Has anyone seen lab diamond prices increase recently?

[John Pollard]

@Rockdiamond , to reiterate:

I corrected you 10 posts ago. That content has not changed since @DejaWiz broke it down the first time. It has not changed since @DejaWiz provided you with the circled screen shots.

What changed was all in your head.

Why reiterate? Because I can't resist this opportunity to pair @DejaVu with @DejaWiz . Cheers.

 

[Wink]

Wow, that is like, Deja Vu all over again...

 

[DejaWiz]

Pair @DejaVu with @DejaWiz . Cheers.

Wow, that is like, Deja Vu all over again...

Whoa...I feel like I've been tagged before.
This all seems so familiar!

 

[Rockdiamond]

John- there’s nothing to “correct” and nothing changed “in my head”
My ( and Garry’s ) point is that the term, as used is deceptive. Full stop.
If whoever wrote the GIA guidelines saw it used, in the manner it’s been shown in this thread, I believe they’d object.
That’s pure speculation- as far as if it would change. What’s not speculation is the fact the term is used deceptively.

 

[John Pollard]

One more time.

I thought you had another source because it proves my point. The phrase "GIA Gemologist" is not on the approved list.

Actually, it is.



Dear Sir: I humbly request you change what you previously thought about the phrase "GIA Gemologist." In your head.

 

[John Pollard]

To be perfectly clear,




^ GIA does not object. "Full stop."



^ We don't know if GIA would object.

@Rockdiamond , If you believe they would object to the modifier, you could contact Phil, Tom or any of the folks there and put the question to them. Getting word directly from the foremost-horse's mouth would be useful.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hard to believe you're defending a clearly misleading phrase...but hey have at it- I strongly advise you NOT to advise your clients to use it.

GIA Gemologist

@Rockdiamond , If you believe they would object to the modifier, you could contact Phil, Tom or any of the folks there and put the question to them. Getting word directly from the foremost-horse's mouth would be useful.

ON the phone with GIA Carlsbad now.
I don't know that I can get them to change the approved terminology...but clearly ( to me) it should

 

[John Pollard]

Hard to believe you're defending a clearly misleading phrase

I believe you're making bad assumptions.

I have not defended anything. I've only corrected your misstatements about GIA's posted position on the phrase "GIA Gemologist."

 

[Rockdiamond]

So far, every person at GIA I've spoken with when I described the usage, agreed with me. That ain't gonna change the GIA page so quick, but the people I've spoken with have seen my point.

I believe you're making bad assumptions.

So is your point/position "GIA literature says it's ok, so it is OK for that reason alone"
or
GIA says it's ok, and you agree on the basis of the use of the phrase because you believe it's not misleading?
or
GIA includes the term, but you agree it's misleading?

My position is the last one.

ETA...do you believe we have the right/responsibility as professionals to review what GIA is saying- and if there's an error, encourage them to correct it?

 

[John Pollard]

So far, every person at GIA I've spoken with when I described the usage, agreed with me. That ain't gonna change the GIA page so quick, but the people I've spoken with have seen my point.

So is your point/position "GIA literature says it's ok, so it is OK for that reason alone"
or
GIA says it's ok, and you agree on the basis of the use of the phrase because you believe it's not misleading?
or
GIA includes the term, but you agree it's misleading?

My position is the last one.

ETA...do you believe we have the right/responsibility as professionals to review what GIA is saying- and if there's an error, encourage them to correct it?

@Rockdiamond - Let's slow this down.

I don't have a "point/position." They aren't the same thing. My position (philosophy) is entirely separate from the point. The point was made 24 posts ago - and it wasn't addressed to you.

The point

<< @Garry H (Cut Nut) , you may be recollecting their campaign against use of "GIA Certified Gemologists." They're okay with companies stating they have GIA Graduate Gemologists or GIA Gemologists on staff as long as it's accurate and verifiable. >>

You stepped and contradicted the point, even though I linked to GIA's page in that very post. So I kindly linked you to the page again. I realized you were unaware, so I gave the relevant link, before and after your contradiction. Yet you contradicted me again.

I did see it John- but I thought you had another source because it proves my point. The phrase "GIA Gemologist" is not on the approved list.

Caramba.

Why caramba? I have been linking to the page for years. The phrase "GIA Gemologist" has been greenlit for years. I didn't want to shoot you down for a third time.

So @DejaWiz kindly broke it down for you, post by post. First with grammar. Then with circled screen shots. Yet you continued prevaricating. There was never an "oops...missed that." It's fine for you to double-down on your feelings about it (honestly, I get it). But it doesn't change the point of fact. Nor does it reduce the effort made over many posts to help you understand the point of fact.

Would you like to know why that phrase is on the list?

I asked that of friends at GIA years ago. I presumed this might be where our dialogue would go when I made my point 24 posts ago. But there hasn't really been a "dialogue." KWIM?

 

[DejaWiz]

My stance is that NO modifier should be included in the title.

Jane Doe, unbiased GIA Gemologist (no!)
Jane Doe, GIA Gemologist (yes!)

Alas, I'm just a diamond geek consumer, so my opinion on the matter carries exceptionally little weight...rightfully so, because the folks that have put in the time, effort, and money to get their GIA degree(s) should absolutely have the loudest voices to be heard by the powers that be at GIA.

 

[Wink]

So, John, I am curious as to why that phrase is on the list. I have always thought that those of us who completed the coursework would want to use the full phrase, GIA Graduate Gemologist. Is it because there are several courses involved in becoming a Graduate Gemologist and someone who has completed one or more courses is a GIA Gemologist?

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

wow what a mess.
What GIA allows and what someone might think is wrong are 2 different things.
In my opinion the way a local pawn shop advertises it is the best way.
We have a GIA trained Gemologist on staff.
Verified to match the grading report by a GIA trained Gemologist.
John doe GG
GIA trained Gemologist
so on and so forth.

 

[Rockdiamond]

But there hasn't really been a "dialogue." KWIM?

My apologies John.....you could have forestalled the entire issue if you have an answer.
I'd bet $10 to $1 that we agree on the basics here.
*Sellers should be clear that the stones they are offering are not "certified" by GIA.
*Sellers should make it clear that the people who work for the seller are not affiliated with GIA in any other way besides earning a degree ( if they've earned it).
Both of these points are actually essential in educating consumers on the role GIA plays.

If we agree on these points, completely outside GIA's literature, we're in agreement.
The answer which would clarify things is why GIA would not have this very reasonable ( clearly others feel the same way) objection to the manner in which a gemologist is described in advertising.
SO- my sincerest of sincere apologies for "Caramba-ing" this thing.
Why would GIA allow it?

 

[John Pollard]

My apologies John.....you could have forestalled the entire issue if you have an answer.
I'd bet $10 to $1 that we agree on the basics here.
*Sellers should be clear that the stones they are offering are not "certified" by GIA.
*Sellers should make it clear that the people who work for the seller are not affiliated with GIA in any other way besides earning a degree ( if they've earned it).
Both of these points are actually essential in educating consumers on the role GIA plays.

If we agree on these points, completely outside GIA's literature, we're in agreement.
The answer which would clarify things is why GIA would not have this very reasonable ( clearly others feel the same way) objection to the manner in which a gemologist is described in advertising.
SO- my sincerest of sincere apologies for "Caramba-ing" this thing.
Why would GIA allow it?

David, you would win the $1.

Thanks for the step back. Appreciated. Pls accept my apologies for the repeat cadence. I am a drummer, you know.

For the record @DejaWiz ‘ comments reflect my “position.” I believe, if someone claims to employ: “GIA-approved-phrase” it should remain unmodified. Otherwise you start having “unbiased GIA GGs… “A-list GIA GGs… “godlike GIA GGs… “On-fleek GIA GGs…” ad nauseam.

My understanding is “GIA Gemologist” - sans Graduate - was added to overcome ESL/ETL barriers (English as second/third language) - with emphasis on China’s growing consumer base. A two-word phrase was more suitable than three for ESL client bases accustomed to alphabets composed of symbols, rather than western characters.

My training philosophy is in step with that. I advise pros serving western consumers to use “GIA Graduate Gemologist” or - for other diplomas - “GIA Trained Gemologist.” If I am consulting with Asia-Pacific pros serving ESL/ETL consumers the abbreviated use comes into play.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Re prices.

Some dude/tte on Reddit disagrees. They posted a chart. There’s no source.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Diamonds/comments/p625vi

Dueling narratives?

 

[elle_chris]

Re prices.

Some dude/tte on Reddit disagrees. They posted a chart. There’s no source.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Diamonds/comments/p625vi

Dueling narratives?

He's a "diamond industry analyst", and that's his (Edahn Golan) graph quoted from an article in Bloomberg last month.

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-to-lab-grown-diamonds-will-millennials-agree

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

He's a "diamond industry analyst", and that's his (Edahn Golan) graph quoted from an article in Bloomberg last month.

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-to-lab-grown-diamonds-will-millennials-agree

Thanks, appreciate the reference. Bloomberg caption says it is his research and data, so still don’t know the underlying data source or why it apparently might conflict with the OP. The number everyone seems to be after is the percent of retail diamonds that are LGD. We can guess based on production of rough and share of market but a few outliers would skew the data and undermine the analysis.

Thought this quote from the Bloomberg article was interesting: “Consumers aged 44 and under are expected to make up two thirds of the luxury market by 2025.” The theory seems to be that the price of natural diamonds won’t fall notwithstanding LGD getting cheaper because luxury buyers don’t want things that are cheaper. But there is a difference between aspirational luxury and out-of-most-people’s-reach luxury. Already two carats is the new one carat for a lot of us yuppies. Also I wonder how many people buy expensive diamonds because they are expensive versus because they are pretty? Think of how many people buy expensive shoes because the darned things are more comfortable and hold up longer, but they don’t have a brand name plastered all over them. Curious what others think.

 

[Rockdiamond]

To quote Mark Twain:
There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Seriously...this chart lacks any real calibrations for us to put the numbers in context.
The key
Note: Q3 2018 equals 100.

OK- 100what?
Let's say it's percent.
What was the sample quality ( or qualities)?
Were all qualities of cut included?
What if we made the same chart with stones that scored 2 or less on HCA?

Not referring to this particular article or chart specifically- there are some aggressive players on both sides. In many cases, it seems like negative advertising is what they turn to.
It's a shame. I find value in both. And I'm offended when either is insulted as a sales tool to promote the other.

Of course not by @oncrutchesrightnow thanks for posting it!!