The Perfect Diamond

[Serg]

criterion |krīˈti(ə)rēən|
noun ( pl. -teria |-ˈti(ə)rēə|)
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided

reason|ˈriːz(ə)n|noun
1 a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event: she asked him to return, but didn't give a reason|I resigned for personal reasons|[with clause]:Giles is the reason that I am here.
•[mass noun]good or obvious cause to do something: we have reason to celebrate.
•Logic a premise of an argument in support of a belief, especiallya minor premise when given after the conclusion.
2 [mass noun]the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically: there is a close connection between reason and emotion.
•what is right, practical, or possible; common sense: people are willing, with in reason, to pay for schooling.
•(one's reason)one's sanity: she is in danger of losing her reason.

 

[Consumerx1138]

So What?
You haven't fully addressed the nature of the market with "reason", the criteria of your memes are off. I read them the first time, posting them a second time doesn't add anything. There is MORE to the picture than you describe.

 

[Serg]

So What?
You haven't fully addressed the nature of the market with "reason", the criteria of your memes are off. I read them the first time, posting them a second time doesn't add anything. There is MORE to the picture than you describe.

a real world( a Picture) is always bigger than any finite description . there are not any sense in infinite description . it is important to find shortest description that covers 80-90% of picture.
If you know the missed reason that is important for shortest description, just share it here.

 

[Consumerx1138]

You responded to a comment I made to someone else. Maybe have the patience to allow them to respond back?

 

[Serg]

Diamond with perfect 3D symmetry does not produce symmetrical images for Human eyes .
To see symmetrical image you have to observe a diamond perpendicularly to table that is not possible if you have 2 eyes . You may see symmetrical photos only in symmetrical light environment as ASET, IS, H&A etc,.. that has poor correlation with human observer environments .
it does not mean that symmetrical diamonds would not have any advantages in compare with asymmetrical diamonds

 

[Consumerx1138]

Diamond with perfect 3D symmetry does not produce symmetrical images for Human eyes .
To see symmetrical image you have to observe a diamond perpendicularly to table that is not possible if you have 2 eyes . You may see symmetrical photos only in symmetrical light environment as ASET, IS, H&A etc,.. that has poor correlation with human observer environments .
it does not mean that symmetrical diamonds would not have any advantages in compare with asymmetrical diamonds

Why is that true?
What is a "symmetrical light"?
Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?
What are those "certain advantages", and why?

 

[Serg]

Why is that true?
What is a "symmetrical light"?
Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?
What are those "certain advantages", and why?

What exactly do you ask me to proof?
You are agree that observers usually have 2 eyes?
Are you agree that that both eyes can not see diamond perpendicular to table in same time?
Have I proof It?
You may easy check it yourself.
Take symmetrical diamond and try to find position when both your eyes see symmetrical images in same time. stereomicroscope could be very helpful.
Is anything are true for you except your questions and statements ?

 

[Serg]

Why is that true?
What is a "symmetrical light"?
Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?
What are those "certain advantages", and why?

I wonder : do you see any proof in below article http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf
?

 

[drk14]

Why is that true?

Everything in @Serg 's post (except for the last sentence) follows directly from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.

What is a "symmetrical light"?

Take the dictionary definition of symmetry that you yourself posted (#52), and substitute "light sources" for "parts".

Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?

You might want to read some of the educational materials available about ASET:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-–-diamond-evaluation-tool
https://ideal-scope.com/using-aset-scopes/
https://ideal-scope.com/reference-chart-aset-images/

 

[Consumerx1138]

Everything in @Serg 's post (except for the last sentence) follows directly from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.



Take the dictionary definition of symmetry that you yourself posted (#52), and substitute "light sources" for "parts".



You might want to read some of the educational materials available about ASET:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-–-diamond-evaluation-tool
https://ideal-scope.com/using-aset-scopes/
https://ideal-scope.com/reference-chart-aset-images/

I'll ask you:

What is a "symmetrical light"?
Show us.

Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?

If human's experience the visual world with both eyes, or one eye closed for certain tasks why not use this as a relative baseline for every experience - including viewing diamonds? How else would we value diamonds without our eyesight?

 

[drk14]

 

[Consumerx1138]

Well, that represents your beliefs well.

 

[Serg]

Well, that represents your beliefs well.

would you please give any constructive , positive, knowledge input ?
what is your main goal on PS ? what do you want give? what do you want receive here?

 

[Consumerx1138]

would you please give any constructive , positive, knowledge input ?
what is your main goal on PS ? what do you want give? what do you want receive here?

Serge - It's very difficult communicating with you, because you don't respond to reason, nor communicate (or seem to understand) open dialog. You've avoided some of the dialog, or focused on hyper theoretical/technical aspects, which miss practical relevant application. I don't know if it's a language/cultural thing, or a personal thing.

 

[John P]

John, Thank you for your comment. It better addresses the perception of value over the pure production direction the thread started to stray.

Why are round cuts so popular today?
Why are diamonds desired to the degree they are (or not) today?
Many on this forum DO seek a (relative) perfection of symmetry; religiously, evangelically, and dogmatically.

symmetry |ˈsimitrē|
noun ( pl. -tries)
the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis

As far as the public's conscious demands in shaping their own futures...... (LMAO!)
Most people are followers (homogeneous).

Even more amusing, why do people want natural diamonds, but then insist on the finished product being anything but natural (a complete reflection of a man made product)? Obviously this entire market is driven by emotion...

Personally my fave cut right now is as far as you can get from this forum's common tastes, I like a vintage/antique French cut. But even when it comes to the most heavily marketed cut (round brilliant) I feel the "perfection of symmetry" produces some things I really don't like. Sure maybe perfect symmetry may produce more efficient light travel (to what percentage/degree??? ie: how much more noticeable is an excellent to a good cut all things being equal?).

What I LOVE about diamonds are the seemingly eternal and infinite random reflections, sparkle, transparency in some stones. Perfection of symmetry may not provide that look, the particular profile the tribe here seems to prefer, I find boring and distracting. It does NOT feel infinite or eternal, it feels like a branded product with a STAR logo. On a visual level, I find most of the aesthetic not pleasing to the eye, more like a comparison between a marketing logo and an impressionist painting, or the authentic scene portrayed in the impressionism. So, some asymmetry may actually allow a diamonds reflections, transmission, and deflection to create a different (more beautiful) aesthetic.

But aesthetics are subjective (including those in diamonds). Tastes and trends change, cultures change. There will probably always be a few more iconoclasts, and another group more herd like. I believe my original statement is sound regarding the (common) value assigned to the (relative, or absolute) perfection in mass production today, via technological advance. We see it throughout our (consumer) lives. Why would that not be reflected in gemstone products as well?

There are many tangents to this dialogue. I regret that my time is limited, but I'll reply as possible...

Why are diamonds desired to the degree they are (or not) today?

The micro view: I taught school for many years. Former students know I'm a diamond-guy now and still contact me when "it's time" - which is part of your answer. I always ask "Do you want to buy a diamond?" Some do...others are just doing. Those who aren't excited are doing it because they perceive inherent emotional value for the recipient. I would note that a good educational process can shift attitudes. Seeing and experiencing what nature created and man crafted - via gauges, color cards, microscopes, viewers, etc. - can elevate interest and investment. The most nonchalant can become very enthusiastic by the end of the project (that also reflects what happened to me as a consumer).

The macro view: NW Ayers nailed it 70 years ago. Aesthetically, diamonds are distinctive. Symbolically they're valuable. Emotionally they're "forever." Connect those things to the prospect of gifting - even self-gifting - and the diamond package remains psychologically powerful.

Why are round cuts so popular today?

This is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. You get different answers, depending on where you're positioned.

I've had different answers as:
* Uninformed consumer, circa 2000 (you know nothing, John Snow)
* Informed consumer (a little knowledge...maybe dangerous)
* Working downstream for a US diamond retailer (buying and selling polished)
* Working upstream for an Antwerp cutting boutique (buying, planning and cutting from rough)

My uninformed consumer answer would have been - "Golly, I thought princess cuts were just as popular." My retailer answer would be the wide availability and deep stock of rounds keep their popularity self-fulfilling. My rough-buying producer answer is addressed in the details of Serg's presentation.

In terms of my personal vision and goals, we cut rounds exclusively, for the same reason drums are cylindrical and horns are conical. By no means is that the only option, but it's what we choose for our specific focus and those who value our proposition.

What I LOVE about diamonds are the seemingly eternal and infinite random reflections, sparkle, transparency in some stones. Perfection of symmetry may not provide that look, the particular profile the tribe here seems to prefer, I find boring and distracting. It does NOT feel infinite or eternal, it feels like a branded product with a STAR logo. On a visual level, I find most of the aesthetic not pleasing to the eye, more like a comparison between a marketing logo and an impressionist painting, or the authentic scene portrayed in the impressionism. So, some asymmetry may actually allow a diamonds reflections, transmission, and deflection to create a different (more beautiful) aesthetic.

What I love about your post is this paragraph. It's precisely why we could use more dialogue between producers and consumers.

For my part: At university I was fascinated with overtones. My idea of fun was standing at a strobe tuner with like-minded music majors, trying to stop as many analog strobe discs as possible using a single resonant tone. Euphonium players killed everyone else at this. I dovetailed my music with studies in science. Years later, when I started my consumer diamond search, I became fascinated by optimizing reflection and refraction, much in the same way I had chased acoustic resonance. Edge to edge brightness, improved color appearance, larger spectral fans, more dynamic contrast... for me these by-products of critical-angles and symmetry hit the same notes (pun intended) as random sparkle, deflections and the beautiful asymmetric aesthetic do for you. It's why I eventually joined this business. I find it all awesome. Vive la difference.

And, relative to music, there are awesome genres where composition and structure purposely deflect away from pure tones. It's completely different than music with open structure and clear harmonics, but both have qualities which inspire passion in their followers. I'm someone who appreciates pretty much all music - and diamonds too! - but I'm an admitted lover of structure, whether music, visual, or art, so that end of the spectrum floats my boat a bit higher. It's also why I chose this job.

Out of time for now, thanks for the dialogue.

 

[John P]

A quick salute to 13 seconds covering both the asymmetrical and symmetrical.

 

[Consumerx1138]

John,

Thank you for taking the time to respond so well. You came close to broaching my thoughts on why diamonds, why rounds, and why we have the current analist (perfect ratios, ASET, Ideal Scope, etc) marketing today:

Begin with NW Ayers & Cecil Rhodes.
'A diamond is forever' - two goals to the narrative:
1) Manufacture desire (to move product)
2) Keep product in public hands from re-entering the market again (hurting new product sales)

The new markeeters (analists) seek the same goals.
Your 13 seconds of Dolby is an audio representation of the marketing narrative too.

 

[OoohShiny]

I'll ask you:

What is a "symmetrical light"?
Show us.

Why use ASET, or certain ratios if these can not be seen by human eyes?

If human's experience the visual world with both eyes, or one eye closed for certain tasks why not use this as a relative baseline for every experience - including viewing diamonds? How else would we value diamonds without our eyesight?

My takeaway from @Serg's posts has been that only a cyclops-based analysis will give a 'symmetrical light environment', in that stereoscopic vision does not permit accurate empirical analysis of symmetry.

ASETscope and IdealScope are effectively cyclops-based analysis tools. Their use provides an apples-to-apples assessment by buyers interested in assessment of cut symmetry and light return/leakage, which AGS grading reports may include.

As you suggest yourself as a suitable method of assessment, they provide reliable and consistent 'one eye closed' assessments and, therefore, a comparable baseline for every experience. Individuals can/have/will learn their preferences with regards to symmetry and light-return performance of different ASETscope and IdealScope assessment results, through study of pictures, videos and through real life 'hands on' experience, and will place their own values on the range of assessment results, as you have. Some may value cut symmetry and strong light return highly, others may value more 'individual' cuts that don't perform so well empirically but may still have a beauty of their own - as a much greater man than I has said many times, 'people vary', but perhaps this forum has members more firmly in the former camp than the latter.

The discussion around whether GIA/AGS/IGI are grading the latter-mentioned cuts in a way that accurately assesses their beauty and 'character' is a different matter - as individuals' tastes vary so greatly, I'm not sure it is possible to do so, but ASET and IS do at least give empirical data and analysis that allows individuals to learn their preferences and seek them out in a global online shopping environment.

 

[OoohShiny]

Serge - It's very difficult communicating with you, because you don't respond to reason, nor communicate (or seem to understand) open dialog. You've avoided some of the dialog, or focused on hyper theoretical/technical aspects, which miss practical relevant application. I don't know if it's a language/cultural thing, or a personal thing.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe English is @Serg's first language. If I am correct in my thinking, he may wish to advise what his first language is, so you can converse more easily in that.

Entirely personally speaking, I found the technical diagrams very interesting and a useful illustration of concepts that have previously been dicussed regarding scintillation and cyclops vs stereoscopic assessment remotely. Thank you for posting them, Serg.

 

[Consumerx1138]

My takeaway from @Serg's posts has been that only a cyclops-based analysis will give a 'symmetrical light environment', in that stereoscopic vision does not permit accurate empirical analysis of symmetry.

ASETscope and IdealScope are effectively cyclops-based analysis tools. Their use provides an apples-to-apples assessment by buyers interested in assessment of cut symmetry and light return/leakage, which AGS grading reports may include.

As you suggest yourself as a suitable method of assessment, they provide reliable and consistent 'one eye closed' assessments and, therefore, a comparable baseline for every experience. Individuals can/have/will learn their preferences with regards to symmetry and light-return performance of different ASETscope and IdealScope assessment results, through study of pictures, videos and through real life 'hands on' experience, and will place their own values on the range of assessment results, as you have. Some may value cut symmetry and strong light return highly, others may value more 'individual' cuts that don't perform so well empirically but may still have a beauty of their own - as a much greater man than I has said many times, 'people vary', but perhaps this forum has members more firmly in the former camp than the latter.

The discussion around whether GIA/AGS/IGI are grading the latter-mentioned cuts in a way that accurately assesses their beauty and 'character' is a different matter - as individuals' tastes vary so greatly, I'm not sure it is possible to do so, but ASET and IS do at least give empirical data and analysis that allows individuals to learn their preferences and seek them out in a global online shopping environment.

Empirical data to what end?
Confirmation basis of the marketing narratives?

Begin with NW Ayers & Cecil Rhodes.
'A diamond is forever' - two goals to the narrative:
1) Manufacture desire (to move product)
2) Keep product in public hands from re-entering the market again (hurting new product sales)

 

[Serg]

Combination of two types marketings slogans : "A Diamond is forever " and "Ideal Diamonds" kills future sales and cheat consumers

 

[OoohShiny]

Empirical data to what end?
Confirmation basis of the marketing narratives?

Begin with NW Ayers & Cecil Rhodes.
'A diamond is forever' - two goals to the narrative:
1) Manufacture desire (to move product)
2) Keep product in public hands from re-entering the market again (hurting new product sales)

I apologise if I was not clear in my post.

The thrust of my response was that we appear to be in agreement, albeit approaching from different viewpoints:

- You have suggested that one's eyes should provide the baseline with which to assess various diamonds - ultimately creating one's own 'empirical' dataset.

- I have put forward the proposition that in the absence of the ability to view stones in person because they are being sold by an online vendor, ASET/IS/video/pictures provide empirical data for analysis.

- In both scenarios, experience gained through analysis (by either or both methods) informs one's preferences and, ultimately, choice of stone(s) to purchase - i.e. as one becomes informed through experience and determines ones preferences, one learns whether one prefers one style of cut or another.

- Some may prefer ultra-tight cutting tolerances and facet symmetry (like many here), some may prefer less 'structured' faceting (like you and some here) - both have their own individual beauty, neither is necessarily more attractive than the other in the eyes of the multitude of individuals purchasing stones, who all have their individual preferences. (Although reference and consideration must be given to the work done in determining TIC parameters.)

- Without experience gained through analysis of empirical data (by either or both methods), individuals cannot explore and learn their preferences, and therefore cannot make an informed decision.

- ASET and IdealScope should therefore not necessarily be seen as distorting the market - they are merely providing more information for consumers to base decisions on.

- On the basis of the above, I would assert that an individual or vendor confident in the beauty of their stones would not fear presentation of the complete suite of information (indeed, I have commented positively on the forum today on a stone that does not appear to perform well on ASET but has excellent visual interest on video) because individuals will buy what they like the look of, not necessarily what is pushed on them.

This last point could be a point of potential discussion, as anecdotal evidence from forum poster feedback on here would seem to indicate that the stones with tighter-cut, AGS000-like parameters and stronger light return characteristics have been preferred when put side-by-side with the average (in both senses of the word) stone(s) presented to forum members by local jewellers, in which case the question could be asked whether the marketing of 'Super Ideals' is driving the sales of tighter-cut stones, or whether actual consumer experience of them is providing and increasing demand for them.


I am not sure why the discussion is returning to marketing.

Are you suggesting that marketing is driving the current (on PriceScope, at least, although it can also be seen in B&M stores with Hearts on Fire and similar TIC-based cuts) trend towards improved symmetry and increased light-return?

Is your assertion that consumers are too stupid or unaware to do their own research on the different options available (using either or both of the empirical data approaches described above), and are therefore 'gulping down the Koolaid' and buying AGS000 / SuperIdeals / selected GIA XXX with GIA000-equivalent angles and <2 HCA scores, rather than actually buying stones on their beauty alone?

Are you also asserting that the marketing of such cut parameters is in and of itself actually manufacturing desire to purchase diamonds? (Rather than the desire being based on the traditional event-based purchases that have historically been the sole/main reason for diamond purchases by the vast majority of purchasers, for whom buying a diamond is a financial stretch rather than a casual discretionary purchase.)


On the point of 'diamonds are forever' being a cunning ploy to inhibit secondhand sales and encourage increased consumerism of new products, is it not the case that any individual or company selling diamonds (including yourself) would benefit from this marketing (if it is indeed effective), regardless of style or cut or quality of stone?

 

[Serg]

Serge - It's very difficult communicating with you, because you don't respond to reason, nor communicate (or seem to understand) open dialog. You've avoided some of the dialog, or focused on hyper theoretical/technical aspects, which miss practical relevant application. I don't know if it's a language/cultural thing, or a personal thing.

If the task is to select a diamond similar to a reference diamond then one eye (or camera) and normal comprehension ability are sufficient.
If the task is to recognise a new beautiful diamond pattern then two eyes and a highly trained brain are needed.

Clear understanding of all reasons for the current market status is critical for the success of the next steps in resolving the current problems.

There are many anchors which keep (conserve) the diamond market in the current condition. One or two new technologies are not able to transfer the market to a new level and make it competitive in comparison with other industries.

This type of life cycle regularity is well described in sociology and business.

For example, in Lev Gumilyov’s ethnogenesis theory all ethnoses (similar to nations) in their development follow the same pattern of concurrent stages. On the first stage nation reorganises landscape, developing the most favourable conditions for living. On the next stage nation looses excess energy (passionarity), stops to develop the landscape and just keeps on the reached level. On the subsequent stage people are not able even to maintain the reached before level.

The similar trend is observed in marketing and is known as brand life cycle. New brand rises addressing the existing needs and niche. Then it reaches apex - niche saturation - in the market. If it stays in the same niche for a long time it inevitably comes to the end of its life cycle - sales decline even when the investments in advertising and promotion are huge. In order to be sustainable a brand needs to expand into other niches (often completely new ones) or to be rebranded in a way which addresses the evolved users’ needs.

The diamond category brand is currently in the decline stage. The current brand life cycle apex is behind. No investments in the set of the former brand values will bring it to the raising part of the sales curve. ( DPA most probably will not achive grate results even with new 57m annual budget) .It should be modified and introduced into currently developing niches.

So I respond exactly to reasons, I do not avoid any dialog . If you want achieve any positive results then you have to start from background, from history, from history of reason and receive better understand technical limitations. Just marketing does not create Brand.

 

[Consumerx1138]

If the task is to select a diamond similar to a reference diamond then one eye (or camera) and normal comprehension ability are sufficient.
If the task is to recognise a new beautiful diamond pattern then two eyes and a highly trained brain are needed.

Clear understanding of all reasons for the current market status is critical for the success of the next steps in resolving the current problems.

There are many anchors which keep (conserve) the diamond market in the current condition. One or two new technologies are not able to transfer the market to a new level and make it competitive in comparison with other industries.

This type of life cycle regularity is well described in sociology and business.

For example, in Lev Gumilyov’s ethnogenesis theory all ethnoses (similar to nations) in their development follow the same pattern of concurrent stages. On the first stage nation reorganises landscape, developing the most favourable conditions for living. On the next stage nation looses excess energy (passionarity), stops to develop the landscape and just keeps on the reached level. On the subsequent stage people are not able even to maintain the reached before level.

The similar trend is observed in marketing and is known as brand life cycle. New brand rises addressing the existing needs and niche. Then it reaches apex - niche saturation - in the market. If it stays in the same niche for a long time it inevitably comes to the end of its life cycle - sales decline even when the investments in advertising and promotion are huge. In order to be sustainable a brand needs to expand into other niches (often completely new ones) or to be rebranded in a way which addresses the evolved users’ needs.

The diamond category brand is currently in the decline stage. The current brand life cycle apex is behind. No investments in the set of the former brand values will bring it to the raising part of the sales curve. ( DPA most probably will not achive grate results even with new 57m annual budget) .It should be modified and introduced into currently developing niches.

So I respond exactly to reasons, I do not avoid any dialog . If you want achieve any positive results then you have to start from background, from history, from history of reason and receive better understand technical limitations. Just marketing does not create Brand.

1) You have a history here avoiding dialog - there is a record here.

2) Your perception, perspective, and conclusions aren't necessarily cogent.
Example: "The diamond category brand is currently in the decline stage".
Why is that assertion true?
How do all steps in a history at the same pace and direction? They aren't!

Meta note: last time I asked questions you blew me off, for asking questions ( "avoiding dialog").
3) ALMOST EVERYTHING in this market comes down to subjective interpretation (which can be influenced: marketing narratives).

4) "New brand rises addressing the existing needs and niche."
What existing "need", "niche" did Debeers respond to in the early 20th century?

5) We are presently in technological, cultural, market changes affecting both diamonds prices and perceived value.

btw - I have some papers from the 1970's with gorgeous melee 1.5mm SC VS colorless which sold back in the day @$9500.+/carat. How much do they sell for today - even FC?

6) Relevance?
Who DOESN'T consume, use, experience their jewelry with one or two human eyes?

7) "Clear understanding of all reasons for the current market status is critical for the success of the next steps in resolving the current problems."

What current problems? Problems for whom?

Serge, I'm sure you are a nice guy, in some cases our difference in language, and culture may account for a different perspective and communication snafus. Sorry, some Russian ancestry, but don't speak the language.

If you enjoy philosophy, history, theory here is another (which you may or may not be familiar):

Simulacra and Simulation
by Jean Baudrillard
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudlldsimulTnmainframe.html

 

[Consumerx1138]

I am not sure why the discussion is returning to marketing.

Maybe that is why you don't understand/grasp the diamond market well?

When I get a moment I may have time to go through your points

 

[OoohShiny]

Maybe that is why you don't understand/grasp the diamond market well?

When I get a moment I may have time to go through your points

I will freely admit that I am not knowledgeable in the world of marketing; I can only present my viewpoints as a consumer with limited understanding but prior experience of 'salesman', so detailing your understanding of the situation as you see it is welcomed.

 

[John P]

John, Thank you for taking the time to respond so well. You came close to broaching my thoughts on why diamonds, why rounds, and why we have the current analist (perfect ratios, ASET, Ideal Scope, etc) marketing today:

You're welcome. I appreciate the comment and am glad my response was effective. I follow your big-picture thoughts on why-diamonds and why-rounds. I would like to chase your marketing comment farther: For me the current-analysis you mention seems limited to USA e-commerce and is even Pricescope-centric in terms of proliferation. Are you seeing the tools highlighted above in mainstream efforts? I ask because one of my primary activities is onsite education for retail jewelers. In the past 10 years nearly no-one knows about Ideal-Scope before I arrive. Less than 4% of USA jewelry stores have an AGS membership, fewer use ASET in sales or marketing and fewer still understand it correctly. If you feel those tools are penetrating the market at-large, I'd like to get a sense of what you're seeing.

Begin with NW Ayers & Cecil Rhodes.
'A diamond is forever' - two goals to the narrative:
1) Manufacture desire (to move product)
2) Keep product in public hands from re-entering the market again (hurting new product sales)

The new markeeters (analists) seek the same goals.

#1 has been undeniably successful; to the point one might argue it was meant to be (?)
Can you elaborate on #2?

Your 13 seconds of Dolby is an audio representation of the marketing narrative too.

Interesting. For me it has always represented cadence -resolving to effective resonant partials- in the same spirit as more traditional plagal/authentic or even rhythmic cadences. They're all emblematic of arrival. I follow your thinking, it does proceed from (natural) disorder to (man-made) structure. Ok. Now I'm going to be thinking about this all night

 

[Consumerx1138]

Hi John,

Rhodes and Ayers had two goals in mind. Of course create desire for a material (while monopolizing and limiting supply). The second almost as important for a product which outlives it's owners: limit it's reintroduction back into the marketplace. This would create huge competition against their own sales. Keep in mind, while "A diamond is forever" is a slogan coined almost a decade after the marketing campaign started, the mindset at the time was depression and war. People sell stuff when in survival mode, this gluts (lowers) the markets with second hand opportunities.

(btw- Where do we see this in play today in this market? )

So the campaign slogan (along with other media and messages) tries to identify/tie/marry that specific stone to it's original family, and it's original love tie. In some cases that might hurt future sales when a grandson proposes with a family heirloom, but in other cases the previous family tie might be so strong the family may not want re-introduce a new meaning to the old stone.

Remounting stones is a huge business, which cuts into the sales of new gemstones - especially the larger primary stones. btw - My late Father's business (70's) was based on a patented design process allowing every jewelry store to in the country to create designs on the spot quickly and cheaply for customers. Designs which had to be fulfilled by his manufacturing facility. He made $ on the new designs, the old gold, new secondary gemstone sales to support the new designs, the sales of the design kit, and sales of his existing lines of fine jewelry (five traveling national sales reps). When he sold the business, the buyer was buying mostly for the patents, secondarily for all the stock in showrooms on memo.

THX: Maybe over thinking it a bit? Anytime a commercial enterprise hammers you with a GIANT logo, along with a HUMONGOUS audio logo - when you are captive (having just spent $30. on tickets, popcorn, drinks, parking for you and yours while waiting for entertainment) that is marketing! LOGO!!!