Part II - ipsofacto...How do vendors stock their shelves!

[Regular Guy]

Not long ago I asked if jewelers had reference to any qualitatively different data than we ordinary citizens do who dwell on Pricescope. Response was sparse, but the sentiment seemed to be...no...perhaps it was more extensive, but similar, by and large.

So, exactly what procedures do vendors engage in to stock their shelves with diamonds they choose to "keep in house," and sell from their own wares?

Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again? (A recent thread bemoans the absence of photos from suppliers, so you''re working with the same table and depth data that we are, right? The same crummy text that may report the diamond is the former AGS0, but when brought in, maybe is not).

Who does it? You? Or someone you farm this activity out to, leaving you to be in charge of other functions a jeweler must conduct, including customer contact, marketing, bookkeeping, etc.

What are your performance criteria, when you bring in a diamond, and decide to keep it, versus toss it?

Is there anything you think is unique in your process you might like us to know about?

Anything you''re willing to share but wish we didn''t know, after all?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Happy to tell you Ira, but have to kill you immediately.

 

[strmrdr]

the same way consumers do....
trusted suppliers.

We know the quick way to find the diamonds we want to look at is to go to a select group of vendors who stock those type of diamonds.
Same for vendors.

 

[perry]

Vendors tend to specialize in a certain market nitch. They work with suppliers who normally can supply that market nitch; and then shop for the occasional diamond request from outside their normal nitch.

It would be a mistake to assume that "high quality cut" diamonds are the most profitable market nitch. The image I have of comparisons is of two diamond stores located less than a block apart (both independants). One sells "upscale" diamonds and diamond jewelry (Items up to $25,000 in stock). The other sells low end diamond engagement rings (14 K gold only) and other jewelry (I don't think their was a single thing in the store over $3000). I sat down the street and watched for a while. Judging from the customer volumn I would guess that the low end store to actually be the more profitable one. An awful lot of $500 - $1000 engagement ring sets were walking out the door (I don't think that the high end store had a single ring in this price range). Not only that but they had a great sign on the door to the effect of: "Don't wait for our sale. Sales are for stores that mark their jewelry up so that they can entice you with a "sale" or offer you a better deal. We just price our jewelry at a low mark-up so that you get sale prices every day..." (I don't think so - but they have managed to project the image and thus get a lot of business without hagling over price).

Perry

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/8/2005 12:50:49 PM
Author:Regular Guy

Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again?

That is funny !

Why on Earth?

It might have been said that ideal cuts are 5% of all etc. (if anyone counted) but that can''t possibly mean that someone actually goes though a pile of bric-a-brak to scavenge the 5%. Not even buyers... & not even on a forum with lists like this.

How about a simple riddle: one buyer needs one diamond, so no matter how many he might see, he''ll get only one. As long as showing diamonds to him costs something... guess how many is good to line up?

Talking is cheaper

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:01:19 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/8/2005 12:50:49 PM
Author:Regular Guy

Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again?

That is funny !

Why on Earth?

It might have been said that ideal cuts are 5% of all etc. (if anyone counted) but that can't possibly mean that someone actually goes though a pile of bric-a-brak to scavenge the 5%. Not even buyers... & not even on a forum with lists like this.

God's honest truth, Ana, I thought it did work exactly like this (see highlighted text above). But, partly mindful of Storm's suggestion, and implicit in your disbelief, I'm now thinking that on the whole, people get in 100, they keep 100, and will be happier with 1/2 than the other half, but just seek to sell them all.

From what I've read here, I've understood when a shopper goes to GOG, Jonathan will have gone through a process like the one you point to Ana, and that I considered, and because he's working with trusted manufacturers, he keeps many...but the end yield will be that top 5%. Likewise, with WF, who craft their own, (or employ others to meet their specifications), I am imagining that, again, that top 5% is their actual objective.

Mindful of the chart presented in the Pricescope tutorial:

Cut $ Most
Color $$ A lot
Clarity $$$ Some
Carat $$$$ ?

The real general idea I have is that, taking considered advantage of the imperfect market knowledge, that values relatively clarity, color, and only then cut, in an inverted relationship to how educated consumers might actually perceive the actual benefits of these qualities...a smart vendor, let alone a Pricescope vendor, might -- specifically for their "so called" signature series kept in house, do exactly what I propose, weed through the offerings on the "net," to find those diamonds that are a) first of all, only cut to beautiful proportions, and b) return the rest for others to sell.

To your riddle:

How about a simple riddle: one buyer needs one diamond, so no matter how many he might see, he'll get only one. As long as showing diamonds to him costs something... guess how many is good to line up?

Talking is cheaper

...yes, I'm thinking that it's manual work to go through these guys, that only those people vested in both the success of their own business, and the customer base he wants to garner, will take the time to do so, and that unless you DO craft them, yourself, there would be no other way to tell the good from the bad than to eliminate many.

Ana, perhaps you're saying it's too much work, and most work with just whatever they have. If this is so, the question become more vital (and only one vendor who is a core author here has reported in so far, saying nothing substantive in this post, but previously reporting on sifting through diamonds with an idealscope and rejecting many), and could be seen as a challenge to other Pricescope vendors.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Ira,

I will answer your questions as best I can.

Not long ago I asked if jewelers had reference to any qualitatively different data than we ordinary citizens do who dwell on Pricescope. Response was sparse, but the sentiment seemed to be...no...perhaps it was more extensive, but similar, by and large.

When it comes to data obtained from suppliers this is sparse. There are some, albeit very few suppliers who can give Bscope results. Some can give Sarin''s. One Isee2 scores. To be frank, the best information I can obtain which serves me most is a 3d scan. I say this because of my familiarity and ability to interpret optical signatures and what results they will produce on various technologies but most importantly Ira ... how they translate to human eye observation and the optical metrics of contrast, brightness, fire, leakage. Once I see an accurate model I pretty much know if its worth pursuing or not. Unfortunately most suppliers can not provide this so I am basically where most are. Table/total depth and hopefully some rudimentary angles. Once the stone is in my hands then it becomes a different story altogether. The sky''s the limit insofar as data is concerned.

So, exactly what procedures do vendors engage in to stock their shelves with diamonds they choose to ''keep in house,'' and sell from their own wares?

Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again? (A recent thread bemoans the absence of photos from suppliers, so you''re working with the same table and depth data that we are, right? The same crummy text that may report the diamond is the former AGS0, but when brought in, maybe is not).

Yes and no. I''ll expound. Yes in the sense that when we''re testing out a new supply house we may call in 10 stones and return 9, that is if their consistency is not good and we do run into this. There are many dealeres who for the most part have a mixed bag. I am a nut for top shelf optical symmetry combined with ideal slope & azimuth angles. This, to me, represents the rarest of the rare when it comes to ideals and if I ever get off my rump to begin a brand or signature line it will consist of such stones which will be able to be verified both numerically and optically. So when examining the goods from new supply houses and my experience with others, were we to sit down together in their office with the optical tests we perform the ratio varies depending on the consistency of the cutting firm.

Now the no part. The few cutting firms that produce the type of product we purchase regularly are pretty consistent in the product they produce and in many cases 9 out of 10 will be keepers. Due to the relationship we have with these firms if a stone does not meet criteria, especially with regards to optical symmetry we will try to get the one less desireable stone for a cheaper price so we can offer it for less but if not we''ll return it if it turns out not to be profitable. Sometimes we''ll wind up keeping the whole business and just make less of a profit on the compromised stone. It all depends.

When it comes to former AGS "0" stones (and there are many of them still on the market) a review of the angles will at least let me know if it still qualifies as an ideal although minor facet measurements come into play as well. For example AGS now disqualifies stones with upper girdle angles that are too steep as well as GIA. How steep? We''re yet to determine since FacetWare doesn''t have this metric to input (one downside to the FacetWare which I would have liked to see included) and I haven''t yet manipulated upper girdles in DiamCalc to test with AGS to see where their upper girdle cut offs are exactly. There is lots of room for lower girdle combos ... to my knowledge, at least with GIA it can vary from 70-85% and still be a Grade 1 "Excellent". That variance in lower girdles can produce drastically different looking diamonds. Interestly I just made a graphic for someone on the boards today covering these exact lower girdle ranges. So while there is a liberal range for lower girdles, they are still taken into account (as well as star facets) and knowledge of them is pertinent if one is to truly know and determine the appearance of the diamond they are considering. That is why, when folks ask on this forum I suggest getting this data for a more accurate determination for appearance. I''m sorry if I''m veering off into directions you didn''t intend Ira. I''m just writing off the cuff here.

Who does it? You? Or someone you farm this activity out to, leaving you to be in charge of other functions a jeweler must conduct, including customer contact, marketing, bookkeeping, etc.

At the time of this writing I have my two assistants taking care of the task; Tim and Chas. I work alongside them daily and I have trained them to look for the things I do when examining new goods. They are fine young padawans who will eventually become Jedi masters.

Over the past couple of weeks I have been working from a remote location because I am anxious to launch our new site so I''ve been away from the lab but am easily attainable if one needs to reach me personally for some reason. I work better when I am uninterrupted and can focus on the tasks that need to be accomplished. Once I''m done I''ll be back up to the store daily again though I''m always there on Saturdays regardless.

What are your performance criteria, when you bring in a diamond, and decide to keep it, versus toss it?

Good question. We have taken a rather radical change in our buying procedure which has only come into effect fairly recently. The short answer to your question Ira is this ...

Performance criteria must be top shelf
*contrast
*brightness
*dispersion/fire
*scintillation
*weight ratio
*durability

We also take into account 2 other metrics not covered in the new systems which we will be covering in our new cut tutorial once the new site is launched.
*optical symmetry
*intensity

Traditional Lab graded polish and symmetry will generally all be ideal as well however since 2d symmetry and polish don''t impact appearance as much they take a back seat to the other metrics.

One feature which has changed in our buying procedure is that of BrillianceScope results. Around the time the new AGS "Ideal" princess cuts were becoming available folks on the other forum were pointing to BrillianceScope results in an effort to defame and knock AGS new cut grading system. On this forum I had demonstrated (and was attempting to demonstrate) the fallacy of their argument until I was unduly interrupted which prevented me from continuing to demonstrate the point and my threads were closed. More on this upon launch.

We just received (as of yesterday) a brand new piece of lab equipment which I am anxious to start using which I believe will also help the public in determing top performing stones according to their individual tastes. I''ll have to steal Garry''s quote on this at this moment ... if I told you I''d have to kill you immediately. hehe Gotta leave some elements of surprise for the new site. Ya''ll are a hard crowd to surprise here.

Is there anything you think is unique in your process you might like us to know about?

While we have discussed some of the issues of cut here and our selection process for that it would be a mistake to say we don''t take clarity and color as serious. There are issues with clarity and color that also impact appearance, albeit to a lesser degree but can make or break our buying decisions as well. I recall a 1.96ct E VS1 which I would have loved to purchase for stock. Top shelf optical symmetry. Triple VH''s via Bscope. 9.x Isee2 ... if one were purchasing off paper it was a dream. The stone had internal graining which in this case caused the diamond to take a hit in transparency in certain lighting conditions akin to very strong fluorescence (although it did not have very strong fluorescence). In many lighting environments it looked fine but when you brought it into certain other environments it crapped out. Back it went.

Another example is a .815ct D SI1 which makes for a good learning stone and I guess demonstrates a rather unique ability we have in our lab. That is, the ability to determine mistakes in proportion measurments from other scanners to a certain degree.

On the AGS Report of the stone it reported

34.8 crown angles, 40.7 pavilion angles and a 56 table.

When we scanned the stone on our Sarin it reported 34.7 crown angle (no big whoop), 55.7 table (AGS properly rounded up to 56) but the pavilion angle from our scans was 40.5. While it may not seem like a great difference to go from 40.5 to 40.7 we know from experience that once you hit 40.6 we generally see a hit on light performance as measured with Isee2 when coupled with certain crown angles.

The stone, with the AGS angles scored a 1.0 HCA. With our Sarin angles scored a .3 HCA.
Great BrillianceScope results.
At that time AGS Ideal (and would still make Ideal for that matter).
Top shelf optical symmetry. As good as it gets with H&A images and Reflector.
7.7 on Isee2.

That was the red flag which confirmed 2 things to me. A possible hit in performance (which we now had to verify with the eyes) and the accuracy of our propoprtion measurements.

This was before we had any kind of detailed data on what does and does not constitute ideal grades in the new scheme of things.

Forum rules prohibit me from posting a link to it but the stone does not make GIA''s Ideal grade. So far, from what I have researched GIA is more conservative on the shallow/shallow combinations and more liberal on the steep/deeps while AGS is more conservative on the steep/deeps and more liberal on the shallow/shallows.

Anything you''re willing to share but wish we didn''t know, after all?

LOL... that''s a funny question. I have things to share ... quite a bit, but its going to have to wait till launch Ira. I appreciate your questions. Gotta get back to work now.

Kind regards,

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 11/8/2005 12:50:49 PM
Author:Regular Guy
Not long ago I asked if jewelers had reference to any qualitatively different data than we ordinary citizens do who dwell on Pricescope. Response was sparse, but the sentiment seemed to be...no...perhaps it was more extensive, but similar, by and large.

-------Wow! That Rhino is something. I''ll have to get his receipt for chili We are similar in our approach to the work but I''m probably more old school in my approach.



So, exactly what procedures do vendors engage in to stock their shelves with diamonds they choose to ''keep in house,'' and sell from their own wares?

-------I have worked with many diamond houses for many years and most have specialties that they are very consistent with in the diamonds they carry. I like ideal cuts also but take a more old fashion approach to the inventory. Having worked as long as I have with the suppliers I do business with they know what I like. It wastes time and money for them to send items they know I will reject so I generally have a inside guy who knows my taste and sets aside items they know fit my inventory needs.



Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again? (A recent thread bemoans the absence of photos from suppliers, so you''re working with the same table and depth data that we are, right? The same crummy text that may report the diamond is the former AGS0, but when brought in, maybe is not).

-------Again this is a situation of my vendors understanding my needs. We bring in what I use consistently and in the greatest majority it is what I keep.


Who does it? You? Or someone you farm this activity out to, leaving you to be in charge of other functions a jeweler must conduct, including customer contact, marketing, bookkeeping, etc.

-------I do it. People who know me know that I am very hands on. I pay others to do the business side and I work with the customers. Just make sure the reports are accurate, and my son does, and I''m happy. Everybody has different needs for their purchase and there are vendors here that specialize in their respective areas of expertise.

What are your performance criteria, when you bring in a diamond, and decide to keep it, versus toss it?

-------I''m a eyeball guy. I was trained at GIA in the early 1970''s before all of the computers and additional viewing methods were invented. It''s hard to teach a old dog a new trick. I know what my eye tells me and for me you see it or you don''t. We used to use terms like "talkers" "smokers" "wowers" words your eyes would pick up. Obviously it''s hard for my eyes to understand computer models so I rely on my own computer which is experience, perception, and understanding of diamonds.

Is there anything you think is unique in your process you might like us to know about?

-------Not really other than I''m very quick to say yes or no.

Anything you''re willing to share but wish we didn''t know, after all?

-------I''m very transparent if you ask a specific question. My business side as yours is to be respected. Before the internet I was a 8 handicap and now it''s double digits

 

[Rhino]

Variety is the spice baby.

Good input Bill. If I''m ever out your way I will make it a point to sit down wit ya and shoot the bull. People I speak with who know you have all but good to say.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 11/9/2005 3:55:28 PM
Author: Rhino
Variety is the spice baby.

Good input Bill. If I''m ever out your way I will make it a point to sit down wit ya and shoot the bull. People I speak with who know you have all but good to say.

It would be my pleasure! If I didn''t look as old as Dave and Wink and as good as you (not gay) I''d put my mug shot in my box rather than my mutt Nick

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/9/2005 9:27:34 AM
Author: Regular Guy

...yes, I'm thinking that it's manual work to go through these guys, [...] and the customer base he wants to garner, will take the time to do so.

This thread is getting interesting

Well, I did mean 'work' but not necessarily sifting stones. It seems harder to communicate the need for such service in the first place.

Chances are I am wrong, but these technical standards look like a self-imposed limitation requiring a certain leap of faith. We don't even hear from any shop that had to drop off the idea, never dared try etc.


Perhaps my personal experience is too remote to be relevant, and I am relying too much on it to say these... However, it seems orders of magnitude harder to persuade clients they need your offer, than 'paint by the numbers' to fulfill the one they came through the door with.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 6:23:37 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/9/2005 9:27:34 AM

Author: Regular Guy


...yes, I'm thinking that it's manual work to go through these guys, [...] and the customer base he wants to garner, will take the time to do so.

This thread is getting interesting

Well, I did mean 'work' but not necessarily sifting stones. It seems harder to communicate the need for such service in the first place.


Chances are I am wrong, but these technical standards look like a self-imposed limitation requiring a certain leap of faith. We don't even hear from any shop that had to drop off the idea, never dared try etc.



Perhaps my personal experience is too remote to be relevant, and I am relying too much on it to say these... However, it seems orders of magnitude harder to persuade clients they need your offer, than 'paint by the numbers' to fulfill the one they came through the door with.

It is harder to sell what the PS vendors considers the best than to sell $3500 1ct diamonds.
The diamond educated consumers and the atmospere here makes it a lot easier.
Remember right now the well cut diamond market is a nitch market but growing fast.
The vendors that put in a lot of work here feel its worth while to raise people up to buying the level of quality they offer than to step down the goods.
Truth be told they could make a lot more money by just selling whatever comes up on a list (blue nile).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Sorry we are so late to the table Ira. I had a spot of vacation going.

Date: 11/8/2005 12:50:49 PM
Author:Regular Guy

Not long ago I asked if jewelers had reference to any qualitatively different data than we ordinary citizens do who dwell on Pricescope. Response was sparse, but the sentiment seemed to be...no...perhaps it was more extensive, but similar, by and large.

So, exactly what procedures do vendors engage in to stock their shelves with diamonds they choose to 'keep in house,' and sell from their own wares?

Our sourcing situation is unconventional. Whiteflash in-house inventory is all produced on the fine-make floor of our Antwerp-based sightholder, with whom Brian is a consultant and designer. Some history on his original cutting to current WF sourcing can be found in this post from about a year ago.

To the specific questions you asked:

Is there anything you think is unique in your process you might like us to know about?

We think our process is unique since we know where the rough was sourced and who’s hands were involved in cutting it, from planning, sawing and blocking to major/minor facet configurations and final brillianteering. The diamonds cut for our round inventory follow Brian’s template for ACA design/visual balance, and therefore have similar optical signatures due to his specific design. Our fancy inventory is sourced from this factory as well. Brian is currently involved in design of our ACA Princess.

Do you bring in 10, and return 9, over and over again? (A recent thread bemoans the absence of photos from suppliers, so you're working with the same table and depth data that we are, right? The same crummy text that may report the diamond is the former AGS0, but when brought in, maybe is not).

Who does it? You? Or someone you farm this activity out to, leaving you to be in charge of other functions a jeweler must conduct, including customer contact, marketing, bookkeeping, etc.

Bringing in and rejecting such numbers would be cost-prohibitive in any situation, I'd wager.

Brian regularly travels to Antwerp for consultation. He selects inventory directly from the cutting house so, logically, it does not need to be returned. Sometimes he gets the urge to extend the range of Expert Selection, and strays a bit by selecting goods that are outside our normal paradigms. For instance, he recently brought back some ‘K’ colored diamonds for ES. You can find a handful of items in ES that are outside our typical production at any given time. In these cases he has spied something to fill a niche, or believes it will be a bargain for its class and category.

If you imagine a bearded kid in a candy store, that is pretty much like Brian selecting our inventory.

What are your performance criteria, when you bring in a diamond, and decide to keep it, versus toss it?

The most important test of all is the eyes ('old school'). That is often Brian's first test, before he decides to move on it for inventory.

Onsite we perform a mix of what others have posted. We believe in a proven balance of technical, lab-endorsed and real-life measures. Since we acquire the diamonds fresh from polish, Brian gets to pre-grade all diamonds for color and clarity before we send them to AGS or GIA for grading. This is a fun game to play: “What’s the over/under on Brian’s pre-grading of 100 diamonds?” for instance. Out of 100 everyone picks a number in the 90s, and Brian is quick to point out that HE was too strict on any he missed (it’s true – no one takes that bet).

We also perform the normal array of lab-endorsed performance assessments, including a scan of physical measurements, magnified photo, ideal-scope photos and ASET analysis.

Brian additionally performs optical symmetry grading on the rounds, and selects the ones that will be branded ‘A Cut Above’ according to his 2004 IDCC presentation criteria. The ones that do not pass all tests become Expert Selection rounds.

As mentioned, our situation allows us to pre-filter diamonds that would not pass muster with WF paradigms (unless such a piece is selected to appear in ES as a special value). Brian’s hand is on the rudder of design and quality control from start to finish. With our sourcing ‘genes’ we know each branch of the family tree from rough to final polish.

Anything you're willing to share but wish we didn't know, after all?

My golf handicap is higher than Bill's and I make lousy chili.
I'm ready to swap recipes for the grill anytime though.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to share, Ira. This is a collection of interesting and diverse information.