Question on contrast deduction on DQD
- Thread starter agc
- Start date
- Status
niceice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,792
Correct. I feel that the technology we use is necessary to quantify what we see with our eyes in the form of data that can be interpreted by somebody who is considering the purchase of a diamond online. In a brick and mortar environment, consumers can see a diamond and determine whether it meets their expectations (regardless of the fact that they are blinded halogen lighting) but in a click and mortar environment we need to be able to provide consumers with measurable results that provide them with insight as to how the diamond measures up beyond "take my word for it" because they have no other way to make a comparison beyond the basic data provided on the lab reports.
For instance, in my experience the average consumer believes that the average crown and pavilion angle measurements stated on a GIA or AGS lab report are absolute, they do not realize that those measurements are the average of eight measurements until we point that fact out to them in the form of a Sarin / OGI / Helium report that provides a facet-by-facet breakdown of the individual measurements - now some people will find this information interesting and others will not, but the cool thing is that the data is available to those people who want it with a simple click of their mouse and the people who aren''t interested in it simply don''t click on the graphic... The same concept holds true for the 3D Sarin model that many of us provide on our diamond details pages, those of us who provide data to back up the grade of the diamonds that we sell tend to attract people who like to review data for the items that they purchase. No worries, there are plenty of diamond sellers to be found online who provide absolutely no data beyond a copy of the lab report, I suppose that they exist to service the needs of people who are comfortable with knowing the basic details of their diamond
The funny thing is that as experienced diamond buyers and graders, it''s almost like we get to the point where we know how a diamond is going to "score" by how it looks to us when we pull it out of the parcel paper... Which is probably why a lot of diamonds never make it out of the parcel paper in the grading room, the fact is if the diamond doesn''t WOW me from the start, I''m not going to the hassle of trying to quantify the lack of visual performance... I''m sure the same premise holds true for many of my friends here on PS who cater to the needs of the Cut Quality Minded! The people who wander the halls here on PS are definitely not "the Norm" of the diamond buying public as ALJ pointed out, the average consumer walks into a jewelry store armed with only the basic knowledge gleaned from a glossy 4C''s pamphlet and buys based on how big a diamond he can get for X dollars a month - which is why 99% of the round brilliant cut diamonds produced are what discerning eyes would call "Drek" because they were cut with weight retention in mind instead of being designed for beauty.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,340
You said it perfectly Todd.
Diagem ...
yes.
My .02c ...
I dont think the consumer wants or expects this level of data or information! This Data is expected by a consumer because we are educating them to want or expect this type of data!
Now ... I can''t speak for everyone here but as for myself, when I discovered that diamonds *could* be cut to this level of precision and that it could be backed up and demonstrated with other technologies and the end results were *pleasing to the eyes* I immediately hopped on the band wagon. Why? Because back in 2000 when cut grading was seriously lacking I''ve always believed in a conservative approach and especially if that was something that mattered to the end consumer or not. The result of me carrying H&A''s was not initially of my own decision until back in that time frame, after receiving emails *asking* for them I took the time to investigate, research and see if there was anything to them. If it was a mere gimmick and there was nothing to be demonstrated positively about them you''d see articles on my site written about it and I would have posted it back on the forum back in 2000 when I was participating. Should the consumer have this information? LOL... I can think of a million diamond dealers who would rather they didn''t have it or even ask for it!
When I see the precision to which they are cut and locate the rare cherries ... I believe it is an element of diamond grading that is neglected by the labs because this level of craftsmanship should be rewarded with a higher value. Not thrown in the dump along with all other sloppily cut Ex''s or Ideals. If a cutter is going to go through the pains of cutting such a product I say reward them for their efforts. It is possible that one day in the future one of the more conservative labs will gradedthis aspect of "symmetry". And when they do certain educated consumers will have already been ahead of the curve.
But!!! we who educate the consumer need to know ourselves and have the ability to explain these different nano-nuances!!!
Amen to that.
Unfortunately..., I think most prosumers here on PS are BY FAR more knowledgeable in the technical aspect of the Diamond cut grading than the majority of sellers of jewelry out there in the open jewelry Ocean!!!
Oh yes. I pity the jeweler who doesn''t know their product and encounters a PS''r.
Diagem ...
My .02c ...
I dont think the consumer wants or expects this level of data or information! This Data is expected by a consumer because we are educating them to want or expect this type of data!
Now ... I can''t speak for everyone here but as for myself, when I discovered that diamonds *could* be cut to this level of precision and that it could be backed up and demonstrated with other technologies and the end results were *pleasing to the eyes* I immediately hopped on the band wagon. Why? Because back in 2000 when cut grading was seriously lacking I''ve always believed in a conservative approach and especially if that was something that mattered to the end consumer or not. The result of me carrying H&A''s was not initially of my own decision until back in that time frame, after receiving emails *asking* for them I took the time to investigate, research and see if there was anything to them. If it was a mere gimmick and there was nothing to be demonstrated positively about them you''d see articles on my site written about it and I would have posted it back on the forum back in 2000 when I was participating. Should the consumer have this information? LOL... I can think of a million diamond dealers who would rather they didn''t have it or even ask for it!
When I see the precision to which they are cut and locate the rare cherries ... I believe it is an element of diamond grading that is neglected by the labs because this level of craftsmanship should be rewarded with a higher value. Not thrown in the dump along with all other sloppily cut Ex''s or Ideals. If a cutter is going to go through the pains of cutting such a product I say reward them for their efforts. It is possible that one day in the future one of the more conservative labs will gradedthis aspect of "symmetry". And when they do certain educated consumers will have already been ahead of the curve.
But!!! we who educate the consumer need to know ourselves and have the ability to explain these different nano-nuances!!!
Amen to that.
Unfortunately..., I think most prosumers here on PS are BY FAR more knowledgeable in the technical aspect of the Diamond cut grading than the majority of sellers of jewelry out there in the open jewelry Ocean!!!
Oh yes. I pity the jeweler who doesn''t know their product and encounters a PS''r.
niceice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,792
Agreed! As diamond buyers, it's easy for us to see why one diamond "of comparable quality" to another costs more than the other "comparable" diamond which actually isn't... Did that sound like political mumbo jumbo? Yea... Okay, it's like this... Say you're looking at two diamonds which seem to be "identical" because they are GIA / AGS graded and both reflect the highest cut rating available from that laboratory (either lab, take your pick) and they both weigh 1.20 carats; are both G color / negligible fluorescence (GIA none); are both VS-2 in clarity; and yet they are priced $600.00 apart from each other and they are both offered by the same source, you can bet that the more expensive option either has been cut within a tighter tolerance and/or has inclusions which are more desirable and/or less prone to *potential* durability issues. The public however, does not necessarily realize this, instead they assume that the price difference is either an error - in which case they are likely to buy the less expensive diamond; or they assume that something is wrong with the less expensive diamond and purchase the more expensive diamond, quite often without realizing that it is in fact a better crafted diamond.
Hey Rhino, not to get off topic (more!) but do you remember "the old days" when "we" (the collective group of information geeks) were labeled as "ruining the diamond industry" because we shared this type of information with the public? The days when we used to joke about walking down the aisles at trade shows together wearing T-shirts with targets on our backs? The days when we were labeled Public Enemy #1 by "THE diamond industry"? You know I actually ran across the pleading from the lawsuit that was filed on us by 50 members of the Polygon network the other day for "disclosure of proprietary information to the public" and get this) "disparagement of the entire industry" and I had to laugh! And here we are a little more than a decade later and what is being discussed is not the fact that this type of information is now readily available both on PS and web sites like ours, but rather whether the public actually has a need for the information - when in fact, the reality is that if the public did not want the information, forums like PS and web sites like ours simply wouldn't exist because they wouldn't serve a niche in the market. Silly Rabbit, Niche Markets are for Stupids
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Ok, let’s take your notions and apply them to color and clarity:
A diamond graded Flawless does have clarity characteristics if you zoom into it enough (and they do at the lab, to understand the stone) but nothing is plotted because that stone has qualified for the top grade. In other words, having reached that level all flawless diamonds are considered *equivalent.* Just like AGS Ideal stones. If you were to treat the top clarity grade as you’re proposing to treat the top performance grade they’d zoom in…where?...60X? 100X Until they find things to plot? Do you want consumers debating over a “flawless” diamond with 3 pinpoints and graining observable at 100X and another “flawless” with 2 pinpoints and a crystal observable at 60X (neither has anything visible at 10X which is the requirement for the grade!)?
And, just as with the top performance grade, once under flawless the plot is limited to grading characteristics which set the grade at 10X. In fact, sometimes they don’t show all of it, like when ‘additional pinpoints not shown’ would make the plot look far worse than it is to consumers.
What about color? Should we start giving D1 D2 and D3? Don''t laugh, I have had people contact me telling me that they wanted an F1, so apparently someone is suggesting this, Goodness help us. Or shall we use the SAS2000 and call them D112, D335 etc? That would be insanity.
Concidering that the average Joe has trouble with the 4c''s as seen on the simplified, sell me a rock pamphlets that he gets at the mall, do we really want to give them information that only servers to obfuscate, not to illuminate? For me no.
Wink
Allison D.
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,282
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
lol you and Todd proved my point when it can be used too push someone too spend more on a 0 then it is fine too have the data.
Lets say the only difference between 2 eye identical stones may be .02 points on some criteria in the score and the consumer may pay hundreds more for those meaningless .02 points and never know it because the data is hidden.
Just to give folks an idea where I was coming from with my question. I was not worried that a 0.11 deduction in contrast resulted in a "dud" diamond. Unfortunately I happenen to be a very technically oriented person (maybe why I have spent waaay toooo many years in school collecting degrees in electrical eng, computer eng and a M.D.) and love trying to figure out how things work. I was trying to figure out the scientific basis for how these are graded and how different areas that are graded affect the "beauty" of the diamond. Contrast was the one that gave me the most problems as I felt you could possibly have too much or too little while other areas such as dispersion, leakage and brightness I felt like they could have only too much(leakage) or too little(dispersion, brightness). I was also wondering if any one of the four light performance criteria played bigger roles in the visual performance of a diamond over the others. Basically, does a .8 deduction in leakage create more of a visual problem than a .8 deduction in contrast or brightness. Also, are there certain combinations of deductions (hit in contrast and brightness vs. hit in dispersion and leakage etc) in these four criteria more of a problem than others? Again I love this site and greatly appreciate the time spent by everyone here to educate us consumers.
Allison D.
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,282
Since diamonds are unique and not manufactured widgets, it's highly unlikely that the sole difference would be .02 points.
But, for the sake of your argumement, let's suspend that reality for a minute.
If a consumer wants an "almost AGS0" stone to save hundreds of dollars, it's already exists. It's called AGS1.
How much it missed by/didn't isn't really relevant. One made the cut, the other didn't. How much it missed by is completely irrelevant.
As with many other things, people who want value will perhaps prioritize budget and go with the AGS1. ALL AGS1s are "just missed" AGS0s, right?
Conversely, most average AGS-candidate consumers (which doesn't mean Pricescopers) are looking for the pinnacle...the 0 cut grade. Getting an '.02 missed' is still getting a *miss*.
I'm actually of the agree-to-disagree mindset on this one; unless/until it's acknowledged that there is more than one set of buyer wants, it's a wasted effort.
vfrhokie
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 58
I admit I probably fall into the same category as the OP, despite the fact that I hadn''t paid much attention to diamonds until the past few months, so while not a full PS-type fanatic, I definitely wanted to know more than most B&M folks had to tell me. I do find the idea that "this is more information than we think is good for the consumer to have" to be disturbing, regardless of what field we''re talking about. Presenting more information, with a little context indicating how significant it is, is greatly preferable to making it difficult or impossible to get the information at all.
I confess, Wink, that I had a similar thought to you with respect to color and clarity, but in the opposite direction. Aren''t there already too many gradations? From a purely practical standpoint, I''d think we could replace all of the clarity grades with "Eye Clean" and "Not Eye Clean", and coalesce the color grades into, say, "Colorless", Sorta Colorless", and "Miller Lite".
I confess, Wink, that I had a similar thought to you with respect to color and clarity, but in the opposite direction. Aren''t there already too many gradations? From a purely practical standpoint, I''d think we could replace all of the clarity grades with "Eye Clean" and "Not Eye Clean", and coalesce the color grades into, say, "Colorless", Sorta Colorless", and "Miller Lite".
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,340
Wazzup mang,
Comments in red.
woohoo!
Comments in red.
Peace out and hope this finds you well Todd. We''re just now starting to get the warm weather here in NY.Date: 4/24/2008 5:55:22 PM
Author: niceice
Agreed! As diamond buyers, it''s easy for us to see why one diamond ''of comparable quality'' to another costs more than the other ''comparable'' diamond which actually isn''t... Did that sound like political mumbo jumbo? Yea... Okay, it''s like this... Say you''re looking at two diamonds which seem to be ''identical'' because they are GIA / AGS graded and both reflect the highest cut rating available from that laboratory (either lab, take your pick) and they both weigh 1.20 carats; are both G color / negligible fluorescence (GIA none); are both VS-2 in clarity; and yet they are priced $600.00 apart from each other and they are both offered by the same source, you can bet that the more expensive option either has been cut within a tighter tolerance and/or has inclusions which are more desirable and/or less prone to *potential* durability issues. The public however, does not necessarily realize this, instead they assume that the price difference is either an error - in which case they are likely to buy the less expensive diamond; or they assume that something is wrong with the less expensive diamond and purchase the more expensive diamond, quite often without realizing that it is in fact a better crafted diamond.
Which is why IMHO buying a diamond from a broker or slap it under a cam and push it out (without actually examining it) is not and never will be the way to go in the long run. At least for discriminating buyers. One problem with the commoditization of diamonds and the typical internet mindset is that sellers are looking for the path of least resistance to to get the $$$ as quickly into their pockets as possible with as little work as possible. Service is all but thrown out the window. The important details you mention above are never considered in the equation until one day that external open feather chips, is damaged and the end consumer wonders why or perhaps then realizes why that stone was $600 cheaper or whatever the issues were. The way you and I work ... it may not be the cheapest route and most likely never will be but in the long run is the best and most cost effective IMO.
Hey Rhino, not to get off topic (more!) but do you remember ''the old days'' when ''we'' (the collective group of information geeks) were labeled as ''ruining the diamond industry'' because we shared this type of information with the public? The days when we used to joke about walking down the aisles at trade shows together wearing T-shirts with targets on our backs? The days when we were labeled Public Enemy #1 by ''THE diamond industry''?
Yep.
You know I actually ran across the pleading from the lawsuit that was filed on us by 50 members of the Polygon network the other day for ''disclosure of proprietary information to the public'' and get this) ''disparagement of the entire industry'' and I had to laugh!
Are you kidding me? You gotta email me a copy of this if you have it electronically. I''m never on polygon so I don''t even know. I''ve heard about postings on there about us and all but not about this. How ridiculous.
And here we are a little more than a decade later and what is being discussed is not the fact that this type of information is now readily available both on PS and web sites like ours, but rather whether the public actually has a need for the information - when in fact, the reality is that if the public did not want the information, forums like PS and web sites like ours simply wouldn''t exist because they wouldn''t serve a niche in the market. Silly Rabbit, Niche Markets are for Stupids
Too funny and true true. One reason why I miss old Rocdoc too.He was such a strong advocate for the finer details we''re talking about. He''s the one who coined the term "minor facets" and pointed out to me how minor the devations/variances were in the finest cut diamonds amongst other tidbits. He always had something interesting to share.
niceice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,792
Let me be clear on this Strmrdr because I want to be sure that you're not "putting words" in my mouth... I'm a BIG fan of data regardless of whether the diamond is AGS-0 or AGS-10, understanding what is being purchased is the best defense against buyer's remorse... If people decide to purchase an AGS-10 with full knowledge and understanding of what they are buying, then they do so as a conscious decision. I never stated a preference for how the AGS states their data, I merely explained what I believe the reason is for their not stating the data numerically on their DQD. We provide the SAME data for the loose diamonds that we sell regardless of the cut rating, we're not using data to push zero cut diamonds on the public, we simply specialize in sourcing zero ideal cut diamonds and we provide the detail necessary to quantify the precision of the diamonds that we sell. When one of our clients asked us to find him a non-ideal diamond awhile back, we did so (reluctantly because I truly feel that a tight zero ideal cut is King) and we provided him with our usual diamond details page with our normal full work-up and the proportions rating was AGS-3 Good (due to crown angle) with GIA Excellent polish and symmetry. So we don't "use data to push people to spend more to buy a zero cut diamond" to paraphrase what I believe you are saying, we provide our clients with in-depth data so that they can better understand the intricacies of their purchase because people have a right to as much information as they want. One way to think about it is that vendors like ourselves provide consumers with more insight than the labs provide and I believe that Pro-sumers like yourself appreciate our attention to detail.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Ok Storm I’ll ask again. Why are you treating this differently than color and clarity?
After all, +/- one level in color/clarity makes FAR more difference in $$$ than +/- one level in cut, right?
Using your argument: What if an F diamond is 2 ticks on the SAS2000 from being G?
Using your argument: What if a VVS2 diamond is 1 tiny crystal away from being VS1?
Per your words above, aren’t those consumers paying hundreds (or thousands) of dollars more for “meaningless ticks and never knowing it�
Also, in case you didn’t know, AGS rounds up anything above 0.50 to AGS1…so a diamond that gets 0.51 or more in cumulative is treated as if it had 1.00-1.49. That’s pretty strict, to jump to a 1 with 0.49 ticks left, so no consumer is buying an AGS0 that is “.02†from 1.00 in an absolute sense.
If you feel strongly about this I would think you’d put emphasis where it’s not rounded up and it hits the consumer’s pocketbook more - color and clarity - and that concern could have been long before now. I personally think the borders exist for practical reasons but you have another take. That’s healthy and you often have such ideas. My suggestion is to pursue gemological training, get a job in the industry and work to influence things from a position of authority on the inside.
As it is now you have taken many positions that hurt those of us in the trade financially, some, such as your campaign against even moderate painting in direct contrast to the research of both the AGS and the GIA. If you were one of us, we might be more inclined to listen rather than seeing only the financial damage you cause with no financial stake in the game. Of course, if you were taking food out of the mouths of your wife and children with those positions, perhaps you would search harder to see if those positions were based on reality or on your tastes regardless of the research.
All of my gemology courses and experience with consumers teach me that these subdivisions exist for reasons of practicality. Even now, with the color/clarity grades we have, consumers get confused and frustrated. I’m pretty sure that more complexity is a not a good answer. If you have some solutions I encourage you to go to a gemology school, get employed and help us out. We’d love for you to walk a few miles in our shoes. Then you will have gained our trust and we will pay more attention to your positions, even if we disagree with them.
I often disagree with Jonathon, but I know he has done the work and earned the degrees. You have done a LOT of work and do in fact know more than many of the jewelers in this country, but you lack the credibility of a gemological degree and time in the industry. This is intended as a compliment and acknowledgment of the extreme amount of work that you have put into gemology, I truly think you would be a great addition to my world as a professional.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Hey Todd,
ALJ quoted you as saying what AGS did on their reports, you saying what they did backs me not your personal opinion.
The main point is that its fine with AGS and the trade in general(no one specifically) to put it on there too push people towards AGS0 cuts but not OK too have the data too compare AGS0 cuts or AGS0 to AGS1.
I feel that is wrong.
I can hear it now, some random sales dude: hey this ags1 got nailed in (some area) you don't want that you want too spend $500 more on this AGS0.
You wouldn't do that, you would explain the merits of both stones and let the customer decide.
Other none PS stores... well....
I'm willing to bet that there are stores who keep an AGS1 around just for doing this.
Have you spent time in other stores lately pretending too be a customer?
Kaleigh
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 29,571
Wink, you're a great asset to this forum.
Storm, you have helped thousands, I am thankful to be amongst those that you have helped. As a consumer, I love hearing from fellow consumers, that's what PS is all about. The cherry on top is that we hear from those in the trade, and that balances everything out. It's a WIN WIN for anyone reading PS. jmho. Lisa
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Wink..., is it you or your stomach reacting? (please go back and re-read what you wrote...
From the few years I have been reading your posts..., I never noticed this type yet!
You, me and many others (as you call them "one of us(''s)") are the ones responsible for creating these type of (Strmrdr''s) prosumers or consumers!
Obviously it was in your interest to do so as you sound very happy with your business to be working and marketing these extremely high level Diamond cuts..., its a great niche and the reason it exists is for the hours of hours you (and others) have spent creating a demand for them!
I find it a bit hard to understand these words of yours: "...If you were one of us, we might be more inclined to listen rather than seeing only the financial damage you cause with no financial stake in the game..." What financial damage can the opinion of educated consumers impose? When their opinions are suitable with your agenda it is fine..., and when their not they are out of line??? I always try learn from other peoples opinions and way of thinking..., no matter if they are "one of ours" or not! And as per my experience..., only you are responsible for your financial damage and not to mention the fact that all Diamond consumers have a financial stake in their part of the game!
What does it mean: "...I''m pretty sure that more complexity is a not a good answer...."??? Why? Because you decided you reached the level of complexity that fits your agenda? What would your reaction be 20 years ago if I told you what the level of complexity will be entering the new millennium? Can you envision what the level of complexity will be in.... say 10-20 years from now??
Now please dont get me wrong..., you know I am for simplicity and my business is NOT based on this level of complexity...., but once you have decided to join in and enjoy the fruits of this type of technical SUPER IDEAL DIAMOND CUT MARKET..., dont limit its natural advancement (every ones opinion deserves to be listened to)! And AGS or GIA are not the only god''s in this research..., we who participate count too..., no mater if they are "one of ours" or not!
You take the fact of earning a "gemological degree" way too seriously Wink...
Over 90% of "industry members" or as they call themselves "professionals" which I personally know who "earned" any type of gemological degree have way, WAY less knowledge than most prosumers here on PS! True..., this knowledge is based on theoretical and virtual knowledge..., but face it..., a rather large part of the vendor''s businesses here on PS rely on these theoretical and virtual practice and tools to market their super high standard Diamond cuts!
Practical knowledge is a whole different aspect..., and if we start this subject..., I will have a lot more to say in regards to the reseach!!!
As far as Strmrd..., I absolutely know he is an asset to us all here on PS..., consumers and "US" (professionals)..., he has gotten up to levels of understanding the material which lots of professional (with degrees) in our industry will not reach in their lifetime!!! Thats a fact! I look upon him as a Diamond phenomenon.
He might be lacking practical experience as he does not deal with the material on a day to day basis..., but please dont underestimate his opinions or comments..., you might not agree with some naturally..., but it has nothing to to with the fact that he is not one of us! On the contrary..., I think he is one of us more than some of us
Hope you take my criticism with positive understanding as I really believe your wordings were not meant to insult purposely.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
That is absolutely NOT what I said. I said you would be an asset to our trade. I also said that you frequently take positions that are detrimental to members of the trade such as your crusade against any degree of painting while not having any dog in the fight other than your personal opinion that painting is bad.
Financially I should probably shut up and let you take the lead on that, since I primarily sell a brand that does not use any painting, it would be to my benefit. However, I disagree with you and I know that painting can benefit many stones so I will normally take up the banner and disagree with you.
Why, because my silence would hurt my trade.
I do not think you should be silent just because you are not in our trade. I respect you and much of what you have done. I also know that if you were in the trade you might not see every thing as black and white, but realize that there are legitimate differences of opinion and taste and not try to disparage stones not cut to your preferences as was done in the painting question thread a few days ago. I did not see that thread until it was at its end, but had I seen it I would have been in there commenting that you were unfairly negative on a beautiful gem, and stating your personal opinion as a fact, when clearly it was not.
I think you could be very good in the industry, and that you have a talent for designing diamonds that could bring some wonderful new and innovative designs to the trade.
So no, I am not encouraging you to be silent because you are not in our trade. I am encouraging you to become a valuable part of our trade, but rest assured, we will still enjoy our differences of opinion if that happens, of that I am fairly certain.
Wink
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,461
Dear all,
It is apparent from this discussion that there is a lack of fundemental reproducable testing of a scientific nature in our chsoen field of study.
In any other industry the gIA''s survey would be laughed at, and while AGS have worked hard and been much more open, they have not done the required observation and survey testing.
With virtually no resources and little time, the loosely formated Cut Group I work with have these stones now and we are about to start testing them.
http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/index.phtml
About $35k''s worth.
The prototype holders are shown here. They have been mounted with 5 stones close to each other on a skin coloured strip so that all face the observer.
Until computer generated data like AGS''s contrast scores have been fully tested by real observers the numbers are meaningless.
That is why OctoNus DiamCalc that has had all these numbers long before AGS and any other technology in this field has never said the output data is a grading system.
It is apparent from this discussion that there is a lack of fundemental reproducable testing of a scientific nature in our chsoen field of study.
In any other industry the gIA''s survey would be laughed at, and while AGS have worked hard and been much more open, they have not done the required observation and survey testing.
With virtually no resources and little time, the loosely formated Cut Group I work with have these stones now and we are about to start testing them.
http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/index.phtml
About $35k''s worth.
The prototype holders are shown here. They have been mounted with 5 stones close to each other on a skin coloured strip so that all face the observer.
Until computer generated data like AGS''s contrast scores have been fully tested by real observers the numbers are meaningless.
That is why OctoNus DiamCalc that has had all these numbers long before AGS and any other technology in this field has never said the output data is a grading system.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
I just wrote this a couple of hours ago:
"...Date: 4/25/2008 7:14:56 AM
Author: DiaGem
And AGS or GIA are not the only god''s in this research..., we who participate count too..., no mater if they are ''one of ours'' or not!
Practical knowledge is a whole different aspect..., and if we start this subject..., I will have a lot more to say in regards to the research!!! So please dont make me work too hard..."
I guess this didnt last too long..., and you "are" going to make me work hard!!!
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Date: 4/25/2008 7:14:56 AM
Author: DiaGem
I find it a bit hard to understand these words of yours: ''...If you were one of us, we might be more inclined to listen rather than seeing only the financial damage you cause with no financial stake in the game...'' What financial damage can the opinion of educated consumers impose? When their opinions are suitable with your agenda it is fine..., and when their not they are out of line??? I always try learn from other peoples opinions and way of thinking..., no matter if they are ''one of ours'' or not! And as per my experience..., only you are responsible for your financial damage and not to mention the fact that all Diamond consumers have a financial stake in their part of the game!
As far as Strmrd..., I absolutely know he is an asset to us all here on PS..., consumers and ''US'' (professionals)..., he has gotten up to levels of understanding the material which lots of professional (with degrees) in our industry will not reach in their lifetime!!! Thats a fact! I look upon him as a Diamond phenomenon.
He might be lacking practical experience as he does not deal with the material on a day to day basis..., but please dont underestimate his opinions or comments..., you might not agree with some naturally..., but it has nothing to to with the fact that he is not one of us! On the contrary..., I think he is one of us more than some of usas he has both worlds in him!
Hope you take my criticism with positive understanding as I really believe your wordings were not meant to insult purposely.
I am obviously not making myself as clear as I would like, and I certainly do take your criticism with positive understanding as I appreciate both the tone and the intent.
I speak of financial damage as I have seen what Storm can do the the saleability of beautiful diamonds, such as the EightStar and the New Line from WhiteFlash. Last week he came out very strongly against a beautiful diamond from WhiteFlash, basically saying that it was junk without having had the benefit of actually seeing the diamond.
Although in that case the sale was eventually made I know of others when diamonds that were gorgeous were actually returned to WhiteFlash because the buyer read some of Storm''s writing against painting and became so concerned that they returned stones they had been previously quite happy with.
I feel that this happened and happens because Storm speaks his opinions as facts. Others reading these opinions do not have his extensive knowledge and believe these opinions as facts, not knowing that he is in opposition to many in the trade or that there is a whole body of research into these opinions stating that in many circumstances painting can be beneficial to the performance of the diamond. If he would state that in his opinion painting is bad, I could easily accept that, but he just states that painting is bad.
I do acknowledge that he is extremely knowledgeable and a tremendous asset here. I meant my writing to be a complement to that knowledge and an appeal to come play in our water. I think it might give him a different prospective on some things but even if not it would give him the ability to be more influential in our industry. And sadly, I very much agree that he is more of us than many of us. It is embarrassing to me the low level of education that most jewelers have about even the basics of the jewelry world.
Knowing that the written word can sometimes not convey the meanings that I wish them to convey, I hope this is now more clear.
I have tremendous respect for Storm and for what he has learned, and I have concerns about the manner in which he sometimes posts his opinions as facts. I am probably guilty of doing the same from time to time, and have been and expect to be called on it each and every time that I over step my bounds.
Thank you for doing it this time in such a gentle manner, I shall endeavor to be more careful in how I say things. There was no insult intended, and I actually was meaning my invitation to join us to be a complement as he clearly has a level of knowledge that is a compliment to his dedication and love of our field.
Wink
TorontoBuyer
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 33
As the buyer of that particular WF stone, here are a few thoughts... feel free to disregard, but since the thread has gone in this direction I feel my input might be useful.
I''m glad that strmdr made the comment he did about ''my'' stone. Like anything and everything I read on the internet, I assume it to be opinion rather than fact, and this was no exception. The strength of that opinion did certainly put me off initially, but then I proceeded to take in the resulting debate and, like any intelligent buyer, came to my own conclusion. And as a result, I''ve now bought a stone I will feel happy to own, and propose with - though my fiancee will know nothing about this process, she''ll just appreciate the result!
I feel strongly that strmdr''s posts/opinions help point out potential considerations that people like myself, who want to make informed decisions, might otherwise miss. As such he is extremely valuable to this board, and I hope he continues to contribute to other decisions. I will agree that his short posts can be misinterpreted and make his opinions seem like fact, but I''d much rather see him continue to post rather than start to withdraw. In any debate the dissenting opinion tends to be the most valuable, and this is no exception.
I''m afraid I do not buy the financial argument against providing information to buyers. I believe retailers hold a responsibility to help educate those buyers who clearly want to be educated (admittedly a small percentage of us) on the details of the products they provide. In my case, I found out about the painting on my stone from strmdr, and it raised a heated debate... but if I were advised of the painting in advance by Brian/WF, along with advice on its beneficial vs. harmful nature - in his expert opinion - it would have most likely been a non-issue.
So perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here on the retail side, and not just by strmdr?
My 2 cents. I specifically do not want to re-open the discussion on my stone (apart from anyone who wants to tell me how beautiful it is!) but felt this needed to be said.
Cheers
I''m glad that strmdr made the comment he did about ''my'' stone. Like anything and everything I read on the internet, I assume it to be opinion rather than fact, and this was no exception. The strength of that opinion did certainly put me off initially, but then I proceeded to take in the resulting debate and, like any intelligent buyer, came to my own conclusion. And as a result, I''ve now bought a stone I will feel happy to own, and propose with - though my fiancee will know nothing about this process, she''ll just appreciate the result!
I feel strongly that strmdr''s posts/opinions help point out potential considerations that people like myself, who want to make informed decisions, might otherwise miss. As such he is extremely valuable to this board, and I hope he continues to contribute to other decisions. I will agree that his short posts can be misinterpreted and make his opinions seem like fact, but I''d much rather see him continue to post rather than start to withdraw. In any debate the dissenting opinion tends to be the most valuable, and this is no exception.
I''m afraid I do not buy the financial argument against providing information to buyers. I believe retailers hold a responsibility to help educate those buyers who clearly want to be educated (admittedly a small percentage of us) on the details of the products they provide. In my case, I found out about the painting on my stone from strmdr, and it raised a heated debate... but if I were advised of the painting in advance by Brian/WF, along with advice on its beneficial vs. harmful nature - in his expert opinion - it would have most likely been a non-issue.
So perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here on the retail side, and not just by strmdr?
My 2 cents. I specifically do not want to re-open the discussion on my stone (apart from anyone who wants to tell me how beautiful it is!) but felt this needed to be said.
Cheers
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
I have been informed that I was mistaken in thinking that a sale was returned to WhiteFlash, the sale was canceled prior to actually being shipped because of reading about painting. I misspoke and it is too late to edit.
I will publicly state I misspoke so that there can be no mistake about it being my mistake. Sorry.
Wink
I will publicly state I misspoke so that there can be no mistake about it being my mistake. Sorry.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
So what?
People dont buy stones for a variety of reasons.
A few trade members rants on 41 pavilions cost a consumer over a grand on a perfectly awesome diamond I would love too own.
The 41 pavilion issue has far less merit than the painting issue.
Some place you got the idea that consumers are just here too drive sales for the PS vendors.
That is not the case.
The vendors are here to earn sales from the PS consumers.
woops I forgot im not allowed too have an opinion because im not in the trade.
guess I better log back out.
- Status
300x240.png)