Universal Crowns and Pavilions

[Fly Girl]

The latest issue of Newsweek (Feb. 12, 2007) has an article with diamond buying tips. Newsweek says to get a good cut one should ask for "universal crowns and pavilions". I''m mystified as to what that means. I know crown and pavilion angles are important, but does saying "universal" mean you will get the right combo?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

would love to see a scan or a link to the article?

Wierd terminology - journo''s rarely get techy stuff right

 

[JulieN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16965323/site/newsweek/

By Linda Stern
Newsweek
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - If it sings to you, buy it. That's the simplified advice that diamond merchants like to give to Valentine's Day shoppers. But it's so much more complicated than that. Especially now, with online discounters, synthetic gemstones and worries about "blood" diamonds clouding the market. Here's what you need to know if you're shopping for some nice ice

U C/P somewhere after Fred Cueller

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thx Jules - amazing - how right was I - before even reading the article!!

She got every single bit of the story wrong.

That further confrms that the Economist is the only worthwhile weekly news mag that is worth reading.

Interestingly the Economist has rarely written about diamonds - yet I see one of their journo''s who supplies them with diamond stories very often at industry events around the world. And he really knows what is happening - but will only write about really important stuff. And we really dont have much that is important just now.

Maybe when we get GIA to return to the drawing board with their cut grades - that would be a story!!!

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Garry


Few reporters will actually let you check what they write before they go and publish it. I''ve known of only three reporters that I''ve worked with that reported things accurately,thoroughly and fairly.

1. Herb Denenberg in Phila
2. Dave Federman of Modern Jeweler
3. Jane Everhart/ Lynn Diamond at National Jeweler( they aren''t there any longer)

All three took great pains to fact check things to report their stories accurately. I''ve been interviewed or in the background of many other shows and publications, but in the end their finished product had mistakes, misquotes, sensationalitic approach to the articles, and inaccuracies.

I was recently contacted by a major TV show here who wanted "sensationalistic" stories. Thus makiing industry members look bad. I have no problem providing info to them when a merchant misrepresents, but the "other side" of the story needs to teach people how to understand the proper way to understand the technical and legal positions. Unfortunately, this doesn''t get RATINGS, which is what a lot of reporters have a primary interest in doing.

Rockdoc

 

[kenny]

Speaking of smelly journalism, a while ago a local Los Angeles TV station was doing a story on "What MPG Hybrid Cars REALLY Get!"
I found out via a hybrid forum they were looking for hybrid drivers to interview in my area.

I have a Honda Civic Hybrid which the EPA rates it at 50 MPG.
My lifetime average is 62.9 MPG. No joke.
Yes, I have to drive like an old lady on morphine to get that, but it is possible to squeeze amazing MPG out of these cars.

I called the producer.
He didn't want to interview me.
He said that is not the angle they are going for.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

so true Roc and Kenny

So sad, but maybe we get the news we deserve?

Our TV stations here in oz gave the jewel industry heaps last year and I was involved in a few of the stories as the good guy - some of the stories never went to air - others did but were (from the inside) very badly distorted versions where the truth was never a part of the goal.

e.g. they bought 3 x 3 stone rings from a large national chain of mall stores with off white SI3 .10ct - .50ct stones, and took the stones out and did full diamond grading reports. They took the reset rings to some local jewel manufacturers and asked them what they were worth - but they asked for the wholesale values. They then bought the lot to me for appraisal on condition they told me the full story.

My first comment was - ''the manufacturing wholesalers would have supplied this chain 5-10 years ago and would have jumped at the chance to stick the knife in because this company now imports all their jewellery'' The reporter said smugly "we did not tell them where we bought them"

The rings were stamped with the stores name.

Naturally they did not use my appraisal values - they used the disafected wholesale values.

 

[tanalasta]

Is that the article done on Today Tonight with rings brought from three different stores and then sent to the DCLA for grading?

That particular article can be found on YouTube.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/8/2007 10:31:37 AM
Author: tanalasta
Is that the article done on Today Tonight with rings brought from three different stores and then sent to the DCLA for grading?

That particular article can be found on YouTube.

Where T?

 

[tanalasta]

Sorry for the late reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoftXKWcvWw

It''s the story about a couple who bought an engagement ring from a local jeweller which misrepresented the centre stone as ''white'' when it was obviously brownish yellow and a worse than H on the Cape series. It then compares three different diamond rings brought from jewellers with the centre stones sent to the DCLA for grading and then three independent valuations significantly less than the valuation provided by the jeweller.

I think that in the article, they mention that the diamonds were removed from the settings before being sent to DCLA.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/11/2007 12:39:46 AM
Author: tanalasta
Sorry for the late reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoftXKWcvWw

It''s the story about a couple who bought an engagement ring from a local jeweller which misrepresented the centre stone as ''white'' when it was obviously brownish yellow and a worse than H on the Cape series. Yes - that was the story I was involved in, and the couple they filmed at the start were no part of the rest of the story - just a rather decieitful emotional hook - we never recieved any real information about their story - and i heard on the grapevine that was because the jeweller never did the wrong thing - and the facts were quite f=different - but why waste some good footage? It then compares three different diamond rings brought from jewellers with the centre stones sent to the DCLA for grading and then three independent valuations significantly less than the valuation provided by the jeweller. Some of these stones had a wholesale cost that was less than the $110 cost of DCLA certification - the rings were not expensive. even though the juorno bought the msot expensive looking non marked down things he could in the store - and that is another story about the ACCC and some dumb things they require of chain stores.

I think that in the article, they mention that the diamonds were removed from the settings before being sent to DCLA.

The stones were infact accurately graded in the vendors grading reports - J-L or therre abouts and were never offered as anything other than that. The fact the were brownish low color is very normal in our chain store market because these stones almost always have blusih fluoro and face up better than their lab grade (they are mostly Argyle sourced). If you look around T you will see that it is rare to find smaller stone jewellery that is yellowish here in cheap discount stores - it is mostly off white brownish - and that is because with our outdoor life style in Australia it gives people what they want at the price they are prepared to pay.
Roy is South African and the fact he does not understand that market gave him no right to sink the boots in. Also he is wrong - GIA, CIBJO, HRD and every other lab grades off white yellowish or brownish stones on the D-Z scale - it is only that a pale pink, blue or green could get called a fancy at these shades.

my server speed is slow - and I have not rewatched it - but that is as I remember it.

 

[RockDoc]

Interesting expose, T and Garry

I am puzzled as to why they went to other merchants to get the values, which were quoted as "wholesale", when the seller''s valuations were at retail.

It also appears that the "wholesale" values in the story, were very low, thus feeding the sensationalism aspect so commonly done.

Aren''t there indepedent appraisers there is OZ that have to have credentials, and who only do valuation?

Then it seems nothing was reported about any substance of law that would have educated consumers on what to do if they bought a misrepresented diamond, or any remedies afforded consumers under the law there.

And nothing in that expose that would have been informative as to the gemological programs there ( interesting that the educational credentials of the people grading the diamonds were left out too... )

Guess that''s why I get quite a few people from Australia, having their stones sent here.

hmmm


Rockdoc

 

[Modified Brilliant]

There was a well known NY jeweler who was interviewed yesterday on FOX news regarding buying diamonds for Valentine''s Day.
He stated that "color" was THE most important quality to look for when buying a diamond.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[RockDoc]

Color and not CUT!!!!!!!!!!


Did they take off his shoes so viewers could see that he has webbed feet?????????


Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/11/2007 9:57:33 AM
Author: RockDoc
Interesting expose, T and Garry

I am puzzled as to why they went to other merchants to get the values, which were quoted as ''wholesale'', when the seller''s valuations were at retail. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. And as i said the wholesalers were probably disgruntled ex suppliers.

It also appears that the ''wholesale'' values in the story, were very low, thus feeding the sensationalism aspect so commonly done.

Aren''t there indepedent appraisers there is OZ that have to have credentials, and who only do valuation? They came to me with the rings to perform that role Roc. But since my apparaisals were very close to the vendors, they did nopt use them. I will paste a letter i wrote in conjunction with the Australian Jeweller magazine under neath.

Then it seems nothing was reported about any substance of law that would have educated consumers on what to do if they bought a misrepresented diamond, or any remedies afforded consumers under the law there.

And nothing in that expose that would have been informative as to the gemological programs there ( interesting that the educational credentials of the people grading the diamonds were left out too... )

Guess that''s why I get quite a few people from Australia, having their stones sent here. i think that has more to do with the logistics of getting the diamonds back to USA Roc - have you ever had appraisals sent from Australia for you to do and themn return

hmmm


Rockdoc

Retailers reeling from TV tale
In another damning incident for the jewellery industry, Network Seven’s national current affairs program, Today Tonight, has accused two prominent retail jewellery chains of questionable trading practices.
Reporter Glenn Connley opened the May 10 airing of the program by stating, “A Today Tonight investigation has revealed all is not what it seems in the diamond industry, with the reputations of many major jewellery chains being called into question. Independent valuations showed huge variations between what Today Tonight paid for two diamond rings and what they were actually worth.”
The program then introduced two consumers, Michael and Carol who purchased engagement rings from Sydney retailer, Nineveh Jewellers, The consumers are in dispute with Nineveh Jewellers, claiming they paid $5,000 for rings valued at $12,000, but a subsequent independent valuation later valued the items at only $1,600. No evidence was presented during the program to support this.
Ninevah Jewelers owner Laheeb Alkhamisi refuted the claims to Jeweller, and advised that the matter is set for a hearing in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal at the end of the May. Interestingly, Alkhamisi said he was unaware of the television report and that he was never contact by Today Tonight for comment.
The program then, confusingly, moved onto another topic: a self-conducted investigation of the Prouds and Angus & Coote retail chains.
“As part of the investigation, Today Tonight purchased a ring with three main diamonds from Angus and Coote.” Connley stated, during the program. “The price displayed in the window was $3999, but at the counter we were told it was on special at $2,799, which is what we paid.
“Today Tonight was told the ring contained a white diamond with a hint of yellow, and that it was L to M on the Cape Series (colour) scale. At Prouds, Today Tonight purchased a diamond trilogy engagement ring for $799, down from the window price of $999.”
The stones were removed from each ring and then graded by Sydney’s Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia (DCLA). The process was filmed and DCLA director Roy Cohen confirmed that the lab had no knowledge of where the rings had been purchased.
“The tests run by DCLA showed that all six stones purchased by Today Tonight were brown, which the laboratory said was a major alarm bell,” Connley’s report said.
“The DCLA grader, Roy Cohen, said although it was not uncommon to measure brown diamonds at the yellow end of the Cape Series scale, we should have been told that we were buying cheap, brown diamonds, instead of white.”
Angus & Coote’s chief executive officer Graham Oakes refuted any claim the stones were incorrectly graded or advertised: “The rings were sold with a certificate that clearly identified them as L-M and we stand by that. We have seen nothing that indicates that our certificate was inaccurate.”
However, what the program failed to tell viewers was that Melbourne-based valuer Garry Holloway had been asked to value the rings as part of the investigation.
Holloway spent more than two hours with the Today Tonight staff and was filmed for the program. His assessment contradicted that which the program eventually aired. "I was glad my interview was not aired,” Holloway said. “The story was badly planned and the cost to certify the rings was more than half the cost of the six diamonds. There were no true valuations given; only the opinions of anonymous wholesalers.”
Holloway said he queried the Today Tonight staff about whether wholesalers who had supplied the valuations were ex-Angus & Coote suppliers. “The reporter told me the merchants were not aware that the product came from Angus & Coote, so their valuations could not be biased. That was until I pointed out that the large ring was stamped Angus & Coote in the shank!”
Holloway believes that only the higher values given would approach a fair wholesale value and the program implied they were retail “valuations”.
“One of my insurance valuations was exactly the same (as the original) and one was 14 per cent less than those from the stores. I told the reporters that the prices they paid for the rings were fair given that A&C and Prouds have to make a profit,” Holloway added.
Holloway also believed that the L-M grading with which the stones were sold was accurate: “The CIBJO Blue Book says brownish diamonds should be graded based on their “…. intensity of colour compared to the master stones”. I believe the retailers’ grades were within a grade of DCLA’s.”