bit. AGS0 is being pushed as the top quality and so manufacturers need to conform to that if they want to make a living. Other cuts may be better but because AGS doesnt think so, they may not sell. But that is nothing new.

Generic aspirin may work better than Tylenol but marketing is very important to consumers and always will be. If a diamond wants to take a risk and cut something that he thinks performs better or as good then they need to start their own grass roots marketing effort to prove that is the case. Call it the SERG00 cut and maybe in 5 years after enough people see them, you will have a winner.

Some of the best companies in the world have products that may not be better than competitors but they know how to market and package their products to make consumers perceive a benefit and thats all that matters to the end user. If AGS0 stones were as dull as a lump of coal, they would not have as much appeal just because of the "brand" or "label".
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
Date: 8/20/2008 4:43:46 PM
Author: strmrdr
Anyway enough fun...

Yes AGS''s type of Ideal cut or one that its software gives good marks to is a fairly safe bet.
But it is not the only one and to lose sight of that the consumers will lose a lot.
I love well cut RB''s and they have a place on the market but lets leave room for other designs.
What this thread comes down to is some believe that the cut grades limit choice and creativity and some believe that it don''t.
In this comment I believe we are in agreement. I do believe however that you are on one side of that fence and I on the other. I think the market will limit your options more than the paper. If you can get the right vendors who have the right audience, then you will always be able to sell some onsie twosies, but with every new shape that I have seen in the past few years I have seen very few that made a significant impression on the market.

Even the beautiful Gabrielle I have seen only at the shows. One would think that with the master cutter Gabby Tolkowsky behind the stone that it would get more press, but it has yet to make a dent that I can see from Idaho. (Granted, we are not a big market here.)

Wink
 

purrfectpear

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
4,079
One of the issues I have with "new" cuts is that they typically add more facets. I''m not keen on crushed ice as it is, I sure don''t need more faceting.

I would love to see a resurgence of "older" cuts. I do believe there is a market for those, witness the sales of vintage style settings. I look down at my hands where I have a 2.06 pear, and a 1.75 antique cushion. The cushion blows the pear out of the water in terms of broad flashes vs. scintillation. I guess I''m a flash and fire lover
2.gif
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 8/21/2008 12:06:43 PM
Author: Wink

Even the beautiful Gabrielle I have seen only at the shows. One would think that with the master cutter Gabby Tolkowsky behind the stone that it would get more press, but it has yet to make a dent that I can see from Idaho. (Granted, we are not a big market here.)


Wink
The industry has relied on DeBeers for publicity/advertising for so long that they dont have a clue and dont want to pay for it.
The average consumer 90% of the information they hear about the industry is negative.
More people know about blood diamonds than know that diamonds come in more than 2 or 3 shapes.
If I was launching a new cut there are 3-4 dealers who getting them to carry it is worth more than a billion dollars in advertising.
Then spend the money on google search adds featuring your dealers and do local joint advertising with those dealers.
Then once you get big enough do product placement adds.
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/21/2008 11:07:54 AM
Author: stone_seeker
I didnt realize AGS0 is a brand. Tiffany, Cartier are brands. AGS0 is a cut grade. Thats like saying GIA G color or VS1 clarity is a brand.
The labs are not themselves ''brands'', but the top cut grades do function similarly to a brand among those who seek top-shelf cut. That''s what I understand the basis of the debate to be.....that by AGS identifying those criteria required to earn it''s 0 cut grade, it somehow suggests that all other cuts (and therefore brands that might carry alternate cuts) are less desirable or beautiful.

From where I sit, the AGS0 cut grade does a similar thing to the HCA. It''s a form of ''shortcutting'' for those who don''t care to learn the nitty-gritty of diamonds. Some customers don''t want to invest time to develop their own definition of what they think is most beautiful; others don''t feel confident enough in their own abilities. (I think this is a bit outlandish, because the best person to judge what you like is YOU.) But keep in mind that most people aren''t worried about just picking what they will like; they are consumed with what others will think of their choice as well.

Most people want affirmation from others. They want to know that others think their diamond is big enough/pretty enough/etc. It''s consumers'' competition with each other that sets the stage for this stuff. "I don''t want to get a diamond that isn''t as nice as her sister''s, etc." Those folks are the ones who rely on tools like the HCA or the AGS0 cut grade or the Tiffany brand as an assurance that *others* will find their choice acceptable.

I understand the consternation this gives to those who don''t bear the ''label'' (i.e. AGS0 or HOF or Tiffany, etc); those folks may have equally beautiful products that cannot get traction. BUT....it''s THEIR responsibility to build a demand for their products in the same way the other ''brands'' have. Instead of trying to sell why your products are just as good as this brand or that brand, sell why your product''s features are different and how those differences are desirable in their own right. Or, if you sell unpapered stones, sell the benefits of why your stone offers a better price because it doesn''t have paper.....sell that the paper doesn''t change one little thing about the diamond itself.
 

ajster

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
7

From a consumers perspective, having recent firsthand experience I would agree completely: My fiancé loved the stone I picked for her (AGS000) but was worried that her friends might think it was a poor quality diamond because it has a color of H. I was completely dumbfounded. Apparently her friends judge the quality of a stone only by color?!



As I talk to more people it has become clear that most people have no idea or interest in learning about the ins and outs of how a diamond is cut. They just want to know in a reliable manner if it’s a good diamond or not.



Part of the problem seems to be that cut is a very complex topic that most vendors don't want to talk about (for obvious reasons) and most consumer don't want to spend the time to understand. It definitely does not help that you can find dozens of versions of what cut means and how important it is (or isn’t) all over the internet.



I don’t know enough to advocate any one standard (AGS Ideal, H&A, etc.) but the reality is that consumers need to be protected since most don't do it for themselves.



Consumers 2 cents.



 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
Date: 8/21/2008 2:04:47 PM
Author: Allison D.

The labs are not themselves 'brands', but the top cut grades do function similarly to a brand among those who seek top-shelf cut.

Allison,

The labs are very much brands. GIA enjoys arguably the most powerful brand name in diamonds and customers and dealers alike routinely demand their stamp of approval before buying or selling a stone, top shelf cut or not. Knockoffs and imitators abound. If that’s not branding I don’t know what is. AGSL doesn’t have the same market penetration but then they haven’t been at it as long either. They have a loyal following and the AGS stamp of approval on the AGS000 stones being discussed is equally a branding issue. ‘Taint an AGS000 until AGSL says it is. That’s branding.

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

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
Date: 8/20/2008 4:28:23 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/20/2008 4:21:35 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2008 3:44:14 PM

Author: strmrdr

Can a 85%+ deep round diamond be beautiful and high performance?


Further follow up before I read further down the page.


Is this relevant to the conversation at hand. If you have developed one that is, it is not one for which AGS has yet developed a grading system, so how are you stifled. Also, where will you get the rough to cut this without excessive waste?


Just curious.


Wink
The CH ~17% is within a range that it could be cut from the same rough as an rb.
The yield would be much better than an RB.
Better yield than the main and the toppy or just better yield than the main? It is interesting as it might make the gems more affordable on a per carat basis if the single yield is better than the combined yield.

Wink
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Date: 8/21/2008 3:56:25 PM
Author: denverappraiser



Date: 8/21/2008 2:04:47 PM
Author: Allison D.

The labs are not themselves 'brands', but the top cut grades do function similarly to a brand among those who seek top-shelf cut.

Allison,

The labs are very much brands. GIA enjoys arguably the most powerful brand name in diamonds and customers and dealers alike routinely demand their stamp of approval before buying or selling a stone, top shelf cut or not. Knockoffs and imitators abound. If that’s not branding I don’t know what is.
Let me be clearer:

Lab names aren't brands of diamond in the same way that HOF, A Cut Above, or Cut by Inifinity are.

It's a brand of 'seal of approval' or 'level of quality', sure.....but it's not a brand of diamond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top