our own John Pollard in a AGS podcast advertisement

[John P]

A few more clippings.

Check it out, did you know that only diamonds with 41 pavilion are allowed to be AGS0?

Oh, and 'Excellent' finish?

 

[John P]

Image-Google "Ideal Proportions." This is on the first page. I kid you not.

(I added the numbers in red for ease-of-reading)

 

[John P]

By the way, did you know that Canadian diamonds are all Ideal cut?

It must be true. I read it on the web.

 

[John P]

I'll stop.

Forgive my overzealous, but I'm protective of principled sellers in the trade - including a lot of the reputable folks here and the everyday heroes in our network of B&M dealers - who stick to their guns & high standards when they could probably make bigger margins by lowering the bar and twisting the truth.

I'm even more protective of consumers, since that's where I came from. I remember the shenanigans that were attempted on me, and see them still being proliferated in commercial markets. To that end, even away from PS, I support finding ways to reach consumers with information on quality standards that is relevant today.

 

[helios_haze]

Thanks John - great work!

Just for fun, I walked into Zales yesterday ... and the relevancy of John's work rings SO VERY TRUE.

The saleswoman wanted me to believe that G was the ABSOLUTE BEST color grade (because that was the best stone she had). I gave her a chance and said, doesn't it start with D and she is like NO ... G is the best possible. Playing dumb, I asked how the IGL compared to GIA/AGS - I was told that IGL is BETTER ... HAHA!!

The sad thing is even SMART people get scammed/lose money. My future brother-in-law, a successful entrepreneur but too busy/uneducated in diamonds put down a large amount at a mall store for a ring that would be worth HALF, at best, by PS standards.

So we need more Sir Johns or MORE WORK by HIM

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The topic has become one of consumer confidence and misrepresentation.

A note on the history:
The usage of ''ideal'' - it really all came out of AGS encouraging Sarin to impliment the old parametric proportions into rough planning and polished scanners. That is how the term and definition came to be ubiquitous (and missused).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/13/2008 7:01:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/13/2008 6:29:25 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I think John and Sergey are both right.
John is in business here today
Sergey we need to find a solution faster for tomorrow.

I know John agrees with you on the under lying iceberg.

Garry, take off that peacemaker hat. I didn''t recognize you.

I think we''re both right too. I appreciate the iceberg warning but I''m concerned with the consumers being eaten by sharks today.

The target audience is shoppers out-and-about who are running into sellers trying to convince them that fluorescence is bad, good polish/sym means top cut in a fancy shape, D-VVS will be ''most sparkly'' and there''s swampland that comes free with every diamond purchase.

Of course if EVERY SHOPPER knew about Pricescope, then stores would have to train their staff better and behave more reputably.
Sergey has a vision that many more diamonds would be sold the way watches are - by agents who are chosen by the diamantaire, in just the way that John is working (for those that do not know - John trains the staff in stores selling infinity brand diamonds).
So John is working at the coal face.
I usually avoid salespeople with prior experiance because it takes sooo loong tooo train them properly. This usually means removal of technical dribble, and replacement with confidence building but accurate information about diamonds.

And that is the issue here.

We need to make Pricescope much more useful to consumers and help take the fear out of diamond buying, add transperancy etc.

We means you (image of Uncle Sam pointing the finger at YOU).

If you are reading this, you are a peer group influencing expert.

what Sergey wants and John want are common

Customers buying diamonds confidently
in fun exciting ways that encourage collecting and pleasure

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

I recall this discussion/thread of yore...initiated by Don Q. Know him?

.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-terms-ideal-and-ags-ideal.50802/

cheers--Sharon

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 8/13/2008 6:13:13 PM
Author: John Pollard

No, and the intent of the Podcast is to help consumers with no access to PS. Routinely they are told ''this diamond is ideal'' - piggybacking on that term but selling, frankly, a completely fraudulent ideal.

People are getting slaughtered out there. Something I told myself I would do it always keep a foot on the consumer side of the counter (where I came from). Consumers are being duped in stores by abuse of the term ''ideal'' every day. I see it. It''s rampant, and...until some globally accepted lab/grading system/grand poo-bah comes along and everyone agrees on new standards...the AGS is doing the best job of consumer protection in a cut-quality sense, particularly with round and princess cuts. GIA does a good job of color/clarity and a lot of rounds are tops, but manufacturers are learning to cut to the steep/deep end of EX.

My rationale: If the Podcast prevents even one person from getting duped into some heart shape with G symmetry and VG polish being passed off as an ''ideal'' cut - it has served its purpose. If the Podcast gets 10 people to be aware that the term is being abused it has served its purpose 10X over. If the Podcast gets 100 people to research AGS/GIA etc...and find Pricescope it is very well worth the effort we put into it.

I''m interested in your statement above. Do you think there are many people who are technically savy enough to participate in Podcasts that do NOT have a computer? I''d be amazed if that was true

You mentioned Googling for Ideal. Wouldn''t it be reasonable to think that the same people who had a computer to Google, would also have access to Pricescope?

Additionally, I am not sure that you are correct that women first look at size, and then sparkle. Personally when someone shows me their new diamond I look at size, then I look for visible inclusions, and then I notice sparkle. If someone has a diamond with eye visible inclusions I don''t bother to look further...I just tell them they have a nice ring and congratulate them.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

I''m concerned that a well known lab worldwide has various "ideal" cuts listed on their reports.
Each has a different name. The consumer surely does not know the difference as there is no
definition of "ideal" on the report.
I agree that the term is being used carelessly, mostly by those that simply "don''t know" or those
that "do know" but don''t care about the ramifications.

I''m old enough to remember many diamond appraisals from the late 70''s that often
just said a diamond had "excellent" cut and "excellent" clarity. Define what that meant.
We''ve come a long way...sort of.

Education on all levels will take us further down the correct path which will benefit both consumers
and everyone involved in the jewelry industry.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/13/2008 6:47:39 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/13/2008 6:44:50 PM

Author: John Pollard

The information here says ''Ideal'' diamonds in fancy shapes can have polish & sym grades of VG, EX, ID.



That is already diluting the standard AGS set, permitting only the highest finish, but that''s not too extreme. What follows is more of a concern.



(screen shot)

AGS caused that problem by not using a trademarkable term for marketing reasons.

that is a pretty good example of having not considered the future.

Karl,

In their defense, I believe it was WAY to late to trademark that term when AGS developed the latest iteration of their grading system. The term Ideal has been in use since the 20''s or 30''s. (I am old, but not old enough to remember when the term came into being...)

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/13/2008 7:48:16 PM
Author: helios_haze
Thanks John - great work!


Just for fun, I walked into Zales yesterday ... and the relevancy of John''s work rings SO VERY TRUE.


The saleswoman wanted me to believe that G was the ABSOLUTE BEST color grade (because that was the best stone she had). I gave her a chance and said, doesn''t it start with D and she is like NO ... G is the best possible. Playing dumb, I asked how the IGL compared to GIA/AGS - I was told that IGL is BETTER ... HAHA!!


The sad thing is even SMART people get scammed/lose money. My future brother-in-law, a successful entrepreneur but too busy/uneducated in diamonds put down a large amount at a mall store for a ring that would be worth HALF, at best, by PS standards.


So we need more Sir Johns or MORE WORK by HIM

LOL, you remind me of a sad thing that happened to me several years ago. I sold a lady a BEAUTIFUL D-VVS1 with GIA Diamond Grading report which she had already picked out a mounting for at another store.

She called me back a few hours later and wanted her money back. Turns out that according to the other jeweler, who actually put it in writing in the appraisal that no stones in this country were higher than G-VS1 which they graded the diamond since anything better was purchased by the Arabs.

It did not take too long to convince her that the guy was a total moron and salvage the sale, but it gave me a whole new understanding of the idiocy being practiced out in the "real world".

 

[John P]

Date: 8/13/2008 11:57:52 PM
Author: Wink

In their defense, I believe it was WAY to late to trademark that term when AGS developed the latest iteration of their grading system. The term Ideal has been in use since the 20''s or 30''s. (I am old, but not old enough to remember when the term came into being...)

You hit the trade timeline spot-on Wink. Frank Wade pioneered a series of scientific articles that distinguished him in the trade between 1915-1930. He equated "American Cut" with Tolkowsky''s 1919 calculations and was one of the first influential people to call Tolkowsky''s measurements "ideal." In the 1930s Robert Shipley centered his GIA coursework on Tolkowsky.

The term was widely proliferated among consumers in the late 1990s. It fell into popular nomenclature when the AGS'' (then very strict) system for grading cut created a buzz.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/13/2008 9:07:12 PM
Author: purrfectpear

I'm interested in your statement above. Do you think there are many people who are technically savy enough to participate in Podcasts that do NOT have a computer? I'd be amazed if that was true

That would be hard wouldn't it?

The Podcast is emailed to subscribers (sometimes it's given out on CD or played in-store) so naturally the vast majority will have a computer. Sadly not everyone with a computer finds Pricescope though. In fact, at least half of consumers do not - see below.

You mentioned Googling for Ideal. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the same people who had a computer to Google, would also have access to Pricescope?

According to JCK approximately 50% of people do some research online before buying jewelry. That means the other 50% will never find PS - and it's unknown how many of those who research actually do find us. I'm in the jewelry business and I'm shocked by how many jewelers and professionals have never heard of PS. One day PS may have the street-reputation of Amazon or Yahoo, but that day is not here yet. Until then I'm inclined to follow "The Starfish Flinger" school of thought.

Additionally, I am not sure that you are correct that women first look at size, and then sparkle. Personally when someone shows me their new diamond I look at size, then I look for visible inclusions, and then I notice sparkle. If someone has a diamond with eye visible inclusions I don't bother to look further...I just tell them they have a nice ring and congratulate them.

Agreed. It depends on how educated the viewer is. Like you, I also assess clarity & color before cut - but I’m trained as a grader.

I based the statement on a casual poll done over the past several years with lady diamond buyers. They report “size and sparkle” as priorities. Of course they and their friends are not diamond-educated. My wife’s friends and coworkers reacted the same way but, again, they're average people who might have to think a bit to recall what all 4Cs are.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/13/2008 7:48:16 PM
Author: helios_haze

Thanks John - great work!

Just for fun, I walked into Zales yesterday ... and the relevancy of John''s work rings SO VERY TRUE.

The saleswoman wanted me to believe that G was the ABSOLUTE BEST color grade (because that was the best stone she had). I gave her a chance and said, doesn''t it start with D and she is like NO ... G is the best possible. Playing dumb, I asked how the IGL compared to GIA/AGS - I was told that IGL is BETTER ... HAHA!!

The sad thing is even SMART people get scammed/lose money. My future brother-in-law, a successful entrepreneur but too busy/uneducated in diamonds put down a large amount at a mall store for a ring that would be worth HALF, at best, by PS standards.

So we need more Sir Johns or MORE WORK by HIM

Thanks for the generous comments Helios. Sadly, this is not surprising - but you''ve struck at the heart of why many of us contribute here, and in other places as we are able.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/13/2008 11:57:52 PM
Author: Wink


Karl,


In their defense, I believe it was WAY to late to trademark that term when AGS developed the latest iteration of their grading system. The term Ideal has been in use since the 20''s or 30''s. (I am old, but not old enough to remember when the term came into being...)


Wink

That just proves my point...
They picked a bad name to play on the market.
The answer is simple....
Call them AGS0 which should be a trademark and sue anyone who uses that term without permission for the sale of diamonds.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/13/2008 8:43:05 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Of course if EVERY SHOPPER knew about Pricescope, then stores would have to train their staff better and behave more reputably.
Sergey has a vision that many more diamonds would be sold the way watches are - by agents who are chosen by the diamantaire, in just the way that John is working (for those that do not know - John trains the staff in stores selling infinity brand diamonds).
So John is working at the coal face.
I usually avoid salespeople with prior experiance because it takes sooo loong tooo train them properly. This usually means removal of technical dribble, and replacement with confidence building but accurate information about diamonds.

And that is the issue here.

We need to make Pricescope much more useful to consumers and help take the fear out of diamond buying, add transperancy etc.

We means you (image of Uncle Sam pointing the finger at YOU).

If you are reading this, you are a peer group influencing expert.

what Sergey wants and John want are common

Customers buying diamonds confidently
in fun exciting ways that encourage collecting and pleasure

Absolutely right. Pricescope comes up more and more in searches about jewelry topics. The more we (you) contribute, the more those doing research on the internet are likely to find this resource.

 

[jasontb]

How long has John been training staff for Infinity?

 

[Serg]

Wink,

I have not any real concern about new light standards. It is minor issue in my point of you.

I fear other challenge to diamond industry :

1) How is popular now natural fur? Please think why exactly synthetic jackets are so popular now( even in real cold counties, even for real rich persons )?

Synthetic diamonds have not cut limitation form Labs. A soon synthetic diamonds will have better cuts than natural diamonds
Synthetic diamonds could become a soon real true hand made innovation Luxury product!

Industry until now did not recognize real challenge from synthetic . Most in industry think what enough say . Synthetic diamond is Fake diamond to stop consumer buy it.

It is very silly and dangers

(And specially for Andrew,

10 year ago one researcher came to research department one respect Lab and gave suggestion.

I have access to new synthetic diamonds, I can develop diagnostic to recognize synthetic . Are you interesting

Answer was: Do not speak about synthetic in our Lab at all. It is not allow. We do not want do any research work for synthetic because it will give respect ( world recognition ) for synthetic diamonds

Industry lost at least 7 years

And what we have now?

Industry until now did not recognize real challenge from synthetic . Most in industry think what enough say : "Synthetic diamond is Fake diamond "to stop consumer buy it. We need discuss to find good joint response. We can not hide this problem more. I hope it is clear for Labs now. Labs helped a lot to synthetic market and they do not understand what they continue help synthetic market)

2 )It is not possible for Luxury markets more produce and sell exactly same goods. Innovation is very important part Any modern Luxury market( art are not Luxury market, but is work for art too now)
Will consumers buy commodity to “proof LOVE” ? How are long?
Try build your business in standard modern Luxury trends. Just historical reason and DeBeers old marketing could be not enough to save diamond market like Luxury market
I can be wrong here. But what is if I am right?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/13/2008 6:35:00 PM
Author: John Pollard
Strm''s post is good.

Date: 8/13/2008 6:02:47 PM
Author: Maisie

When I looked at diamonds online the other day I saw the term ''ideal'' but when I put the numbers through the HCA it came out as a 3.6. Does this mean their ''ideal'' and the AGS term ''ideal'' are very different?

Absolutely. In fact, Google ''ideal diamond'' and read the first three pages of links. You will find literally dozens of misconceptions, conflicting statements and out-and-out falsehoods.

<< Re: their ''ideal'' and the AGS term ''ideal'' are very different >>

Here are some screen shots I cobbled-together. Bear in mind the misinformation is even more rampant on the street.

This seller boasts Emeralds of ''Ideal'' cut quality, but these diamonds are GIA-graded, meaning they have not passed through ANY performance assessment at the lab.

John,
How is about AGS 0 cut grade for Emerald?

Is it same "Real Ideal" like AGS 0 round cut?

Is ASG0 Emerald has same performance like AGS0 round cut?

I think AGS gave source for a lot misinterpretations and confusing consumers.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/13/2008 7:01:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/13/2008 6:29:25 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I think John and Sergey are both right.
John is in business here today
Sergey we need to find a solution faster for tomorrow.

I know John agrees with you on the under lying iceberg.

Garry, take off that peacemaker hat. I didn''t recognize you.

I think we''re both right too. I appreciate the iceberg warning but I''m concerned with the consumers being eaten by sharks today.

The target audience is shoppers out-and-about who are running into sellers trying to convince them that fluorescence is bad, good polish/sym means top cut in a fancy shape, D-VVS will be ''most sparkly'' and there''s swampland that comes free with every diamond purchase.

re:I appreciate the iceberg warning but I''m concerned with the consumers being eaten by sharks today.



Has Cut Sea more dangers now for consumer than 10 year ago? More sharks? I do not see it.
I see what average diamond is much more better now and consumer is smarter now.
But other problems is become much more critical in last 10 years, After AGS introduces Ideal concept .

You try extinguish a Fire by Kerosene

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/13/2008 5:34:40 PM
Author: John Pollard
Sorry Serg, but I disagree.

You are not in US malls and chain stores every day. I am.

If you were in retail stores, hearing what most consumers are told by salespeople, you would welcome information that helps them purchase better cut quality.

I understand your ''big picture'' point of view, and support it, but it does not help the ''little person'' today. Shopping now. Spending money now. Their money is better-spent on a diamond that has earned AGS0 (or many GIA EX combinations) than on the steep/deep piece of frozen spit that some toothy salesman in a mall chain store tells them is ''ideal.'' This is happening now to consumers.

Please read again:

Date: 8/13/2008 5:24:49 PM
Author: John Pollard

On PS this information reads like Cliff''s Notes. The target audience is the ''average'' consumer with no resource like Pricescope, and the message is that the term ''ideal'' - as employed by AGS - implies a strict benchmark, but that term has become much-abused by commercial sellers. Many shoppers are shocked to hear that ''ideal'' (not to mention color and clarity grading) is unregulated. In the past month this podcast has reached the ears of many new shoppers.

If you have a solution to help shoppers preparing to buy terribly cut commercial goods today please let me know. If you don''t I think those steered towards the best cut grading system(s) we currently have in major markets will be thankful.

John,

I have Very old suggestions , most of them had been announced on IDCC1( 2004 may)
1) Score cut grade system instead penalty (Ideal concept) cut grade system
2) Stop use Ideal concept ,
3) Absorb knowledge from Vine and watch Luxury markets
4) One cut grade system( One rules) for All cuts
5) MSS
6) Standardization light schemas ( we need give real technical solution for consumers to COMPARE different cuts in Same and reasonable light environments )
Did YOU do anything from Cut Group list in last 4 years. Did you Help? .
You do not like help because you Believe in Ideal concept
Consumer Confidence is not possible if consumer can not Compare and Check independently what Goods are better .
Cheap Light box for comparison ( what can be install in any Jewellery shop) diamonds by Consumer in reasonable light model is most Critical step to return Consumer confidence.

Main problem diamond industry come from Low consumer confidence. ( certifications like “My diamond is not blond ” ,” I did not use kids labor”, “I am GG” , “Foremark” can not build consumer confidence if you want sell diamonds instead papers )
Ideal concept decrease consumer confidence, at least in time when you proof what your diamond is Real Ideal Only By AGS cut grading report.
Just give consumers instrument to compare diamonds and you will creat Great confidence to your diamonds( which is real nice. Not Ideal , but nice, beautiful and has correct price ) . If consumer will sure what he buy best for him diamonds, If it will Him choice ( not from you or from AGS), if he will not afraid be cheated( because he can Compare and Check and do Him decision based on Him observation ), he will pay more for your H&A diamonds and be happy in same time.
You would even start sells diamonds In Germany

Of course only 10-20% consumers prefer do self-dependent choice. Other prefer follow Celebrities, Brands,..
But if you can not give instrument to these 10%, you can not create real and stabile Brand. ( You need promote your Goods for each new consumer)

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 8/14/2008 2:26:35 AM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I have not any real concern about new light standards. It is minor issue in my point of you.

I fear other challenge to diamond industry :

1) How is popular now natural fur? Please think why exactly synthetic jackets are so popular now( even in real cold counties, even for real rich persons )?

Synthetic diamonds have not cut limitation form Labs. A soon synthetic diamonds will have better cuts than natural diamonds
Synthetic diamonds could become a soon real true hand made innovation Luxury product!

Industry until now did not recognize real challenge from synthetic . Most in industry think what enough say . Synthetic diamond is Fake diamond to stop consumer buy it.

It is very silly and dangers

(And specially for Andrew,

10 year ago one researcher came to research department one respect Lab and gave suggestion.

I have access to new synthetic diamonds, I can develop diagnostic to recognize synthetic . Are you interesting

Answer was: Do not speak about synthetic in our Lab at all. It is not allow. We do not want do any research work for synthetic because it will give respect ( world recognition ) for synthetic diamonds

Industry lost at least 7 years

And what we have now?

Industry until now did not recognize real challenge from synthetic . Most in industry think what enough say : ''Synthetic diamond is Fake diamond ''to stop consumer buy it. We need discuss to find good joint response. We can not hide this problem more. I hope it is clear for Labs now. Labs helped a lot to synthetic market and they do not understand what they continue help synthetic market)

2 )It is not possible for Luxury markets more produce and sell exactly same goods. Innovation is very important part Any modern Luxury market( art are not Luxury market, but is work for art too now)
Will consumers buy commodity to “proof LOVE” ? How are long?
Try build your business in standard modern Luxury trends. Just historical reason and DeBeers old marketing could be not enough to save diamond market like Luxury market

I can be wrong here. But what is if I am right?

I''m not Wink but I have some thoughts on your comparison between fake vs. real, diamonds vs. fur.

1. There is no tradition about "engagement furs" . Many women are happily furless real or synthetic. The market is much, much smaller. Society has never dictated a woman must have a fur. American society does pretty strongly dictate that a woman must have an engagement diamond (though women are at will to ignore societies dictates).

2. The fur industry remained silent when PETA went on the attack about killing "poor little animals" and "fur is blood". The cattle industry fought back when burgers were being attacked. The diamond industry fought back over "blood diamond" propaganda. We still eat meat and wear diamonds.

3. Synthetic diamonds will not overtake earth mined diamonds until they can a.) be made in large carat weights in large quantities, b.) be sold substantially cheaper, c.) hold some resale value comparable to earth mined, and d.) overcome the fake stigma.

Those are four rather large issues to be resolved before synthetics will pose a real threat to earth mined diamonds, IMO.

 

[Serg]

Purrfectpear,

Re: There is no tradition about "engagement furs" .

Early Fur was important sign of prosperity. In some nation fur was typical standard “engagement” present.
Now diamond is sign of prosperity.
But I do not speak what fur had same status like diamond for USA market.
My goal to show How Technology can quickly change market . Just PETA can not do it. But if CoreTex had been developed PETA could increase speed social change

Re: The market is much, much smaller.

How big market was 30-40 years ago:
1) for Fur?
2) for diamonds?

Re: The diamond industry fought back over "blood diamond" propaganda. We still eat meat and wear diamonds.

Was it last attack? What will in next time? Promotion synthetic diamonds is more and more smarter

Re: be made in large carat weights in large quantities

How large diamond do you need? 3-5 carats are not more problem ( just few days). What will happened in next 10 years?
Re: be sold substantially cheaper,
It is not necessary. My point is what synthetic diamonds could be success Luxury Goods ( what mean Synthetic diamonds could have Bigger consumer price and much more less “mining” price than natural diamonds). I know it hard to believe now

 

[stone_seeker]

I have to add my two cents as a consumer. If you have ever taken a walk down 47th Street between 5th and 6th avenue, you will immediately be accosted by 10-20 vendors trying to sell you something in their window. They use the same tactics used car salesmen use. Thanfully, we have legislated lemon laws which have helped the consumer greatly. I dont think a comparable law exists in this jewelry business or how it could be enforced given the lax and very subjective standards. With a car, it either works or it doesnt. A diamond''s "idealness" may be subjective, especially with respect to fancy shapes.

I think it is appalling that so many online and B&M vendors label cuts as ideal or signature ideal with no basis whatsoever. That needs to be regulated to protect consumers now and in the future. I know many very well educated people who become very confused when it comes to diamond shopping and will believe someone when they say its ideal. I dont know if Serg was suggesting this would hurt the diamond industry since it will result in less sales overall but selling via misleading information is illegal. Vendors should try and sell their goods on the basis of beauty rather than misleading and incorrect statements. There will always be a market for less-than-ideal stones since they should be cheaper and people will still want less expensive stones. So I dont think having a real standard will hurt business.

It is unfortunate that 50% of diamond buyers wlill never here of Pricescope and I wish there were a way for that number to be improved. So write your congressperson and tell them that all jewelry vendors need to advertise or make would-be buyers aware of Pricescope. That will solve some of the problem since having standards on something as subjective as beauty (for most cuts other than rounds) will be difficult to achieve. But at least then consumers can make more informed decisions.

 

[purrfectpear]

Write your congressman to make people aware of Pricescope

While it''s a fab resource, it IS a privately owned website. I don''t think you''ll get too far trying to legislate stores being forced to notify customers about a private website

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/14/2008 10:05:39 AM
Author: purrfectpear
Write your congressman to make people aware of Pricescope

While it''s a fab resource, it IS a privately owned website. I don''t think you''ll get too far trying to legislate stores being forced to notify customers about a private website

I think you are taking my point to literally. The point is there are many other industries where consumers have resources that vendors can be told to ensure their customers are made aware of. As to their ownership public vs non profit, etc. I do not know but they do exist. There should be a consumer reports like guide for diamond purchases. If these tools exist for plasma TV''s and car radios, surely more expensive items like jewelry can have them.

Think of Morningstar for mutual funds and the way securities are regulated. If the people on this thread are deeply concerned about the lack of knowledge beyond pricescope, writing about it on pricescope isnt going to work. The podcast idea helps but there again relies on the person being somewhat internet savvy.

My main point is there should be laws similar to lemon laws for diamonds since there are many really unscrupulous characters trying to sell crappy stones and calling them ideal.

 

[purrfectpear]

Actually I agree with you, but for now there are no lemon laws. Even if there were, I don''t think they can legislate the word ideal. It''s no different than super-dooper, or ultimate, or any other word that has not been trademarked. For the time being I have the ideal job, in the ideal city, with the ideal house, and the ideal dog...ya know what I mean

That horse has already left the barn so to speak.

"There should be a consumer reports like guide for diamond purchases. If these tools exist for plasma TV''s and car radios, surely more expensive items like jewelry can have them."

Sure someone could start one up. Thanks to the internet though, I rarely use consumer reports any more. I can get the same type of info for free with some deep googling (pricescope for instance). A consumer guide would only be useful to the people who sought it out. Stores do NOT provide consumer reports guides, nor can they advertise that they received a high grade from one.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/14/2008 10:54:17 AM
Author: purrfectpear
Actually I agree with you, but for now there are no lemon laws. Even if there were, I don''t think they can legislate the word ideal. It''s no different than super-dooper, or ultimate, or any other word that has not been trademarked. For the time being I have the ideal job, in the ideal city, with the ideal house, and the ideal dog...ya know what I mean

That horse has already left the barn so to speak.

''There should be a consumer reports like guide for diamond purchases. If these tools exist for plasma TV''s and car radios, surely more expensive items like jewelry can have them.''

Sure someone could start one up. Thanks to the internet though, I rarely use consumer reports any more. I can get the same type of info for free with some deep googling (pricescope for instance). A consumer guide would only be useful to the people who sought it out. Stores do NOT provide consumer reports guides, nor can they advertise that they received a high grade from one.

I agree there 100% and I guess that''s the point of the thread and podcast. But whats different than super-duper is that in many cases some of these jewelers calling stones ideal are misleading since the term is used by a certain lab and for a certain cut. I guess at the end of the day does it matter what its called or what specs it has if the buyer loves the way it looks, i.e. beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

I''m sure there are people who absolutely LOVE crushed ice cushions but if you read the threads on here or watched GOG videos, you would think you should avoid them like the plague. So how would one grade that type of stone objectively?

I guess all of this is useless until someone (prob wont happen) disallows the use of the word Ideal Cut for stones that arent graded as such by AGS.

You''re right though, I live in NYC where about 5 pizza places near me say they have the "best pizza in new york". And I hate all of them

 

[Serg]

Forever Marking Synthetic Gem-Quality Diamonds
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?id=30982
“
..
What we had not realized before is that De Beers has patented a technology that would also enable the branding of the expensive, gem-quality synthetic diamond.

This De Beers patent seems to have been developed by scientists who are extremely conscious and careful to assure that the application of the marking techniques will in no way, shape or form impact the high commercial value of the synthetic gem-quality stones.

Let there be no misunderstanding: Even though this patent can apply to a variety of synthetic diamond products, it is clear that the use of synthetics for jewelry purposes was foremost in the minds of those funding, developing, and filing this patent.

This patent not only tells you how to grow the mark within the material to begin with but also where to place the mark, which will provide the synthetic manufacturer with the widest range of marketing options.

This is not just how to detect but rather how to market. Vive le difference!
..

“

I can be agree what I am paranoiac. What is about “CHAIM EVEN-ZOHAR”? Is he just paranoic too?