Quick, what do you think of this diamond?

[maxpower3]

So, uh.....what do you guys think of the diamond?

 

[isaku5]

Date: 9/12/2006 6:13:37 PM
Author: maxpower3
So, uh.....what do you guys think of the diamond?

The topic was sure a "hot one", but so many digressions without an opinion???

If you haven''t done so already, it might be a good idea to call James Allen and ask for his opinion of the issues stated in this thread.

As a princess cut diamond ring owner, definitely not an expert, the info you provided sounds like it could be a lovely stone.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/12/2006 6:13:37 PM
Author: maxpower3
So, uh.....what do you guys think of the diamond?

Just so that past work does not go unacknowledged...I read that Julie & Storm have given you some positive feedback, Paul has suggested idealscopes are not sufficient to judge, and I''ll add that I don''t know well enough to comment (unless it were AGS, in which case I''d support it, based on good WOM (word of mouth)).

Sorry to have been invovled in the highjack, but you''ve gotten some feedback here, after all.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry for the highhack of this thread. I was not criticizing the diamond, but the presentation.

As for the diamond, it is probably a princess-cut with a cut-quality above average. I do not know its price, but knowing that it comes from JA, I would guess that the pricing is in line with the stone''s quality.

Is the stone Ideal? NO, and most probably not even close to Ideal. But Ideal is hard to find, carries a price-tag, and nobody knows whether that is what you are looking for.

Will you like the stone? Only you can judge, and it is based partly on the stone, and partly on what you expect.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/13/2006 2:31:53 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Sorry for the highhack of this thread. I was not criticizing the diamond, but the presentation.

As for the diamond, it is probably a princess-cut with a cut-quality above average. I do not know its price, but knowing that it comes from JA, I would guess that the pricing is in line with the stone's quality.

Is the stone Ideal? NO, and most probably not even close to Ideal. But Ideal is hard to find, carries a price-tag, and nobody knows whether that is what you are looking for.

Will you like the stone? Only you can judge, and it is based partly on the stone, and partly on what you expect.

Live long,

Vendors breaking the rules is another thing I don't like. Like the one about commenting on competitors diamonds....

I'm seeing a lot of people in glass houses throwing rocks in this thread.
Do ya all really want to go there?

Paul your a good guy and so is Jim... let the one without sin cast the first stone.....

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:38:45 AM
Author: strmrdr

Vendors breaking the rules is another thing I don''t like. Like the one about commenting on competitors diamonds....

I''m seeing a lot of people in glass houses throwing rocks in this thread.
Do ya all really want to go there?

Paul your a good guy and so is Jim... let the one without sin cast the first stone.....

My words have been carefully chosen, and I stand behind them. I do consider them to be within forum rules, and if not, I trust that Irina or Leonid would have removed the post.

There are two issues in this thread. One is the fact of the intended or unintended mis-representation, and vendors must have the right to show this.

Second issue, since this resulted in a highjack of the thread, and since it might have discouraged the original poster to buy this specific stone, it is my duty to also give a comment on the stone itself. This reply is very balanced, and clearly says that the stone is above average, most probably well-priced, and should be bought if it meets the expectations of the consumer.

Live long,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Separate thread for discussion of the issues Paul is concerned about.

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

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/12/2006 3:16:24 PM
Author: niceice

might I mention that the princess cut which is the focus of the debate isn''t ''ideal'' at all? Note the symmetry rating of Very Good... Only the Polish is listed as ''Excellent - Ideal'' which IS extremely inaccurate since the GIA does NOT have an Ideal rating of any sort and thus the description of ''Excellent - Ideal'' should not be used. Although I believe that JA is probably using it as script shorthand for their sorting system to save a little code and not to intentionally mislead anybody. However from a legal perspecive, it is perhaps wiser to describe the polish accurately as determined by the lab and not to mix the rating system of two laboratories because it obviously leads to confusion.

This is really the crux of the matter.

When most consumers are looking for an ''ideal'' cut stone, their understanding or definition of ''ideal'' means fine-make; top-make....and typically means cut proportions. In that instance, ''ideal'' is meant in the generic sense.....like asking for a band-aid (little b). If I''m asked for a band-aid, I understand that someone needs an adhesive strip.....not that it must be a Band-Aid (capital B) brand adhesive strip. Back in the days of typewriters, someone asking for ''white out'' wanted correction fluid...not necessarily Liquid-paper White-Out brand correction fluid.

Most vendor who use the terms "ideal, very good, premium, good" etc. are trying to convey where the diamond falls on the "fair, average, good, better, best" premise.

HOWEVER.....I think it does become misleading (intentional or not) when specific elements of a diamond (polish, symmetry, cut proportions) are described as anything other than what the grading report reflects. Since GIA doesn''t use the word "Ideal" (capital I) on its reports, I think it''s misleading to report that the polish is Ideal. As Todd suggests, it''s better to stick to the terminology used on the grading report to avoid any confusion or misrepresentation.

I''ve noticed that GOG now lists an "AGS cut grade" and a "GIA cut grade" for every stone. When I first saw this, I was a bit confused, especially since RockDoc had mentioned in another thread that they only way to know a stone is AGS0 is to either have an AGS report OR to have it graded by an AGS member with the AGS PGS software.

Only after looking for more information did I find the dislclaimer somewhere (on a page that''s not with the diamond) that qualifies the representation as just an estimation.

I know that the intent is completely without malice.....they just are trying to show that it''s a top-make stone, and that''s a good thing. But, I think it''s not clear to the casual shopper who isn''t schooled in the nuances of the different grading labs, etc. when he sees that representation on GOG''s site.

I think it would be more accurate and less misleading to represent the stone as meeting AGS or GIA cut proportions instead of cut grade. Most casual shoppers concerned with ''cut'' are concerned largely with proportions and not necessarily with polish/symmetry.

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:49:42 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/12/2006 3:16:24 PM
Author: niceice

might I mention that the princess cut which is the focus of the debate isn''t ''ideal'' at all? Note the symmetry rating of Very Good... Only the Polish is listed as ''Excellent - Ideal'' which IS extremely inaccurate since the GIA does NOT have an Ideal rating of any sort and thus the description of ''Excellent - Ideal'' should not be used. Although I believe that JA is probably using it as script shorthand for their sorting system to save a little code and not to intentionally mislead anybody. However from a legal perspecive, it is perhaps wiser to describe the polish accurately as determined by the lab and not to mix the rating system of two laboratories because it obviously leads to confusion.

This is really the crux of the matter.

When most consumers are looking for an ''ideal'' cut stone, their understanding or definition of ''ideal'' means fine-make; top-make....and typically means cut proportions. In that instance, ''ideal'' is meant in the generic sense.....like asking for a band-aid (little b). If I''m asked for a band-aid, I understand that someone needs an adhesive strip.....not that it must be a Band-Aid (capital B) brand adhesive strip. Back in the days of typewriters, someone asking for ''white out'' wanted correction fluid...not necessarily Liquid-paper White-Out brand correction fluid.

Most vendor who use the terms ''ideal, very good, premium, good'' etc. are trying to convey where the diamond falls on the ''fair, average, good, better, best'' premise.

HOWEVER.....I think it does become misleading (intentional or not) when specific elements of a diamond (polish, symmetry, cut proportions) are described as anything other than what the grading report reflects. Since GIA doesn''t use the word ''Ideal'' (capital I) on its reports, I think it''s misleading to report that the polish is Ideal. As Todd suggests, it''s better to stick to the terminology used on the grading report to avoid any confusion or misrepresentation.

I''ve noticed that GOG now lists an ''AGS cut grade'' and a ''GIA cut grade'' for every stone. When I first saw this, I was a bit confused, especially since RockDoc had mentioned in another thread that they only way to know a stone is AGS0 is to either have an AGS report OR to have it graded by an AGS member with the AGS PGS software.

Only after looking for more information did I find the dislclaimer somewhere (on a page that''s not with the diamond) that qualifies the representation as just an estimation.

I know that the intent is completely without malice.....they just are trying to show that it''s a top-make stone, and that''s a good thing. But, I think it''s not clear to the casual shopper who isn''t schooled in the nuances of the different grading labs, etc. when he sees that representation on GOG''s site.

I think it would be more accurate and less misleading to represent the stone as meeting AGS or GIA cut proportions instead of cut grade. Most casual shoppers concerned with ''cut'' are concerned largely with proportions and not necessarily with polish/symmetry.

Really nicely said Alj!!!!