Strong blue flo - the real deal

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:53:00 PM
Author: noor
That Haske article looked pretty unprofessional to me. I don''t know all about diamonds, but I can read rather well.

I found the addition of captions such as ''Oh a strong blue, let''s get a better color grade'' to look very strange in something that seems to be positioned as an academic text.

Most of the references were years old, so I imagine that maybe there was some sort of an issue in years past. In any case, the concept of color mis-marking for a strong blue seems so obvious that you would think GIA would take pains to be precise. Maybe I assume too much there. But since GIA has taken it on the chin recently for the misrepresentation of some stones, I am hoping they have control of themselves at this point.

We''ll see if this is a dreadful stone when it finally arrives!

Obviously noor, you DON''t have the capability to understand the technical signifcance of my pointed satire.

The "references" that were years old show the the progression towards changing "standards" that only benefit elements of the trade, and result in consumers overpaying for diamonds that have been given color grades based on pumping up the UV content of the light.

My DOCUMENTATION of GIA''s ONE WAY changing "stand" on this issue, and the FACT that what they were showing as to how to color grade diamond by holding them up to the unfiltered bulbs, is an indictment of either their dupliicity or stupidity, I don''t really know which. (DeBeers went from a public company to a private comapny about that time 2002, hello. I wonder how that little change by GIA effected the bottom line?)

Your stone may turn out very nice, but the ISSUE is whether or not it has been properly color graded and that the price is commensurate with the "true" color grade, they way it was supposed to be done. A "NEW D" or a "TRUE D".

Given your attitude toward my "professionalism", I hope you get a "New D" and pay for a "True D"

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/31/2006 3:22:11 PM
Author: adamasgem
Given your attitude toward my ''professionalism'', I hope you get a ''New D'' and pay for a ''True D''

Marty, I realize that you are light years ahead of most of the world on many of the issues.....but it really dilutes respect for your knowledge to see you make comments like those above.

Wishing any customer to get less than they should or less than they hope for----just because they don''t understand all the minutae to the 19th degree as you do----well, that just isn''t a posture I''d expect from a respected appraiser.

Sometimes, satire isn''t the best path.

 

[noor]

Whoever you are, you are rude and apparently vindictive too, wishing that I would get a bad stone. I wonder if you sell stones to people the same way.

I read an article and commented on it. It is nothing personal, I am just a consumer with no axe to grind. I don''t know you. Your reponse is rather emotional. Maybe you should take the feedback that the public gives and make improvements rather than be defensive.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:53:00 PM
Author: noor
That Haske article looked pretty unprofessional to me. I don''t know all about diamonds, but I can read rather well.

I found the addition of captions such as ''Oh a strong blue, let''s get a better color grade'' to look very strange in something that seems to be positioned as an academic text.

noor and Al, if consumer comes here to learn from professionals, last thing he/she should do in first couple posts if make statement like this.
Case closed.