our own John Pollard in a AGS podcast advertisement

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/22/2008 2:22:07 PM
Author: Allison D.
How you get ''please don''t employ analogies'' out of ''Your posts misleading some readers what statement A is not correct. '' is beyond me. Personally, I think you''re projecting something not meant.

If, however, you have managed to capture the essence of what Serg meant and that is indeed what he meant, I''d say this:

With due respect, I post in the way that makes sense to me. If I think an analogy might help explain what I mean or my intent, I use it. It''s not a ''game'', it''s a different way of trying to explain an idea. Given that Neil and several others employ analogies when they think it will help, I feel I''m in decent company doing so.

FYI - I did try to make the point using the topic at hand. I felt it wasn''t understood, so I tried to find another way that might better illustrate the idea.

While it might not be Serg''s preferred methodology or yours, it is mine, and it often helps others.

If you dislike them, you have my personal invitation to ignore my contributions and focus on other posts you find value in. No offense will be taken.

Absolutely your posts using analogies have been easily understood and of help to many Allison.

 

[risingsun]

This thread is giving me TMJ from clamping my mouth shut. Any educational value this thread might have had has jumped the shark

 

[jasontb]

Date: 8/22/2008 2:22:07 PM
Author: Allison D.
How you get 'please don't employ analogies' out of 'Your posts misleading some readers what statement A is not correct. ' is beyond me. Personally, I think you're projecting something not meant.

As I reread his post, I think I may have misinterpreted it. I will not try to do it again. So let's just assume my post simply asked everybody to stop using analogies.

Date: 8/22/2008 2:22:07 PM
Author: Allison D.

With due respect, I post in the way that makes sense to me. If I think an analogy might help explain what I mean or my intent, I use it. It's not a 'game', it's a different way of trying to explain an idea. Given that Neil and several others employ analogies when they think it will help, I feel I'm in decent company doing so.

But there is no need for analogies. We all understand the topic at hand. There is no need to use a different subject matter to make it simpler to prove a point. I don't think Neil should be using analogies either, but at least his was a bit more appropriate. But look what happened. He used it to point out some similar shortcomings in hotel ratings and diamond rating. But then you twisted it around and used it to show how hotel and diamond ratings are great because the help the consumer but don't hurt boutique brands. Now why are we arguing about hotels? We should just be talking about diamonds!

Date: 8/22/2008 2:22:07 PM
Author: Allison D.

While it might not be Serg's preferred methodology or yours, it is mine, and it often helps others.

It may help others understand your point of view, but it does not help others understand the issue.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/22/2008 2:40:20 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 12:29:03 PM
Author: Allison D.
I don''t have an agenda to push here;

Sorry but that just cracked me up.
Of course you have an agenda and that is to protect the selling points of the company that pays your paycheck.

Now before you say nana you do too.
Well of course I do...
kicken diamonds for everyone! and a chicken in every crock pot!
The difference is I don''t get paid when someone buys a kicken diamond and never have.

Where we disagree is you see it as everyone should produce and buy ''AGS Ideals'' and I see it as everyone should produce beautiful diamonds with the type of rough they have to work with rather than ugly ones and people should consider buying them.
There are 2 parts to that:
1: Consumer mind share
2: Cutter mind share
Both can be achieved here at PS as they are both reading here.
I have shown several examples here on PS and given away 10s of thousands of dollars of work for free on here to make that happen.
When I am done with my step cut articles the entire blueprint for creating and buying beautiful step cuts is going to be up on PS for both to read.

There are SO many misstatements in here, it''s hard to know where to begin.

1. I''m not required by Whiteflash to participate in ANY given thread. I participate in what I choose to, and not what I don''t. If I think I have something to add that might help, I post. If not, I don''t.

2. I was able to say a LOT more in support of Whiteflash when I was a consumer than I can as a vendor. There are many threads I''d have participated in before as a consumer that I recognize I have to recuse myself from now as a vendor, and I do so WILLINGLY.

3. I''ve been on Pricescope since 2002. From then until our PUBLIC announcement that I accepted a position with Whiteflash, I was never paid one dime. My opinions since I am now collecting that dime haven''t materially changed, by the way. As for who gets payment, I''d have to disagree with you there. ''Payment'' comes in many different forms, which I know you know firsthand.

4. This is where you are most VASTLY wrong: "Where we disagree is you see it as everyone should produce and buy ''AGS Ideals'' and I see it as everyone should produce beautiful diamonds with the type of rough they have to work with rather than ugly ones and people should consider buying them."

We absolute don''t disagree there, and we never have. As an individual, I don''t believe that everyone should produce and buy AGS Ideals. Not everyone wants them, and I''m not a believer in leaving vast segments of a market without choices.

As a company, Whiteflash has never said that, either. Our branded goods are but one form of what we sell, and anyone who''s ever sat in Brian Gavin''s office can attest to the fact that he doesn''t believe in pushing people *what* to like. Maybe you should take him up on his offer to go sit there yourself; then you''d have a better understanding of what his viewpoint is instead of speculating.

Does he think his branded diamonds offer a superior choice? Yes, he does. Does he believe in his brand? YOU BET he does, just as you believe in your designs. Does that mean he has no appreciation for other choices outside his brand? Emphatically not, and you know it.

If you feel your designs have something to offer the marketplace and the marketplace likes them, FABULOUS. I think more choices always benefit consumers, and I''ve consistently held that opinion and expressed it since my first day here.

 

[Allison D.]

Jason, let''s just agree to disagree. You don''t see their value; I do.

As long as I do, I''ll use them, and if you feel they don''t resonate, please do feel completely free to ignore them with no offense.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/22/2008 2:45:09 PM
Author: risingsun
This thread is giving me TMJ from clamping my mouth shut. Any educational value this thread might have had has jumped the shark

Sadly, Marian, I agree with you.

 

[Allison D.]

You guys can play "wag the dog" all you like.

I''d rather focus on what I think the thread''s original topic was about.

I think the podcast was good. I think it is a helpful tool for consumers who are trying to understand enough about diamonds to make an informed purchase. I think it helps consumers to understand that many terms in the diamond industry are unregulated and therefore shouldn''t be taken at face value. I think it''s important for consumers to understand that differences exist in the various products and what those differences mean to them financially in a purchase situation.

"Paper" doesn''t tell you what diamond you should find beautiful; it helps you understand the attributes of a diamond that affect its fair market value.

 

[jasontb]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:10:23 PM
Author: Allison D.

Jason, let''s just agree to disagree. You don''t see their value; I do.

No, I do see their value. Others just fail to see their harm.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:19:14 PM
Author: jasontb


No, I do see their value. Others just fail to see their harm.

that sums up this discussion on so many levels it isn''t even funny.

 

[whatmeworry]

I think the advice on insisting on the real ideal can also be as damaging to consumers as
stay with F color and above, stay with VS2 clarity and above.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:26:20 PM
Author: whatmeworry
I think the advice on insisting on the real ideal can also be as damaging to consumers as

stay with F color and above, stay with VS2 clarity and above.

Yep, what apeals to you in color and will an inclusion you can see bug you and is it eyeclean for clarity are much better replacements.

As is this diamond is beautiful because .........
Because its the real ideal is not a total answer.

 

[Allison D.]

I think letting the market think that all diamonds called F, VS2 diamonds are the same is just as big a disservice.

I think distinguishing difference betwen a GIA-graded F, VS2 diamond and an EGL Israel F, VS2 diamond is important to consumers considering the purchase of an F, VS2 stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren''t the same.

I think distinguishing the different between an AGS0 kind of ''ideal'' and any other kind of ''ideal''.....be it EGL, Signature, or Bees Knees Ideal.....is important to consumers considering the purchase of an ''ideal'' stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren''t the same.

All Fs aren''t created equal. All ideals aren''t created equal. I personally don''t care which someone prefers, but I do care that they understand the appropriate value for whatever their choice is.

 

[ribbit]

Date: 8/22/2008 2:40:20 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 12:29:03 PM

Author: Allison D.

I don't have an agenda to push here;

Of course you have an agenda and that is to protect the selling points of the company that pays your paycheck.

Where we disagree is you see it as everyone should produce and buy 'AGS Ideals'

Huh? Where has anyone ever said that?!? I'm not the first to ask that, and the question has not been answered yet. I'm starting to think that generic 'you' can't answer because you know it was never said. Given that WF is happy to sell emeralds, marquise, etc. that don't have an 'AGS Ideal' report with them, how is Allison (supposedly) telling people to only buy AGS Ideals *helping* WF? Isn't that just telling potential cushion or radiant buyers to go somewhere other than WF for service?

and I see it as everyone should produce beautiful diamonds with the type of rough they have to work with rather than ugly ones and people should consider buying them.

There are 2 parts to that:

1: Consumer mind share

2: Cutter mind share

When I am done with my step cut articles the entire blueprint for creating and buying beautiful step cuts is going to be up on PS for both to read.

Again, I don't see anyone as saying that the only one, true, beautiful, perfect, way to cut a diamond is a AGSO Tolkowsky round. If the rough would make a killer ashoka and a so-so round, why wouldn't you cut it into an ashoka?

I greatly look forward to your articles as I find evaluating step-cuts to be rather difficult. But if enough people go "hey, storm's articles are great and helped lots of us to buy step-cuts so we should advise people to use them" then your article will be just as 'stifling' as the AGSO (supposedly) is since people will only be looking at step cuts that fall within your parameters.

Even after how many pages, I just don't honestly see how a grading system designed to evaluate *certain* cuts stifles the introduction of new cuts. I'm not usually so stupid. Make a beautiful new cut-get it in the hands of the right people (WF, GOG, Wink, JA, etc & some celebrities wouldn't hurt)-show us consumers its beauty-and if the consumers agree, they'll buy it.After all, you couldn't pry the asshers, cushions, and old mine cuts out of the cold dead hands of the PSers that love them. I personally love the amaranth's look but I'm not sure it really exists-the only info I've found is the PS pic.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:39:43 PM
Author: Allison D.
I think letting the market think that all diamonds called F, VS2 diamonds are the same is just as big a disservice.

I think distinguishing difference betwen a GIA-graded F, VS2 diamond and an EGL Israel F, VS2 diamond is important to consumers considering the purchase of an F, VS2 stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren't the same.

I think distinguishing the different between an AGS0 kind of 'ideal' and any other kind of 'ideal'.....be it EGL, Signature, or Bees Knees Ideal.....is important to consumers considering the purchase of an 'ideal' stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren't the same.

All Fs aren't created equal. All ideals aren't created equal. I personally don't care which someone prefers, but I do care that they understand the appropriate value for whatever their choice is.

bees knees? is that a new cut?

what is the ultimate goal of these 500 page thread? are there diamonds that arent getting sold as a result of this ideal label? seems the industry is doing just fine as i dont see some non-ideals being deeply discounted. prices are going up. a winning model will never stifle innovation but just raise the bar.

Apple invented the iPod and we have seen many companies try to create something better. so far, nothing is better and if and when someone does make something better, they better have the resources to market that "betterness". [dont kill me for yet another analogy

)

i dont see why the diamond industry should be any different. it seem Serg is upset that AGS ideal prevents other great cuts from being produced. if there are such great cuts, prove it an then tell me about it and then i might buy it. otherwise, the rest is just sour grapes.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:45:28 PM
Author: ribbit

I greatly look forward to your articles as I find evaluating step-cuts to be rather difficult. But if enough people go ''hey, storm''s articles are great and helped lots of us to buy step-cuts so we should advise people to use them'' then your article will be just as ''stifling'' as the AGSO (supposedly) is since people will only be looking at step cuts that fall within your parameters.

Glad you find them useful.
If they ever become a cut grade they will be pulled as that is my worst nightmare as there are billions of combinations that will meet the requirements I set out.
There is a huge difference between telling people that this version of ideal is the best and suggesting to people what to look for using their eyes and these tools.
One is sales the other is education.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:45:28 PM
Author: ribbit
Even after how many pages, I just don't honestly see how a grading system designed to evaluate *certain* cuts stifles the introduction of new cuts. I'm not usually so stupid. Make a beautiful new cut-get it in the hands of the right people (WF, GOG, Wink, JA, etc & some celebrities wouldn't hurt)-show us consumers its beauty-and if the consumers agree, they'll buy it.After all, you couldn't pry the asshers, cushions, and old mine cuts out of the cold dead hands of the PSers that love them. I personally love the amaranth's look but I'm not sure it really exists-the only info I've found is the PS pic.

The problem is on the manufacturing side.
It creates more fear that they will not be able to sell them because they don't have THE ideal label.
More and more time and energy will be spent gaming the cut grading systems than working towards beautiful diamonds.

edit to add:
The sad fact is that I can design beautiful diamonds all day and there would be millions of dollars more value in finding a combo that gets the AGS0 or GIA EX grade that adds a tenth of a carat to the average weight of each diamond in a batch of AGS Ideals or GIA EX cuts.
Even if it produces a worse looking diamond.

 

[diagem]

I was in the midst to writing Ribbit a better elaborated explanation on where my discussion fits in this thread but just noticed you guys are way off..., (literally)

I decided not to submit....

Date: 8/22/2008 4:03:43 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 3:45:28 PM
Author: ribbit

I greatly look forward to your articles as I find evaluating step-cuts to be rather difficult. But if enough people go ''hey, storm''s articles are great and helped lots of us to buy step-cuts so we should advise people to use them'' then your article will be just as ''stifling'' as the AGSO (supposedly) is since people will only be looking at step cuts that fall within your parameters.

Glad you find them useful.
If they ever become a cut grade they will be pulled as that is my worst nightmare as there are billions of combinations that will meet the requirements I set out.
There is a huge difference between telling people that this version of ideal is the best and suggesting to people what to look for using their eyes and these tools.
One is sales the other is education.

Dont worry about that strmrdr..., I think you proved to yourself well by now that there is no way to entrap the beauty of step-cuts into a cut standard ..., god help the ones who try...., (they will definitely need the help...)

I guess some dont realize it yet

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/22/2008 4:26:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 3:45:28 PM
Author: ribbit
Even after how many pages, I just don''t honestly see how a grading system designed to evaluate *certain* cuts stifles the introduction of new cuts. I''m not usually so stupid. Make a beautiful new cut-get it in the hands of the right people (WF, GOG, Wink, JA, etc & some celebrities wouldn''t hurt)-show us consumers its beauty-and if the consumers agree, they''ll buy it.After all, you couldn''t pry the asshers, cushions, and old mine cuts out of the cold dead hands of the PSers that love them. I personally love the amaranth''s look but I''m not sure it really exists-the only info I''ve found is the PS pic.

The problem is on the manufacturing side.
It creates more fear that they will not be able to sell them because they don''t have THE ideal label.
More and more time and energy will be spent gaming the cut grading systems than working towards beautiful diamonds.

edit to add:
The sad fact is that I can design beautiful diamonds all day and there would be millions of dollars more value in finding a combo that gets the AGS0 or GIA EX grade that adds a tenth of a carat to the average weight of each diamond in a batch of AGS Ideals or GIA EX cuts.
Even if it produces a worse looking diamond.

That should be the title of the next journal!

Let see who will jump the water and write this educational....

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 8/22/2008 3:39:43 PM
Author: Allison D.
I think letting the market think that all diamonds called F, VS2 diamonds are the same is just as big a disservice.

I think distinguishing difference betwen a GIA-graded F, VS2 diamond and an EGL Israel F, VS2 diamond is important to consumers considering the purchase of an F, VS2 stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren''t the same.

I think distinguishing the different between an AGS0 kind of ''ideal'' and any other kind of ''ideal''.....be it EGL, Signature, or Bees Knees Ideal.....is important to consumers considering the purchase of an ''ideal'' stone. They need to understand that the economic values of both aren''t the same.

All Fs aren''t created equal. All ideals aren''t created equal. I personally don''t care which someone prefers, but I do care that they understand the appropriate value for whatever their choice is.

Alj, I completely agree. I also wouldn''t call vendors of whatever kind of ideals sharks.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/22/2008 11:08:59 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 8/22/2008 10:54:09 AM
Author: Allison D.

Agreed. I think most *reasonable* people have the capacity to understand that no ''system'' is perfect, but being imperfect doesn''t make it without value or relevance.

As for the little Italian hotel, it''s true that some people who might otherwise find it charming may not even consider it because it garners only 1 star. It''s true that some people won''t look beyond the AGS0 label, even though other great diamonds may be found outside. It''s true that some people won''t consider diamonds that don''t score below 2 on the HCA, even though there may be some fabulous stones that score a bit higher.

Such people aren''t risk takers; they don''t want to gamble or face uncertainty. That''s why they look to rating systems to begin with....because they want to hedge their bets and focus on those options that are most likely to be satisfying choices. They fully recognize that there may be other winners outside those prescribed parameters, but they don''t wish to be adventurous. They want to go with the ''safe'' route.

People who aren''t risk takers are always going to look for things increase their probability for being happy/satisfied with their choices, and that''s inherent to who they are. If those systems didn''t exist, many in that group would make no choice; they would be paralyzed into fear of choosing for fear of making the wrong choice. No one wins then.

I agree there. It took me months and months to buy a cushion cut because no such system existed. It took me a day to find a good round stone because I can punch it in the HCA. With no such system to rely on for cushion cuts, I was filled with self-doubt because I couldnt trust my eyes and had no second opinion other than my jeweler who might have had an agenda.

Do you all see that I too created an incentive for people to buy rounds rather than cushions or any other cut?

That means there is more demand for rounds and less for anything else.

Does that help take us back Allison, to the orignal topic?

 

[ribbit]

Storm, thank you so much for your last two replies to me.!!! I finally understand 'your' POV!!! Honestly, I don't disagree with you at all.

But I still see the value in a cut grading system for us mere lay diamond buyers. In an ideal

world, if someone was going to buy a diamond, they would study the info here, on GOG's site, etc. so they could become educated. In reality, most people I know feel that they are only going to buy one to a few diamonds in their entire life, and, given that, have no interest in putting the time and effort that becoming truly educated can take. (Plus, all the numbers scare them off.

) I suppose they deserve what they get given their lack of effort, but I really can't blame them. I'll admit that when I needed a new dishwasher, I didn't spend weeks on dishwasher forums or reading tech specs. I bought what Consumer Reports rated their 'best buy'. I love my dishwasher-it works great, the price was right, and haven't had any problems with it for 4 years now. For a variety of reasons, I trusted CR and my trust was not misplaced. I had no desire to become a dishwasher guru. For all the lazy people like me, cut grading reports, ASETs, idealascopes, etc. at least give us a chance of getting pretty and not a dull icky stone especially when buy sight unseen.

DiaGem-you can't just leave me hanging like that!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/22/2008 5:35:13 PM
Author: ribbit
Storm, thank you so much for your last two replies to me.!!! I finally understand 'your' POV!!! Honestly, I don't disagree with you at all.


But I still see the value in a cut grading system for us mere lay diamond buyers. In an ideal

world, if someone was going to buy a diamond, they would study the info here, on GOG's site, etc. so they could become educated. In reality, most people I know feel that they are only going to buy one to a few diamonds in their entire life, and, given that, have no interest in putting the time and effort that becoming truly educated can take. (Plus, all the numbers scare them off.

) I suppose they deserve what they get given their lack of effort, but I really can't blame them. I'll admit that when I needed a new dishwasher, I didn't spend weeks on dishwasher forums or reading tech specs. I bought what Consumer Reports rated their 'best buy'. I love my dishwasher-it works great, the price was right, and haven't had any problems with it for 4 years now. For a variety of reasons, I trusted CR and my trust was not misplaced. I had no desire to become a dishwasher guru. For all the lazy people like me, cut grading reports, ASETs, idealascopes, etc. at least give us a chance of getting pretty and not a dull icky stone especially when buy sight unseen.


DiaGem-you can't just leave me hanging like that!

Glad that explanation worked.
I don't disagree with you either, a system that helps people quickly sort through the available options is a good thing.
My problem is when one narrow filter defines what is good or bad when there is good outside that filters range or even in the range it says is not as good.
It has been proven that there are AGS1 princess cuts that people see as more beautiful than some AGS0 princess cuts.
Same with a GIA vg vs GIA EX round.

The AGS cut grades for step cuts are a disaster and the industry is rightly rejecting them but someone the other day was asking for an AGS0 emerald cut because they had heard AGS0 was the best.

The question is how do we keep the good and minimize the bad of cut grading systems?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/22/2008 5:55:13 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 5:35:13 PM
Author: ribbit
Storm, thank you so much for your last two replies to me.!!! I finally understand ''your'' POV!!! Honestly, I don''t disagree with you at all.


But I still see the value in a cut grading system for us mere lay diamond buyers. In an ideal

world, if someone was going to buy a diamond, they would study the info here, on GOG''s site, etc. so they could become educated. In reality, most people I know feel that they are only going to buy one to a few diamonds in their entire life, and, given that, have no interest in putting the time and effort that becoming truly educated can take. (Plus, all the numbers scare them off.

) I suppose they deserve what they get given their lack of effort, but I really can''t blame them. I''ll admit that when I needed a new dishwasher, I didn''t spend weeks on dishwasher forums or reading tech specs. I bought what Consumer Reports rated their ''best buy''. I love my dishwasher-it works great, the price was right, and haven''t had any problems with it for 4 years now. For a variety of reasons, I trusted CR and my trust was not misplaced. I had no desire to become a dishwasher guru. For all the lazy people like me, cut grading reports, ASETs, idealascopes, etc. at least give us a chance of getting pretty and not a dull icky stone especially when buy sight unseen.


DiaGem-you can''t just leave me hanging like that!

Glad that explanation worked.
I don''t disagree with you either, a system that helps people quickly sort through the available options is a good thing.
My problem is when one narrow filter defines what is good or bad when there is good outside that filters range or even in the range it says is not as good.
It has been proven that there are AGS1 princess cuts that people see as more beautiful than some AGS0 princess cuts.
Same with a GIA vg vs GIA EX round.

The AGS cut grades for step cuts are a disaster and the industry is rightly rejecting them but someone the other day was asking for an AGS0 emerald cut because they had heard AGS0 was the best.

The question is how do we keep the good and minimize the bad of cut grading systems?

Strmrd..., your becoming naive in your old age....

The more you minimize the bad the more you enlarge the good..., no?

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/22/2008 5:33:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2008 11:08:59 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 8/22/2008 10:54:09 AM
Author: Allison D.

Agreed. I think most *reasonable* people have the capacity to understand that no 'system' is perfect, but being imperfect doesn't make it without value or relevance.

As for the little Italian hotel, it's true that some people who might otherwise find it charming may not even consider it because it garners only 1 star. It's true that some people won't look beyond the AGS0 label, even though other great diamonds may be found outside. It's true that some people won't consider diamonds that don't score below 2 on the HCA, even though there may be some fabulous stones that score a bit higher.

Such people aren't risk takers; they don't want to gamble or face uncertainty. That's why they look to rating systems to begin with....because they want to hedge their bets and focus on those options that are most likely to be satisfying choices. They fully recognize that there may be other winners outside those prescribed parameters, but they don't wish to be adventurous. They want to go with the 'safe' route.

People who aren't risk takers are always going to look for things increase their probability for being happy/satisfied with their choices, and that's inherent to who they are. If those systems didn't exist, many in that group would make no choice; they would be paralyzed into fear of choosing for fear of making the wrong choice. No one wins then.

I agree there. It took me months and months to buy a cushion cut because no such system existed. It took me a day to find a good round stone because I can punch it in the HCA. With no such system to rely on for cushion cuts, I was filled with self-doubt because I couldnt trust my eyes and had no second opinion other than my jeweler who might have had an agenda.

Do you all see that I too created an incentive for people to buy rounds rather than cushions or any other cut?

That means there is more demand for rounds and less for anything else.

Does that help take us back Allison, to the orignal topic?

That takes us back to the original topic nicely, Garry, but I disagree with the highlighted statements.

Re the yellow highlight: The HCA doesn't sway someone from to buying a round instead of a cushion. Read what Stoneseeker said.....she DID buy a cushion! It just took her longer to buy one because she didn't know enough about them to know if she was making a sound choice. Even if her eye thought it was beautiful, there was no way for her to ascertain the fair market price based on the stone's attributes.

Dearest Garry.....if someone wants a square, you are not going to be able to talk them into a round, and neither is the HCA. I have a friend who has argued with her baker and paid $100 EXTRA to get a square wedding cake because she doesn't like circles; she likes SQUARES.

Her e-ring is an emerald cut. She understands what an AGS0 is, but knowing that doesn't make her desire a round stone at all.

Re the orange highlight: Garry, I believe the reason there is greater demand for rounds (not AGS0 rounds, by the way, but just ROUNDS) is because they appeal to a wider range of audience; hence, they are considered a 'safer choice'. Look at Pricescope - most of the guys come here having little to no clue what their GFs want because they think the element of surprise is more important than finding out what she wants. When that happens here, what is the common consensus in those threads from PSers? "If you don't know for sure that she wants an asscher/princess/emerald/heart/marquise/bees knees, stick with a round."

That happens because round is the incumbent 'standard'. If you ask consumers to draw a picture of an engagement ring, the overwhelming majority will draw a round solitaire (in a simple, Tiffany style mounting). Not AGS0 round, mind you....but just plain ROUND. (Most won't draw facets or arrows or any such thing....it will be a CIRCLE.)

It is that way, I believe, because rounds appeal to a wider range of people. Vendors will stock what they think will appeal to the widest audience; it widens the pool of opportunity for them.

Show me a single ice cream vendor that doesn't stock vanilla???? There are (at least) 32 other flavors out there, but the top-selling flavor is still vanilla....because it universally appeals to the widest audience. Declaring that Vanilla Bean vanilla must contain real vanilla beans instead of vanilla extract isn't why more people buy vanilla than any other flavor. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans isn't going to make someone who prefers chocolate buy Vanilla Bean instead.....*especially* those people who hate vanilla beans. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn't prevent ice cream manufacturers from looking to develop new flavors, like Peanut Butter. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn't suggest that French Vanilla ice cream is not as good a flavor as Vanilla Bean. ALL IT SAYS is: Vanilla Bean ice cream has to contain vanilla beans.

I guarantee you that when the day comes that Peanut Butter ice cream is the MOST requested flavor, every ice cream vendor will be sure to carry it....because then, that's where the most potential for a sale will be.

 

[whatmeworry]

Relying on AGS, HCA, Sarin, Aset, GEMEX, 5 star ratings instead of your own eye and own definition of beauty hurts consumers in the long run. If someone bought a diamond that they thought was beautiful and the market agreed, then the consumer is paying the going rate. But if you bought something that you thought was beautiful but the market disagreed, then the consumer, just got a bargain.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/22/2008 6:16:20 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/22/2008 5:33:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2008 11:08:59 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 8/22/2008 10:54:09 AM
Author: Allison D.

Agreed. I think most *reasonable* people have the capacity to understand that no ''system'' is perfect, but being imperfect doesn''t make it without value or relevance.

As for the little Italian hotel, it''s true that some people who might otherwise find it charming may not even consider it because it garners only 1 star. It''s true that some people won''t look beyond the AGS0 label, even though other great diamonds may be found outside. It''s true that some people won''t consider diamonds that don''t score below 2 on the HCA, even though there may be some fabulous stones that score a bit higher.

Such people aren''t risk takers; they don''t want to gamble or face uncertainty. That''s why they look to rating systems to begin with....because they want to hedge their bets and focus on those options that are most likely to be satisfying choices. They fully recognize that there may be other winners outside those prescribed parameters, but they don''t wish to be adventurous. They want to go with the ''safe'' route.

People who aren''t risk takers are always going to look for things increase their probability for being happy/satisfied with their choices, and that''s inherent to who they are. If those systems didn''t exist, many in that group would make no choice; they would be paralyzed into fear of choosing for fear of making the wrong choice. No one wins then.

I agree there. It took me months and months to buy a cushion cut because no such system existed. It took me a day to find a good round stone because I can punch it in the HCA. With no such system to rely on for cushion cuts, I was filled with self-doubt because I couldnt trust my eyes and had no second opinion other than my jeweler who might have had an agenda.

Do you all see that I too created an incentive for people to buy rounds rather than cushions or any other cut?

That means there is more demand for rounds and less for anything else.

Does that help take us back Allison, to the orignal topic?

That takes us back to the original topic nicely, Garry, but I disagree with the highlighted statements.

Re the yellow highlight: The HCA doesn''t sway someone from to buying a round instead of a cushion. Read what Stoneseeker said.....she DID buy a cushion! It just took her longer to buy one because she didn''t know enough about them to know if she was making a sound choice. Even if her eye thought it was beautiful, there was no way for her to ascertain the fair market price based on the stone''s attributes.

Dearest Garry.....if someone wants a square, you are not going to be able to talk them into a round, and neither is the HCA. I have a friend who has argued with her baker and paid $100 EXTRA to get a square wedding cake because she doesn''t like circles; she likes SQUARES.

Her e-ring is an emerald cut. She understands what an AGS0 is, but knowing that doesn''t make her desire a round stone at all.

Re the orange highlight: Garry, I believe the reason there is greater demand for rounds (not AGS0 rounds, by the way, but just ROUNDS) is because they appeal to a wider range of audience; hence, they are considered a ''safer choice''. Look at Pricescope - most of the guys come here having little to no clue what their GFs want because they think the element of surprise is more important than finding out what she wants. When that happens here, what is the common consensus in those threads from PSers? ''If you don''t know for sure that she wants an asscher/princess/emerald/heart/marquise/bees knees, stick with a round.''

That happens because round is the incumbent ''standard''. If you ask consumers to draw a picture of an engagement ring, the overwhelming majority will draw a round solitaire (in a simple, Tiffany style mounting). Not AGS0 round, mind you....but just plain ROUND. (Most won''t draw facets or arrows or any such thing....it will be a CIRCLE.)

It is that way, I believe, because rounds appeal to a wider range of people. Vendors will stock what they think will appeal to the widest audience; it widens the pool of opportunity for them.

Show me a single ice cream vendor that doesn''t stock vanilla???? There are (at least) 32 other flavors out there, but the top-selling flavor is still vanilla....because it universally appeals to the widest audience. Declaring that Vanilla Bean vanilla must contain real vanilla beans instead of vanilla extract isn''t why more people buy vanilla than any other flavor. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans isn''t going to make someone who prefers chocolate buy Vanilla Bean instead.....*especially* those people who hate vanilla beans. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn''t prevent ice cream manufacturers from looking to develop new flavors, like Peanut Butter. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn''t suggest that French Vanilla ice cream is not as good a flavor as Vanilla Bean. ALL IT SAYS is: Vanilla Bean ice cream has to contain vanilla beans.

I guarantee you that when the day comes that Peanut Butter ice cream is the MOST requested flavor, every ice cream vendor will be sure to carry it....because then, that''s where the most potential for a sale will be.

Using your analogy of Vanilla, at risk of offending people

Allison, I wonder what % of sales are Vanilla?
My guess is 1/3rd.
In diamonds the total graded by labs and listed on IDEX is 52% http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?id=30649
Is that what you think is normal Allison? If not - what do you think it should be?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/22/2008 9:26:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2008 6:16:20 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/22/2008 5:33:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2008 11:08:59 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 8/22/2008 10:54:09 AM
Author: Allison D.

Agreed. I think most *reasonable* people have the capacity to understand that no 'system' is perfect, but being imperfect doesn't make it without value or relevance.

As for the little Italian hotel, it's true that some people who might otherwise find it charming may not even consider it because it garners only 1 star. It's true that some people won't look beyond the AGS0 label, even though other great diamonds may be found outside. It's true that some people won't consider diamonds that don't score below 2 on the HCA, even though there may be some fabulous stones that score a bit higher.

Such people aren't risk takers; they don't want to gamble or face uncertainty. That's why they look to rating systems to begin with....because they want to hedge their bets and focus on those options that are most likely to be satisfying choices. They fully recognize that there may be other winners outside those prescribed parameters, but they don't wish to be adventurous. They want to go with the 'safe' route.

People who aren't risk takers are always going to look for things increase their probability for being happy/satisfied with their choices, and that's inherent to who they are. If those systems didn't exist, many in that group would make no choice; they would be paralyzed into fear of choosing for fear of making the wrong choice. No one wins then.

I agree there. It took me months and months to buy a cushion cut because no such system existed. It took me a day to find a good round stone because I can punch it in the HCA. With no such system to rely on for cushion cuts, I was filled with self-doubt because I couldnt trust my eyes and had no second opinion other than my jeweler who might have had an agenda.

Do you all see that I too created an incentive for people to buy rounds rather than cushions or any other cut?

That means there is more demand for rounds and less for anything else.

Does that help take us back Allison, to the orignal topic?

That takes us back to the original topic nicely, Garry, but I disagree with the highlighted statements.

Re the yellow highlight: The HCA doesn't sway someone from to buying a round instead of a cushion. Read what Stoneseeker said.....she DID buy a cushion! It just took her longer to buy one because she didn't know enough about them to know if she was making a sound choice. Even if her eye thought it was beautiful, there was no way for her to ascertain the fair market price based on the stone's attributes.

Dearest Garry.....if someone wants a square, you are not going to be able to talk them into a round, and neither is the HCA. I have a friend who has argued with her baker and paid $100 EXTRA to get a square wedding cake because she doesn't like circles; she likes SQUARES.

Her e-ring is an emerald cut. She understands what an AGS0 is, but knowing that doesn't make her desire a round stone at all.

Re the orange highlight: Garry, I believe the reason there is greater demand for rounds (not AGS0 rounds, by the way, but just ROUNDS) is because they appeal to a wider range of audience; hence, they are considered a 'safer choice'. Look at Pricescope - most of the guys come here having little to no clue what their GFs want because they think the element of surprise is more important than finding out what she wants. When that happens here, what is the common consensus in those threads from PSers? 'If you don't know for sure that she wants an asscher/princess/emerald/heart/marquise/bees knees, stick with a round.'

That happens because round is the incumbent 'standard'. If you ask consumers to draw a picture of an engagement ring, the overwhelming majority will draw a round solitaire (in a simple, Tiffany style mounting). Not AGS0 round, mind you....but just plain ROUND. (Most won't draw facets or arrows or any such thing....it will be a CIRCLE.)

It is that way, I believe, because rounds appeal to a wider range of people. Vendors will stock what they think will appeal to the widest audience; it widens the pool of opportunity for them.

Show me a single ice cream vendor that doesn't stock vanilla???? There are (at least) 32 other flavors out there, but the top-selling flavor is still vanilla....because it universally appeals to the widest audience. Declaring that Vanilla Bean vanilla must contain real vanilla beans instead of vanilla extract isn't why more people buy vanilla than any other flavor. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans isn't going to make someone who prefers chocolate buy Vanilla Bean instead.....*especially* those people who hate vanilla beans. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn't prevent ice cream manufacturers from looking to develop new flavors, like Peanut Butter. Declaring that Vanilla Bean must contain real vanilla beans doesn't suggest that French Vanilla ice cream is not as good a flavor as Vanilla Bean. ALL IT SAYS is: Vanilla Bean ice cream has to contain vanilla beans.

I guarantee you that when the day comes that Peanut Butter ice cream is the MOST requested flavor, every ice cream vendor will be sure to carry it....because then, that's where the most potential for a sale will be.

Using your analogy of Vanilla, at risk of offending people

Allison, I wonder what % of sales are Vanilla?
My guess is 1/3rd.
In diamonds the total graded by labs and listed on IDEX is 52% http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?id=30649
Is that what you think is normal Allison? If not - what do you think it should be?

Rounds correct?

So I think it would be safe to assume that if you add the non-graded Diamonds into the pot the 52% would rise significantly

.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/22/2008 4:26:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/22/2008 3:45:28 PM
Author: ribbit
Even after how many pages, I just don''t honestly see how a grading system designed to evaluate *certain* cuts stifles the introduction of new cuts. I''m not usually so stupid. Make a beautiful new cut-get it in the hands of the right people (WF, GOG, Wink, JA, etc & some celebrities wouldn''t hurt)-show us consumers its beauty-and if the consumers agree, they''ll buy it.After all, you couldn''t pry the asshers, cushions, and old mine cuts out of the cold dead hands of the PSers that love them. I personally love the amaranth''s look but I''m not sure it really exists-the only info I''ve found is the PS pic.

The problem is on the manufacturing side.
It creates more fear that they will not be able to sell them because they don''t have THE ideal label.
More and more time and energy will be spent gaming the cut grading systems than working towards beautiful diamonds.

edit to add:
The sad fact is that I can design beautiful diamonds all day and there would be millions of dollars more value in finding a combo that gets the AGS0 or GIA EX grade that adds a tenth of a carat to the average weight of each diamond in a batch of AGS Ideals or GIA EX cuts.
Even if it produces a worse looking diamond.

Again I ask, how can a lab that has less than 2% of the market keep you from selling anything.

As John has shown you and others with actual numbers from actual on line available stones there are only a small percentage of stones with the AGS 0 lable so obviousy the manufacturers are NOT producing only the best looking stones to sell.

They are of course producing what works for them. You keep trying to create the bogey man, and he is NOT real.

For goodness sakes, go create something wonderful and present it to the market. It will sell or not sell and neither the blame nor the responsibility for that will rest with the AGS.

Fortunately for me and for others who wish to sell these wonderful stones most of the consumers will not be as upset about having a guideline as you would like them to be. It is a guideline, and a DARN GOOD ONE, for those who are looking to buy a dependably incredible looking round brilliant or princess cut diamond. It has NOTHING to do with the new diamonds you wish to create, nor will it harm them in their sales or production.

In the past thirty or forty years we have had a handfull of new cuts that made it, the princess, the trillion, the radiant all come to mind. Many more have been introduced and failed or hung on by a fingernail or two, many of which I loved, some of which I found boring. None of them were helped or hindered at their introduction by any lab, but rather by their reception with the public.

Wink

P.S. The good fact is that it is highly unlikely that you can add a tenth of a carat to a parcel of diamonds and still get the AGS 0 cut grade, specifically if they are not as good looking. The AGS 0 cut grade is not designed to reward poor looking diamonds. (In a parcel of one carats for example, who knows what you might add to a parcel of twenty carats)

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/22/2008 5:33:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2008 11:08:59 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 8/22/2008 10:54:09 AM
Author: Allison D.

Agreed. I think most *reasonable* people have the capacity to understand that no ''system'' is perfect, but being imperfect doesn''t make it without value or relevance.

As for the little Italian hotel, it''s true that some people who might otherwise find it charming may not even consider it because it garners only 1 star. It''s true that some people won''t look beyond the AGS0 label, even though other great diamonds may be found outside. It''s true that some people won''t consider diamonds that don''t score below 2 on the HCA, even though there may be some fabulous stones that score a bit higher.

Such people aren''t risk takers; they don''t want to gamble or face uncertainty. That''s why they look to rating systems to begin with....because they want to hedge their bets and focus on those options that are most likely to be satisfying choices. They fully recognize that there may be other winners outside those prescribed parameters, but they don''t wish to be adventurous. They want to go with the ''safe'' route.

People who aren''t risk takers are always going to look for things increase their probability for being happy/satisfied with their choices, and that''s inherent to who they are. If those systems didn''t exist, many in that group would make no choice; they would be paralyzed into fear of choosing for fear of making the wrong choice. No one wins then.

I agree there. It took me months and months to buy a cushion cut because no such system existed. It took me a day to find a good round stone because I can punch it in the HCA. With no such system to rely on for cushion cuts, I was filled with self-doubt because I couldnt trust my eyes and had no second opinion other than my jeweler who might have had an agenda.

Do you all see that I too created an incentive for people to buy rounds rather than cushions or any other cut?

That means there is more demand for rounds and less for anything else.

Does that help take us back Allison, to the orignal topic?

Might it be Garry that more people prefer rounds because the shape of the round lets it return more light because of the physics of light science, and what most people want from a diamond is sparkle. (And of course for many, size.)

Is it possible that rounds just tend to be what most people like> Nolthing wrong with liking a beautiful diamond. Nor is there anything wrong in preferring any other shape. Personal taste is personal taste. Having decided on a shape, is there anything wrong in wanting help to know that you are not being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous vendor?

As much as I prefer the AGS to GIA, I also acknowledge that GIA also helps people to make choices. I just have a hard time seeing anything wrong with this, especially in an industry as plagued with charletons as ours has become.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/22/2008 6:24:01 PM
Author: whatmeworry
Relying on AGS, HCA, Sarin, Aset, GEMEX, 5 star ratings instead of your own eye and own definition of beauty hurts consumers in the long run. If someone bought a diamond that they thought was beautiful and the market agreed, then the consumer is paying the going rate. But if you bought something that you thought was beautiful but the market disagreed, then the consumer, just got a bargain.

True, so long as he never wants to resell it.

Wink