What makes a diamond valuable? The 4 Cs? Really?

[yssie]

I think most of the value inherent to diamonds is due to the demand society has placed on them as luxury items, not due to the physical attributes of the stone.

The the marketing efforts and society norms of diamonds in special occasions, seem to be the driver for the value, with the "4Cs" providing a common mechanism to try and quantify that value across millions of transactions.

I think if diamonds were discovered today, they wouldn't be any premium placed on them as luxury items or status symbols. While they are eye-catching in jewelry, there are many alternatives that could be used without the social stigma. For example, moissanite and CZ wouldn't be as burdened with the perception as "inferior" when used in jewelry versus diamonds.

Personally, I think diamonds are an interesting specimen of physics and light refraction... but nowhere near as valuable as what society has placed on them from a pragmatic perspective. But the status/requirement as a symbol is unparalleled. For its size and cost, there isn't another thing I can think of that is as symbolic as a diamond ring or diamond jewelry.

At least with cars, clothes, and houses there is a bit of pragmatism in the added luxury costs. High-end shoes are more comfortable, high end purses have better craftsmanship and materials. Bigger houses and faster cars are... bigger and faster. But a diamond growing from 6mm to 7mm in a jewelry setting doesn't have as much pragmatic value.

Diamonds as de facto engagement ring stones is a relatively new phenomenon borne largely of brilliant advertising.

Diamonds as treasures worthy of decorating royalty is far from new. Diamond has been precious to humans - males and females! - for hundreds and hundreds of years.

If “diamond value” is a cultural reflection - then cultures around the world, past and present, have always (exceptionally) valued it. At what point does prolonged, unyielding cultural valuation become “intrinsic worth”?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Diamonds as de facto engagement ring stones is a relatively new phenomenon borne largely of brilliant advertising.

Diamonds as treasures worthy of decorating royalty is far from new. Diamond has been precious to humans - males and females! - for hundreds and hundreds of years.

If “diamond value” is a cultural reflection - then cultures around the world, past and present, have always (exceptionally) valued it. At what point does prolonged, unyielding cultural valuation become “intrinsic worth”?

I wholeheartedly agree with this observation and point of view. In fact, human beings have revered all kinds of items of natural beauty for millennia, attaching great significance and VALUE to things such as rare bird feathers, sea shells, stones, etc.

Diamond engagement rings are an extension of that very human expression, taking a form that is certainly influenced by traders and marketers. But the essence of the attraction is deep seated, and not a mere contrivance.

An all important aspect of this phenomenon is the natural part. Those things which merely imitate, and those which are the product of man made synthetic processes, have never evoked the same emotion or held the same level of valuation.

 

[bmfang]

Are you by chance a male? High end shoes may or may not be more comfortable. You can find a $100 pair of shoes that is perfectly comfortable, so there's no way you can justify the $1000 pair based on comfort. For the record, I don't personally desire/value $1000 pairs of shoes or $5000-20,000 purses. But I find a diamond much more pleasing than a CZ. It has better scintillation and fire and certainly is harder and more durable. A better comparison would be natural diamond versus lab grown diamond, but the latter are still sold at premium cost and the price is currently not appealing enough to make most turn to lab grown.

I understand that some men don't "get" the value in diamonds. I don't get some things that men enjoy. Bigger houses, expensive cars, and bigger diamonds are the same to me. None are necessary, but if one can comfortably afford them, why not?

My wife says the same things to me regarding my watch hobby (I have two very expensive hobbies).

A cheap $10 Casio F-91W is more than adequate to tell the time to an acceptable margin of error (I believe it is +/-30s a month, so +/-1s a day).

However you see people forking out hundreds or thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for mechanical watches that are more “inaccurate” than the humble Casio F-91W. Typically between -30 to +45 seconds a day, though with “high end” brands they have managed to get accuracy down to either COSC standards of -4/+6 seconds/day, if Rolex 0 to +2 seconds/day I believe for their “Superlative Chronometers” or Omega’s “Master Chronometer” range with George Daniels derives Co-Axial escapement movements which are supposed to be accurate to 0 to +5 seconds/day.

Why? I can see both sides of the equation (having been a Swiss mechanical watch snob up until only recently). For some, utility outweighs artistry and beauty. For others, it’s the reverse.

For others it’s pure brand snobbery: the look I received from a Rolex boutique salesperson on the weekend when I walked in with bub in tow to enquire about the waiting list for their sports models vs Classic Datejust or Oyster Perpetual models (2+ years here in Australia) while wearing a cheap Casio G-Shock which is infinitely more accurate than the Rolexes (courtesy of it syncing with an atomic clock radio tower in Japan more than 7000kms away from Australia) was astounding. I can more than afford to purchase one (though I have other more pressing financial and life priorities at this time).

Same with diamonds (both lab grown and natural) and their simulants (eg CZ, Moissanite, silicon carbide, etc). For some, it’s natural only. Others may take a different view. Some will take a view on the appropriate diamond “quality” characteristics being headed up primarily by carat, colour and clarity. Others in the market (like most of us here on PS) will take cut and light performance to have pride of place in our research and purchasing decisions (not only on MRBs, but also on other shapes that AGSL grades for light performance).

Others will have a view that jewellery from a house like Harry Winston, Tiffany & Co, Cartier or VCA trumps what you can get from the super ideal vendors who will custom design a ring, pendant or necklace for a customer. Others will have a different view there as well.

All I know after a recent family holiday overseas is that my wife isn’t wanting anymore diamond jewellery (though I want a damn Octavia!) and has shifted to some pricey handbags instead (which was purchased in Singapore from a fashion house beginning with the letter C and which I’ve now had to send back for repair after the stitching has separated the inner and outer flaps of the bag, and the missus has used it only once since it was purchased).

That puts my dreams of a Grand Seiko “Snowflake” Spring Drive or a Grand Seiko 9F quartz back a few years, but hey, “Happy wife, happy life” right?

 

[yssie]

@bmfang better C than H - for your wallet, at least

 

[bmfang]

@bmfang better C than H - for your wallet, at least

@yssie : Indeed!

Though after I inspected the bag thoroughly prior to purchase and finding nothing untoward, it was a major disappointment for my wife to find the stitching had decided to undo itself so quickly upon our return to Australia (2 weeks after purchase).

Especially for a bag of that price. She loves the design, but is rather disappointed with quality control. I guess the anecdotal stories I’ve read on handbag forums are true, what is made now by some of these top fashion maisons is of an “inferior” quality to the same item made a few years ago. Maybe the Italian person who was sewing the flap bag together and the person doing QC both drank too much grappa that day...

Thankfully, it’s within warranty and they are repairing it for free but it’s still a 4-5 week wait for two threads to be re-stitched and the bag returned seems to be quite long. Can’t say that I could fault the staff at the Brisbane boutique though. After-sales service there was excellent. I’m not looking forward to carrying that bag back to my office if they repackage it up again when I pick it up. Was feeling very self conscious walking through Orchard Rd back to the hotel that day in Singapore - had lots of female eyes eyeing the bag that morning! I suspect it will be the same here in Brisbane (and most of those eyes will be from the foreign students who tend to be the main clientele of that boutique the vast majority of the time)!

I would think that H’s handbag QC would be better for the price paid relative to C!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@bmfang I would carry some other type of shopping bag to place the C bag in when you go to pick it up. I agree that I would not want to broadcast what was in my bag!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Today however, with almost 50% coming from Russia and Canada and almost nothing from the old Cape, the Color-scale has little relation to rarity. Production of DEF is probably a multifold of KLM today.

The same may be true about Clarity. Finding SI1 today is much harder than VVS2.

Live long,

Firstly Paul, KLM's are often sold by chain stores under programs, so we have no way to search and understand those goods. HIJ however are multiples more abundant than DEF.

Secondly, Higher clarity is produced simply because there is more demand for them and the higher prices are actually paid. It is real. And more and more higher clarity goods are produced because of improved rough planning tools and technology.

Thirdly, and more important to me, is that 80% of better quality (e.g. sent to a major lab for grading) diamonds are under the mm spread, and as per the topic that started this discussion, because they leak near the edges, they appear smaller than they should.

Even so, they all get sold. People buy them. All of them.
And the rarity of the rough is the reality. We may not wish it to be so, but that is how it is.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Firstly Paul, KLM's are often sold by chain stores under programs, so we have no way to search and understand those goods. HIJ however are multiples more abundant than DEF.

Secondly, Higher clarity is produced simply because there is more demand for them and the higher prices are actually paid. It is real. And more and more higher clarity goods are produced because of improved rough planning tools and technology.

Thirdly, and more important to me, is that 80% of better quality (e.g. sent to a major lab for grading) diamonds are under the mm spread, and as per the topic that started this discussion, because they leak near the edges, they appear smaller than they should.

Even so, they all get sold. People buy them. All of them.
And the rarity of the rough is the reality. We may not wish it to be so, but that is how it is.

Hi Garry,

Let's concentrate on where we agree, not where we disagree. For now, at least. Thus, let's ignore our disagreement on the Color-scale being directly related to rarity.

You have a point regarding Clarity. What comes out of the ground has not really changed. But better planning technology does allow cutters to produce better Clarity than before. Given that price is dictated also by the C of Clarity, this creates a temporary extra profit for them. But competition in purchasing rough quickly makes that newly found profit go to the miners.

As for diameter and more importantly even, size appearance, you are absolutely right. Consumers do not realize that Carat Weight is a very confusing C.

Taking that last point further, when purchasing a diamond, a huge part of the price is paying for the rough. With consumers paying for a rough diamond actually, they are paying also for the rough material cut away. 3 or 4 C's may seem identical in the polished diamond, but they do not come from the same rough. One may seem cheaper because of less rough material cut away. In reality however, they may be paying a premium-price for the rough.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Garry,

Let's concentrate on where we agree, not where we disagree. For now, at least. Thus, let's ignore our disagreement on the Color-scale being directly related to rarity.
Well actually Paul, this means we drop the point because you agree with me? Very strange???

You have a point regarding Clarity. What comes out of the ground has not really changed. But better planning technology does allow cutters to produce better Clarity than before. Given that price is dictated also by the C of Clarity, this creates a temporary extra profit for them. But competition in purchasing rough quickly makes that newly found profit go to the miners.
OK, good. No argument that miners maximize profits. If they didnt there would be no prospectors and only artisinal alluvial diamonds by now. And You and me would not be doing what we do.

As for diameter and more importantly even, size appearance, you are absolutely right. Consumers do not realize that Carat Weight is a very confusing C.
You kind of hijacked this discussion from this thread Paul
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ooks-like-a-0-95ct-diamond-acceptable.243685/
Taking that last point further, when purchasing a diamond, a huge part of the price is paying for the rough. With consumers paying for a rough diamond actually, they are paying also for the rough material cut away. 3 or 4 C's may seem identical in the polished diamond, but they do not come from the same rough. One may seem cheaper because of less rough material cut away. In reality however, they may be paying a premium-price for the rough.
And in a perfect world we would have far less wasteful round cuts and way more beautiful fancy shapes and unique cuts and far less cut away. But we do not. Consumers lead the market not miners. Miners just do what is common sense. If a rough that should be cut into 0.90ct can be cut into an ugly dead 0.999ct or 1.00ct and consumers - the end users will pay for it - then it is the consumers leading the market and the miners doing what any business would do.
The fact is that these small and looking smaller still because of edge or peripheral leakage diamonds all get sold is a consumer issue.
In this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ooks-like-a-0-95ct-diamond-acceptable.243685/ I am announcing a consumer education tool that we will soon have on Pricescope to inform consumers about the spread and apparent size of any round diamond.
I hope to add fancy shape diamonds to this service later. And eventually enable the planning of rough to compare the apparent size to a 6.44mm 1.00ct round benchmark.
Live long,

If you or anyone wants to discuss that please do so on the other thread

 

[Serg]

Garry,
re:Consumers lead the market not miners.

I do not think so. Yes in perfect world consumers would lead the market. Diamond world is far from perfect world, there is huge limitations in communication between retail and consumers. These limitations( weak communication tools, poor language ) lead the market to simplifications as 4c(carat, color, clarity, cut) and round cut. Retail has not ability to show the real difference between high performance fancy cuts and commodity fancy cuts.
If just consumers have to fix such limitations in communication then we have to wait centuries . Either Retail or manufactures could fix it in 50-100 years .
Retail+Manufactures+LABs (together ) could fix it in 10 years.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry,
re:Consumers lead the market not miners.

I do not think so. Yes in perfect world consumers would lead the market.
They do Sergey because they buy every diamond that has been cut and polished. There are many different types of consumers and many types of diamonds.
Show me the huge pile of unbought diamonds - there must be 50 million carats?
Diamond world is far from perfect world, there is huge limitations in communication between retail and consumers. These limitations( weak communication tools, poor language ) lead the market to simplifications as 4c(carat, color, clarity, cut) and round cut. Retail has not ability to show the real difference between high performance fancy cuts and commodity fancy cuts.
If just consumers have to fix such limitations in communication then we have to wait centuries . Either Retail or manufactures could fix it in 50-100 years .
on All these points I agree. That is why I do what I do. It is why I help you. It is why I am going to show customers (trade and consumer) a tool that shows them the apparent size of a diamond relative to benchmark. It is a small step. but if it means more 90's and more 1.90's can be cut and sold because the buyers can see some value then it will help.
A very large number of GIA XXX stones appear or look much smaller than their carat weight.
Retail+Manufactures+LABs (together ) could fix it in 10 years.

 

[Serg]

Garry,
re:They do Sergey because they buy every diamond that has been cut and polished. There are many different types of consumers and many types of diamonds.
Show me the huge pile of unbought diamonds - there must be 50 million carats?

Any consumer market is in balance. Any! But consumers do not lead every market.
Consumers could reject any product, but they can not create any product.
Did consumers invent Iphone?
Rejection is not Leading .

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sergey, we are on a similar page.

The simplification to 4 C's is a result of century-old marketing. That marketing is dominated by the miners. The fact that consumers follow this is not proof that it is what they really want. Every jeweler starting their diamond-education with the 4 C's is simply repeating the century-old marketing set up by the miners.

And the 4 C's have perverse effects. You saw me disagreeing with Garry that Color is related to rarity. I will dedicate a separate thread to that.

I think the realization that the 4 C's are not the entire story AND are mostly beneficial for the miners is a good start.

Live long,

 

[OoohShiny]

re: the discussion about every diamond getting sold, no matter how poorly cut:

From my (consumer) point of view (in the UK, a market seemingly awash with crap diamonds ) there is just no comparison available between an average steep/deep and a AGS000 SuperIdeal, for example.

You walk into a shop, they show you their (usually dire / average / occasionally reasonably good) selection, you may get 'the hard sell' pressure sales tactics, you may well walk out with 'the best in the shop'.

The fact is that 'the best in the shop' is 'the least worst' option available, so I guess that the remaining 'least worst' option after each sale will gradually get worse and worse until all the inventory is sold (assuming no restocking takes place).

There is also the issue that people 'buy a ring' - there seems to be very little understanding that one does not have to have the diamond that is already set in the ring style they like in the window, and so that seems to be another way to shift crap stock. Bung that frosty lump of frozen spit into a lovely platinum ring, clearly mark how big it is, and it will surely head out the door in a reasonable time

Buyers cannot lead the market because they don't understand the market, is what I think I am trying to say. If people were aware of SuperIdeals, or amazing vintage cuts, or awesome cushions... they might actually reject the rubbish they are offered in most shops, but because apparently no-one knows about them, no-one knows to ask or to look in the right places.

If we can increase buyer education and awareness (through assessment tools and better communication) then buyers win, good cutters win, beauty wins


I fully support the efforts to improve the situation, but that hill is steep and will take a long time to climb without all parties pulling together, as Serg says. And not all parties want change!

 

[OoohShiny]

Oh, and re: the tool to show 0.9x stones looking the same as 1.0x stones, I do wonder if that will just cause the prices of 'just under the mark' stones to rise, instead of the prices of poorly cut 'just over the mark' stones to fall...

 

[Serg]

Sergey, we are on a similar page.

The simplification to 4 C's is a result of century-old marketing. That marketing is dominated by the miners. The fact that consumers follow this is not proof that it is what they really want. Every jeweler starting their diamond-education with the 4 C's is simply repeating the century-old marketing set up by the miners.

And the 4 C's have perverse effects. You saw me disagreeing with Garry that Color is related to rarity. I will dedicate a separate thread to that.

I think the realization that the 4 C's are not the entire story AND are mostly beneficial for the miners is a good start.

Live long,

4C did not come from miners. there is a different source of problems in whole diamond industry.
It is a technical limitation in communication between retail and consumers.
Retail has not any instruments now to communicate with consumers about diamond beauty .
Sales person have not ability to show and describe to consumer the difference between best and
conventional fancy cuts. If sales person show 2 diamonds to consumer he can not say:
" Look, the right diamond has 5 fire flashes when left diamond has just 3 fire flashes. "
A consumer sees these diamonds from different direction , he can not see same flashes that sales persons sees. if a consumer and a sales person see the diamonds differently then they have low opportunities for confident communication. Because sales person have not opportunity to show difference in Beauty and uses the difference as USP, he become to start use opposite approach (zero deviation from reference as USP). it is main reason for all marketing initiatives like : 4C, 3X, AGS0, IS, ASET,.Ideal diamonds, Super Ideal diamonds, real super ideal diamonds,,diamond forever, real is rare, etc


I am writing presentation for GIA symposium now to explain it better.

 

[diagem]

Everyone’s sees the value of diamonds in his own personal way, highly educated about them or less/not.

Beauty, on the other hand, is as they say, in the eyes of the beholder. Do we have instruments to communicate about the beauty of art? I think its more a case of acquired taste, practical or theoretical education and experience. I believe gems/diamonds/jewels are quite similar in their nature.

Since I have practice in both high performance diamonds and the not so (literally). I have learned to notice there are appreciative clients for the whole range and then some.

People who value their diamonds for their superb craftsmanship (X amount of flashes per tilt etc...), probably wont value diamonds for their character lob-sidedness (aka Gemological fair and poor graded cuts) and vice versa.

There is room for both or better yet all, and I guess there is no “better” beauty, its after all abstract!

But in general, I agree both with Paul and Sergey that the old-school 4C’s are not as relevant as they once were in order to simplify marketing and today we as a worldly industry are lacking any innovative marketing models through the whole range of “beauties”, thus one of the major reasons this industry is going through massive changes presently.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

99% of interactions between diamond-consumers and retailers start with the topic of the 4 C's.

99% of consumer-education on diamond-related websites starts with the topic of the 4 C's.

The continuous repetition of the same 'basics' comes close to brainwashing.

Give a consumer a choice of diamonds, all for roughly the same price, without info on any of the 4 C's and let them choose which stone they prefer. Give that consumer the 4C-details of the same set of diamonds, and you will see that the choice will be dramatically different.

How can this mismatch be solved?

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

99% of interactions between diamond-consumers and retailers start with the topic of the 4 C's.

99% of consumer-education on diamond-related websites starts with the topic of the 4 C's.

The continuous repetition of the same 'basics' comes close to brainwashing.

Give a consumer a choice of diamonds, all for roughly the same price, without info on any of the 4 C's and let them choose which stone they prefer. Give that consumer the 4C-details of the same set of diamonds, and you will see that the choice will be dramatically different.

How can this mismatch be solved?

Live long,

how is it different with cars, phones, computers? All have benchmarks

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Benchmarks is an interesting point.

If you see the 4 C's as the benchmark for diamonds, I have the following observation. In cameras, we could ask Kodak if the benchmarks of the 1970's still prevail. In mobile phones, we could ask Nokia if the benchmark of 2001 still has value. In diamonds however, the benchmarks of 1950 should still be the same?

Furthermore, think about benchmarks and the current mobile phones. How would you consider a sales-person telling you that a silver-grey mobile-phone with 3G should cost more than a black one with 5G?

What I am getting at, is much in line with your efforts. But you need to think further. The 4 C's as the main communication with a consumer are not in line with the desires of that consumer. The constant repetition of the 4 C's leads to brainwashing, not serving the consumer.

So, what can we (you?) do? I agree with your effort to add a diameter-metric to the HCA. But you can do far more, both in education as in presentation. Take the PS-search for instance, and consider the following change of the search-criteria:

- First, let the consumer enter a budget-bracket.
- Then, instead of a desired weight, let them enter a desired diameter. You could also use surface. With your background in rounds, for rounds, you could even make it 'apparent diameter' instead of 'diameter', taking into account how steep/deep will look smaller.

Obviously, this requires another method of education, closer in line with what a consumer really desires. But such example would be a first change in communication with the consumer, which @sergey is advocating for.

Live long,

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I do agree with Serg and others that communication is deficient and needs to be improved for the market to progress in meaningful ways. But it seems to me that the basic GIA structure for communication is not the problem. The challenge is in communicating the complex relationships between these factors and how they intersect with one another to drive beauty. This is where there is a deficiency in the link between merchants and consumers. There is a paucity of knowledge at the retail level where consumers are getting their information (misinformation).

You can definitely see the positive impacts on the market deriving from relatively recent advances in objective analysis, ray tracing, imaging, etc. It is doubtful that many people would have the confidence to buy high end diamonds online without some of these more modern tools. It is doubtful that manufacturers would have started leaving more diamond dust on the wheel to make AGS0 and GIA Ex stones without these advances. And those developments have improved the product that our industry is introducing to the consumer market, presumably resulting in more satisfaction in ownership, more repeat buying, and more word of mouth, word of mouse, and the self fulfilling advertising impact of improved sparkle itself.

So, we as an industry need to find new and better ways for consumers to understand how diamond beauty comes about and to better evaluate their purchases from that perspective. These same advances in understanding can make consumers aware of and excited about new diamond designs and possibilities. And it will increase their confidence that they can make educated decisions and remove the fear of making a mistake or being disappointed.

I also believe, and this is unrelated to the discussion at hand but I think an important consideration for the health of the diamond market going forward, that there needs to be a more reliable, more concretely structured and economically attractive secondary market for diamonds. For a product that is both durable and expensive, it is a problem that we do not provide consumers a better roadmap for the future of their property.

 

[bmfang]

On the retail side, there are very few B&M salespeople I have met who are very knowledgeable about products they are selling. It is a rare find to find one who is as passionate about diamonds (and watches) as I am. Most are solely in it to ensure they get a sale. I tend to browse silently until I overhear one of them talking to a customer and not spouting sales BS. At that point, I switch on and that sales associate is going to get their sales commission from me rather than the other sales people on the retail floor. I enjoy a good chat during a purchase.

The 4C’s are the easiest way to “train” retail staff IMHO as it’s an easily repeatable formula. Trying to teach staff about the nuances of how to read an ASET or how ray tracing will ensure that a customer will have the best performing diamond will induce sleep amongst the majority of retail sales associates.

@Texas Leaguer , interesting thoughts about a secondary market for diamonds. I suspect however that a lot of women might not stand for a “second hand” diamond (particularly a lot of Asian women I know of who tend not to like second hand goods).

The secondary market for watches is probably the best market to emulate as like second hand diamonds, there are a crapload of second hand diamonds out there. Just that there isn’t a stigma with second hand watches (in fact if i’m buying an expensive watch, I’m going the pre-owned route instead of via an authorised dealer) that there is in some circles regarding second hand diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

99% of interactions between diamond-consumers and retailers start with the topic of the 4 C's.

99% of consumer-education on diamond-related websites starts with the topic of the 4 C's.

The continuous repetition of the same 'basics' comes close to brainwashing.

Give a consumer a choice of diamonds, all for roughly the same price, without info on any of the 4 C's and let them choose which stone they prefer. Give that consumer the 4C-details of the same set of diamonds, and you will see that the choice will be dramatically different.

How can this mismatch be solved?

Live long,

Paul, you are asking me questions about the topic I am clearly a crusader on and about.
I have continued to say that I do not care to discuss the 4C's and the fact that it is the prevailing system.
What are you going to do about diamond cut and performance? Continue to cut and supply 0.00000000001% of the worlds best performing diamonds as a benchmark?
I helped write an article with Sergey's team a few years back. it might be a decade or more ahead of it's time. http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf
I hope that adding spread to HCA apparent spread, not just millimetre spread, will create some additional attraction and interest in cut quality from the 'average' consumer because there are 1,000,000,000 of them than those interested in our discussions.
But I must say that I am disapointed that no one sems to be interested in what i am proposing.

 

[TreeScientist]

Paul, you are asking me questions about the topic I am clearly a crusader on and about.
I have continued to say that I do not care to discuss the 4C's and the fact that it is the prevailing system.
What are you going to do about diamond cut and performance? Continue to cut and supply 0.00000000001% of the worlds best performing diamonds as a benchmark?
I helped write an article with Sergey's team a few years back. it might be a decade or more ahead of it's time. http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf
I hope that adding spread to HCA apparent spread, not just millimetre spread, will create some additional attraction and interest in cut quality from the 'average' consumer because there are 1,000,000,000 of them than those interested in our discussions.
But I must say that I am disapointed that no one sems to be interested in what i am proposing.

I'm interested in this, and I think it's an excellent step in the right direction. Would make the HCA even more powerful, especially if you could find a way to incorporate an apparent diameter (edge-to-edge brightness) estimate into the algorithm. As for myself, I'm going to try and stop listing the carat weights first when I'm recommending diamonds on this site. I'll try to use a format like "This E/VS1 6.42mm (1.01 carat) diamond looks great" instead of what I was doing before, when was "This E/VS1 1.01 carat (6.42mm) diamond looks great."

@Paul-Antwerp, you've been calling out Garry a lot in this thread about his (in your opinion) lack of interest in changing the status quo regarding the 4Cs. But, as the head of a cutting house of branded diamonds, couldn't you also try to work to change the system as well? As far as I know, all of the retailers that list your CBI diamonds still prominently display the conventional 4Cs as the main search/selection criteria on their websites. For example, this is a screenshot of the main search page for CBIs on HPD:



I don't see mm size listed anywhere on here, but carat weight sure is...

If you wanted to work to change the system, as a start, couldn't you ask/tell the retailers to make mm diameter the primary search criteria for CBI size instead of carat weight? You could of course still list carat weights as a secondary characteristic, but for the size sorting feature you could switch to mm. It's a small change sure, but it would be a step in the right direction.

I for one think that the 4Cs will always be a part of the system. As Garry said, they are benchmarks, just like cut is also a benchmark. But if you want to change the importance of one benchmark over the other(s), then consumer education though corporate actions is really the only option.

To expand on the cell phone benchmark example, let's highlight how Apple (a single company, just like CBI) pretty much singlehandedly shifted the speed benchmark away from sheer literal processing speed (GHz) of their chips, towards actual everyday performance. As most people know, the Apple A-series chips are much slower on a GHz basis than the equivalent Snapdragon 8-series chips. But since Apple designs their own chips in-house to work harmoniously with their operating systems, rather than Snapdragon which is a third-party seller to other Android companies, Apple phones are actually much faster at completing tasks than most phones utilizing the top of the line Snapdragon processors. A few years ago, the market was still fascinated with GHz speed, and the apparent lack of GHz and number of cores in A-series chips was always used as a point to try and prove that Android phones were superior. So... Apple pretty much stopped highlighting the GHz speed of their processors on their website. Instead, they focused on the actual performance of their phones in completing daily tasks (See how they advertise the A12 here: https://www.apple.com/lae/iphone-xs/a12-bionic/ ) Pretty soon, most people stopped caring about the actual GHz speed of A-series chips. Sure, you can still dig up than info on some chip benchmarking sites, but most people now don't care that the A-12 chip only has 4 cores while the Snapdragon 845 had 8. They only care about the performance.

So if you really don't like the importance given to the 4Cs and believe that performance and actual diameter/apparent size is more important, then you can do the same thing with CBI diamonds: Stop listing the 4Cs are prominent selection criteria for CBIs. Sure, you can still make the info available (I think it would be asinine to do away with these benchmarks completely) but just make it some small little side-note like Apple does for the speed and cores of their chips.

Are you bold enough to take on the market on your own?

 

[stylistbydesign]

Benchmarks is an interesting point.

If you see the 4 C's as the benchmark for diamonds, I have the following observation. In cameras, we could ask Kodak if the benchmarks of the 1970's still prevail. In mobile phones, we could ask Nokia if the benchmark of 2001 still has value. In diamonds however, the benchmarks of 1950 should still be the same?

Furthermore, think about benchmarks and the current mobile phones. How would you consider a sales-person telling you that a silver-grey mobile-phone with 3G should cost more than a black one with 5G?

What I am getting at, is much in line with your efforts. But you need to think further. The 4 C's as the main communication with a consumer are not in line with the desires of that consumer. The constant repetition of the 4 C's leads to brainwashing, not serving the consumer.

So, what can we (you?) do? I agree with your effort to add a diameter-metric to the HCA. But you can do far more, both in education as in presentation. Take the PS-search for instance, and consider the following change of the search-criteria:

- First, let the consumer enter a budget-bracket.
- Then, instead of a desired weight, let them enter a desired diameter. You could also use surface. With your background in rounds, for rounds, you could even make it 'apparent diameter' instead of 'diameter', taking into account how steep/deep will look smaller.

Obviously, this requires another method of education, closer in line with what a consumer really desires. But such example would be a first change in communication with the consumer, which @sergey is advocating for.

Live long,

I am new to the world of diamond education, and definitely don't have the knowledge or perspective of many of you. Having recently purchased a beautiful e-ring through BGD (after about 2 years of researching and looking), I can tell you what search criteria I would have liked to see. I would like to see search criteria that asks questions designed to flesh out what is most important to you-- the consumer buying the diamond. A little background... As a stylist by profession, I work with people who want to make a change in their outward appearance. At the heart of making the client happy is this question...What is most important to you? What drives the desire for change/purchase? Why are you here? Then, more specific questions follow. Are you driven by value? Do you want "the best" or the status that goes with that? Do you love the history of a piece, and is its story/journey important? Is the size/number important? The list could be longer, but you get the idea. All these components make up the "beauty" that is defined by each individual. Not sure if that's the most practical application, but I think honestly answering these types of questions is what leads to long-term consumer satisfaction with significant changes or purchases.

Certainly an interesting read through this thread!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I'm interested in this, and I think it's an excellent step in the right direction. Would make the HCA even more powerful, especially if you could find a way to incorporate an apparent diameter (edge-to-edge brightness) estimate into the algorithm. As for myself, I'm going to try and stop listing the carat weights first when I'm recommending diamonds on this site. I'll try to use a format like "This E/VS1 6.42mm (1.01 carat) diamond looks great" instead of what I was doing before, when was "This E/VS1 1.01 carat (6.42mm) diamond looks great."

@Paul-Antwerp, you've been calling out Garry a lot in this thread about his (in your opinion) lack of interest in changing the status quo regarding the 4Cs. But, as the head of a cutting house of branded diamonds, couldn't you also try to work to change the system as well? As far as I know, all of the retailers that list your CBI diamonds still prominently display the conventional 4Cs as the main search/selection criteria on their websites. For example, this is a screenshot of the main search page for CBIs on HPD:



I don't see mm size listed anywhere on here, but carat weight sure is...

If you wanted to work to change the system, as a start, couldn't you ask/tell the retailers to make mm diameter the primary search criteria for CBI size instead of carat weight? You could of course still list carat weights as a secondary characteristic, but for the size sorting feature you could switch to mm. It's a small change sure, but it would be a step in the right direction.

I for one think that the 4Cs will always be a part of the system. As Garry said, they are benchmarks, just like cut is also a benchmark. But if you want to change the importance of one benchmark over the other(s), then consumer education though corporate actions is really the only option.

To expand on the cell phone benchmark example, let's highlight how Apple (a single company, just like CBI) pretty much singlehandedly shifted the speed benchmark away from sheer literal processing speed (GHz) of their chips, towards actual everyday performance. As most people know, the Apple A-series chips are much slower on a GHz basis than the equivalent Snapdragon 8-series chips. But since Apple designs their own chips in-house to work harmoniously with their operating systems, rather than Snapdragon which is a third-party seller to other Android companies, Apple phones are actually much faster at completing tasks than most phones utilizing the top of the line Snapdragon processors. A few years ago, the market was still fascinated with GHz speed, and the apparent lack of GHz and number of cores in A-series chips was always used as a point to try and prove that Android phones were superior. So... Apple pretty much stopped highlighting the GHz speed of their processors on their website. Instead, they focused on the actual performance of their phones in completing daily tasks (See how they advertise the A12 here: https://www.apple.com/lae/iphone-xs/a12-bionic/ ) Pretty soon, most people stopped caring about the actual GHz speed of A-series chips. Sure, you can still dig up than info on some chip benchmarking sites, but most people now don't care that the A-12 chip only has 4 cores while the Snapdragon 845 had 8. They only care about the performance.

So if you really don't like the importance given to the 4Cs and believe that performance and actual diameter/apparent size is more important, then you can do the same thing with CBI diamonds: Stop listing the 4Cs are prominent selection criteria for CBIs. Sure, you can still make the info available (I think it would be asinine to do away with these benchmarks completely) but just make it some small little side-note like Apple does for the speed and cores of their chips.

Are you bold enough to take on the market on your own?

Great point TreeScientist.

I really did not want this topic to be CBI-centric, but your suggestion deserves a reaction

And we absolutely considered this. In development we surveyed consumers about different public-facing searches as you suggest. But departing from the “Blue Nile” model every seller seems to use resulted in confusion, lack of interest and (the killing dagger) navigation away from the page without researching more.

We are still crusading though. With HPD, you see, there is only ONE cut option offered. Period. All else is sifted out. The heavy lifting is done. That in itself is swimming upstream. In the spirit of Garry’s “0.0000000001” comment - which is not far off - it is precisely what we are doing. And the show and tell we present in our stores and on HPD website has great impact, especially when seen in person. Giving a consumer the choice between varying sizes, colors and clarities, all at the same budget, it converts many to our position.

But it comes with tremendous challenges when 99 of 100 competing retailers scream GIA EX is enough, going down in color is less desirable and here is a discount, don’t pay some “premium” for cut... Which is incredibly ironic when we are actually making far less than other players due to our commitment to the 0.0000000001% niche. Yet this is our crusade - so our yield is going to be less, superior transparent starting material comes at a premium, labor skill, tools and time cost more and the challenge to educate is far greater swimming against the old notions. But the visual results are undeniable. That itself is also ironic: Most people, including many professional jewelers, have never even seen diamonds cut like ours or others near the sobering micro percentage Garry provided. And yet every worker from Zales to Costco holds forth as an expert on the topic.

As a middle solution along the lines of your suggestion you may notice that HPD lists budget first, and the sift which appears when budget is entered comes with largest weight first, regardless of color-clarity. As we believe size and sparkle are the drivers for many. That is something they use as a bridge for dialogue. Adding diameter would be a good step. Candidly, we didn’t simply because our depth/spread tolerances are rather minuscule. So the correlation is fairly constant. But your point is a good one in the spirit of the dialogue.

I hope we can continue the discussion without it becoming CBI-centric. Hence, my suggestion to adapt the PS-search. Wouldn’t such change have enormous impact on the first selection of the unprepared consumer, stumbling upon PS?

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

I'll try to use a format like "This E/VS1 6.42mm (1.01 carat) diamond looks great" instead of what I was doing before, when was "This E/VS1 1.01 carat (6.42mm) diamond looks great."

For fancies I would agree because depth does not = spread lot of the time. but with rounds I dunno if its that hot an idea

How are you going to explain that the one with the most mm may not be the best diamond?
What diameter difference do you consider significant?
Diamonds have 2 diameters on the report why are they different and how much difference is acceptable?
When you look at the angles, table and girdle size the spread follows with rounds.

Spread like anything else with diamonds is a compromise, you give up spread for good angles, give up spread for a modern ideal cut vs the best of 60/60s and give up spread for a safe girdle. Now you have to be prepared to turn people who hunt for the most MM away from those that are problematic and to put small differences in perspective.

 

[Serg]

People are impressed with diamonds’ unique features: brilliance and fire, above all. The trade commoditized the product, offering 4 C's. Why?
Because it was not technically possible to promote brilliancy and fire.

While there is no chance to demonstrate a positive difference in brilliancy and fire, the trade uses another strategy, a negative one: the distance of a stone from a declared reference. This strategy is used by many marketing initiatives, including: 4C, 3X, AGS0, IS, ASET, Ideal diamonds, Super Ideal diamonds, real super ideal diamonds, real is rare, etc. Finally consumers are misled with so many references and so much negative motivation, that step-by-step they lose trust in the industry.

This is the key reason for diamonds to lose competitiveness in the luxury sector. Other luxury goods continuously improve the impression they make, and focus their communication on impressiveness.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

People are impressed with diamonds’ unique features: brilliance and fire, above all. The trade commoditized the product, offering 4 C's. Why?
Because it was not technically possible to promote brilliancy and fire.

While there is no chance to demonstrate a positive difference in brilliancy and fire, the trade uses another strategy, a negative one: the distance of a stone from a declared reference. This strategy is used by many marketing initiatives, including: 4C, 3X, AGS0, IS, ASET, Ideal diamonds, Super Ideal diamonds, real super ideal diamonds, real is rare, etc. Finally consumers are misled with so many references and so much negative motivation, that step-by-step they lose trust in the industry.

This is the key reason for diamonds to lose competitiveness in the luxury sector. Other luxury goods continuously improve the impression they make, and focus their communication on impressiveness.

As I have said, I agree that the diamond industry in general has done/is doing a subpar job of messaging to the public. And in so doing has contributed to the shrinkage of its slice of the luxury pie. That said, there is no doubt that other factors, over which the diamond industry has had no control, have had the largest impact on changing buying patterns.

One of the biggest factors was the advent of the personal computer. Big ticket item that became a "must have" for the modern age. An all new 'luxury' item and status symbol that only became sexier and more ubiquitous and more essential as the internet and smartphone evolved and became imbedded in our culture.

Coming out of the great recession millennials facing a bare job market and piles of student debt adopted very different attitudes about how to spend their money. And it is not just the diamond industry that has been impacted.

Over the same period DeBeers was defanged and the biggest engine of promotion for diamonds was decommissioned. It's been something of a perfect storm for our industry, as evident by the huge number of jewelry store closings over the past decade.

I am not making excuses for the diamond industry. In business you always have to adapt - nowadays very rapidly. It's been a very bumpy ride for a lot of industries. More reason that we have to innovate, improve and reinvent ourselves. Improving communication around the value proposition of diamonds clearly must be a top priority.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

People are impressed with diamonds’ unique features: brilliance and fire, above all. The trade commoditized the product, offering 4 C's. Why?
Because it was not technically possible to promote brilliancy and fire.

While there is no chance to demonstrate a positive difference in brilliancy and fire, the trade uses another strategy, a negative one: the distance of a stone from a declared reference. This strategy is used by many marketing initiatives, including: 4C, 3X, AGS0, IS, ASET, Ideal diamonds, Super Ideal diamonds, real super ideal diamonds, real is rare, etc. Finally consumers are misled with so many references and so much negative motivation, that step-by-step they lose trust in the industry.

This is the key reason for diamonds to lose competitiveness in the luxury sector. Other luxury goods continuously improve the impression they make, and focus their communication on impressiveness.

Hi Sergey,

Interesting points, but you are generalizing a bit too much.

Agreed, the main attraction of diamonds as such is brilliance and fire. That is my observation in the OP. You blame the trade for taking the commoditizing strategy of the 4 C's. I blame the fact that diamond-marketing for almost a century was dominated by miners, who incidentally are not selling brilliance or fire, only the potential for cutters to create, release, enhance brilliance and/or fire. Who is right in whom to blame is immaterial. We do agree that the 4 C's are not in line with consumers' desires.

As for the trade using all these negative approaches, I kind of follow your reasoning. We ourselves teach different approaches, the most successful one being simply showing consumers various options at or within their budget, asking them which diamond they would prefer on the finger (or elsewhere). 4 C's are only revealed afterwards. Without the distraction of C's, the choice is dramatically different.

Obviously, our approach lends itself better for in-store-presentations. Still, also online-consumers going through an actual comparison come to surprizing conclusions.

Live long,