What's going on with GOG?

[mrs-b]

Exactly! I am extremely sure we will only see him publicly comment on his products and company, August Vintage Inc., which he formed to sell the diamonds he invented and wanted to market more widely than he was allowed to in his former position. This was his dream, and I, as a loyal customer of Jon's for 12 years, will certainly support him in every way I can! I am very loyal to companies with the highest quality products and great customer service.

Ditto this, DS.

 

[Todd Gray]

You can't touch this
You can't touch this
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)

My-my-my-my opinion makes it so darn hard makes me say oh my Lord
Thank you for blessing me with a mind to rhyme and two hype feet
That's good when you know you're down
A super dope homeboy from the Diamondtown
And I'm known as such
And this is a thread uh u can't touch

-- MC Hammer (slightly tweaked for my trade-based H&A brain)

 

[Karl_K]

The LGH average is 81.6%, with the minimum at 80.62% and the maximum at 82.19%. Then in the column for GIA CUT ROUNDED, they round it off to 80%.

Hmmm, obviously they never took any math or physics classes. 81.6 rounds up to 82. Even if you round 80.62 up to 81 and round 82.19 down to 82 and then average the 81 and 82 up you end up with 81.5. I can't figure out a reasonable way to take a series of numbers - the lowest being 80.62 - and ending up with a final number of 80. (I know it's their system and the answer is the answer because they say so.)

They round to the nearest 5
Or more correctly they round each number, then average the numbers, then they round to the nearest 5.

 

[Johnbt]

"Or more correctly they round each number, then average the numbers, then they round to the nearest 5."

That's even worse. And decidedly inaccurate. They must have attended school during the New Math era. Round off numbers, average them, and round it off again. Pfui.

www.americanheritage.com/content/whatever-happened-new-math-0

Their process also reminds me of the famous quote about manipulating statistics and the sly art of doctoring numbers to look good...

"The term was popularized in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.""

I don't expect them to change, but I hope they aren't designing cars and planes or even seat belts and air bags - anything that involves the precise use of numbers.

Sigh.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I have a feeling that this thread is one that @Todd Gray and I might be on the same side.

 

[Todd Gray]

I have a feeling that this thread is one that @Todd Gray and I might be on the same side.

Well, we do orbit in the same ideal universe

 

[Karl_K]

"Or more correctly they round each number, then average the numbers, then they round to the nearest 5."

That's even worse. And decidedly inaccurate. They must have attended school during the New Math era. Round off numbers, average them, and round it off again. Pfui.

www.americanheritage.com/content/whatever-happened-new-math-0

Their process also reminds me of the famous quote about manipulating statistics and the sly art of doctoring numbers to look good...

"The term was popularized in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.""

I don't expect them to change, but I hope they aren't designing cars and planes or even seat belts and air bags - anything that involves the precise use of numbers.

Sigh.

What is worse is that 77-78% is potentially near universal, it works with the widest range of table size, crown and pavilion combinations and GIA splits them between 75 and 80.

 

[Todd Gray]

What is worse is that 77-78% is potentially near universal, it works with the widest range of table size, crown and pavilion combinations and GIA splits them between 75 and 80.

First, the AGS, GIA, and every other gemological laboratory average the eight measurements taken per section, which makes sense to some degree.

But then the GIA rounds those averages off the nearest half a degree in some cases, and nearest 5% in others (which you can drive a truck through).

 

[Dancing Fire]

https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...-I-AGS-G-SI1-diamond-stock-16652-cert-2926606

In this case, the cleft is from the LGH of 81.6%. This is higher than some other superideal brands allow, for an example, WF ACA which allows upto 80%. The effect of LGH higher than 80% is the clefts and skinny arrows. In term of light return characteristics, it is thought to have more splintery appearance.

Here's my wife's GOG H&A stone (purchased in 2004) with 80% LGF. Yes it does have little clefts on the hearts, and I'm OK with calling this stone a true H&A b/c there are no rules on H&A stones, but notice all 8 hearts are perfectly matched? unlike the example shown above.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Back then there were no cut grades nor proportions on the GIA reports.

 

[flyingpig]

Here's my wife's GOG H&A stone (purchased in 2005) with 80% LGF. Yes it does have little clefts on the hearts, and I'm OK with calling this stone a true H&A b/c there are no rules on H&A stones, but notice all 8 hearts are perfectly matched? unlike the example shown above.

I have been around for 3 years only. I joined 2015 when GOG introduced the Ascendancy and Platinum Selects. Back in 2015, GOG really maintained the integrity of the Ascendancy Brand. Over the last three years, I saw a decline in regards to consistency in the brand. We all know that. People slowly stopped mentioning GOG. I think the key difference between now and then is that GOG did above and beyond the listed specifications and people's expectation. Now, many of these Ascendancy stones just barely meet the listed specifications. They are just barely good enough to be called superideal/H&A; often questionable.

And I don't think your stone is not a good example of typical super ideal H&A. A stone like yours is super rare, especially in that carat weight range. Look at the arrows, hearts, leakage pattern under the table, the girdle.. Perfection. I always drool all over it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

And I don't think your stone is not a good example of typical super ideal H&A. A stone like yours is super rare, especially in that carat weight range. Look at the arrows, hearts, leakage pattern under the table, the girdle.. Perfection. I always drool all over it.

Again there are no set rules what vendors can label as H&A stones. Some vendors may eliminate my stone as true H&A b/c of the little clefts on the hearts.

 

[rockysalamander]

You can't touch this
You can't touch this
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)

My-my-my-my opinion makes it so darn hard makes me say oh my Lord
Thank you for blessing me with a mind to rhyme and two hype feet
That's good when you know you're down
A super dope homeboy from the Diamondtown
And I'm known as such
And this is a thread uh u can't touch

-- MC Hammer (slightly tweaked for my trade-based H&A brain)

LOL

 

[bmfang]

You can't touch this
You can't touch this
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
You can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)

My-my-my-my opinion makes it so darn hard makes me say oh my Lord
Thank you for blessing me with a mind to rhyme and two hype feet
That's good when you know you're down
A super dope homeboy from the Diamondtown
And I'm known as such
And this is a thread uh u can't touch

-- MC Hammer (slightly tweaked for my trade-based H&A brain)

I was laughing so hard that tonight’s seafood buffet was threatening to come back up as easy as it all went down! Nice work @Todd Gray

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@Dancing Fire Sorry, but your stone has only the very slightest clefts. I have seen that in other superideal inventories on occasion. GOG has some with much more significant clefts in their top category. It tells me that they know their local customers don't know the difference, which is fine if that works for them. But what it also tells me is that Jonathan was apparently the only one who was really involved in PS and understood the standards we see with the other superideal vendors. Perhaps they really don't care about online business. I definitely do not think Jonathan gets the credit he has deserved for building a reputation here for GOG, and it is evidenced by this issue we are discussing.

https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond-search/1.26-Ascendancy Hearts & Arrows Round Cut-I-AGS-Q-VVS2-diamond-stock-15769-cert-

https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...rrows-EX-GIA-G-VVS1-diamond-stock-16418-cert-

 

[Maisie]

I wonder if GOG knew the majority of customers would follow Jonathon to his new company. Perhaps they want to focus on the local market and let Jonathon have the online business from PS. Of course this doesn't help anyone who is struggling to upgrade.

 

[yssie]

https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond-search/1.26-Ascendancy Hearts & Arrows Round Cut-I-AGS-Q-VVS2-diamond-stock-15769-cert-

The stone was pretty off-centre during imaging in several of the pics - I’m confident much of the asymmetry would disappear with better alignment.

I don’t know what’s going on with GOG and I’ve never bought from them or Jon so have no horse in this race, but this thread doesn’t feel fair: there clearly isn’t much GOG can say about processes and future inventory right now and goodness knows other beloved vendors have had dips in both quality and quality-control when Things (growing pains, separation pains, leadership pains) have disrupted years of specific workflows. The new GOG seems to have already acknowledged the concerns (photography, clarification of H&A philosophy and standards for consistency, online presence) and has some plans to address them.

Jon is a connoisseur and an entrepreneur in this industry, and he was the PS face of GOG, no doubt about that. He was clearly also very important to the company in other capacities, and I think they’re just going to need some time to figure out how to move forward without him.

 

[PintoBean]

I think that both Jon and GOG will both do well going forward. I enjoy following August Vintage Inc and seeing the new things he's taking on. It's very cool and different.

As for GOG. I've been popping in and out of there since 2011. Not till 2017 did I finally reach out to Jon and say I'm a PSer. Charlie always remembers me bahahah. Anyways, for our region, they are very well known and highly regarded. They've gotten "best of" awards off and on over the years. Their location is so flipping prime. Ummm... right by David's Bridal and Men's warehouse? And especially for our region, they are particularly lovely to clients. @Rhino's parents did good. (NYers aren't always the warmest and fussiest).

Given the difficult position some of these threads have put GOG in, I have been impressed with how professional and diplomatic @Matt B has been in his responses, and I told his mom that the last time I was there.

WRT the images, I was wondering how much the "thing" between the chair and the keyboard factored in. I'm glad to hear from Yssie that the human factor played a part in the images appearing as they do. This isn't the first time we saw images and went

Yeah, "it's complicated" right now with GOG and AVI but in time I think we will see two companies doing good things in their particular niches of this market.

 

[yssie]

Given the difficult position some of these threads have put GOG in, I have been impressed with how professional and diplomatic @Matt B has been in his responses

I wrote something about this, cut it out to reword it, and forgot to add it back - I’m glad you mentioned it! I agree, re. this and other threads.

 

[Dancing Fire]

@Dancing Fire Sorry, but your stone has only the very slightest clefts.
https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond-search/1.26-Ascendancy Hearts & Arrows Round Cut-I-AGS-Q-VVS2-diamond-stock-15769-cert-

https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...rrows-EX-GIA-G-VVS1-diamond-stock-16418-cert-

IMO, I don't think Jon would label these two stones as H&A if he was still with GOG.

 

[Rhino]

Greetings everyone,

I know that for some, my involvement with GOG has been the subject of certain confusion. So without getting into unnecessary details, I would like to provide everyone with some answers.

To those asking whether or not I have any interest in GOG, yes, I am still a partial shareholder of the company. However, that is not to say that I have any hands-on involvement with the business.

As many of you will understand, sometimes professional partnerships diverge and, for one reason or another, those at the heart of a business must go their own way to pursue their vision. This has been the case with me and GOG. Although we are still working through various details, for all intents and purposes I am no longer involved with any diamond analysis / inventory control / decision making at GOG. As a result, while I hope their products are top-notch, I personally can no longer promise that to be the case.

While my next diamond-store endeavor is still in its infancy, I am as dedicated and as excited to grow it through heart-to-heart and one-on-one customer interaction as I was when I was working with each and every one of you when I was with GOG.

I hope all of the above provides some clarity to those of you looking to make sense of where I and GOG stand. And, as more and more details become concrete, I will be sure to let everyone know.

Thank you all for understanding and I am glad to be of help to any of you.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[yssie]

There are striking differences between mishappen heart points(assymetry, tilted diamond, bad photography or both) near the centre of the table and clefts in the top of the hearts(function of longer LGFs). They are two very different things.

It was a longstanding practice for Rhino to consider choice of LGF to be a style choice and that longer or shorter than the tolk LGFs(or choose whatever Superideal Range you like) should not be considered deleterious. It should still be that way within reason.

H&A is supposed to draw insight for us on high level optical symmetry, well it does touch one some aspects and fails in others. Noone should have questioned the OCD high level of symmetry of 8*(70 - 75% lgf) back 10-15 years ago, they were amazing, the hearts images certainly confirmed the high level optical symmetry, this even though the tip of the heart and the eyebrow underneath were touching because of the shorter LFGFs and they also deliberately painted the crowns to get an all red Idealscope image. They failed HRD lab's definitions of H&A and those of some "superideal" vendors back then but not for optical symmetry reasons and certainly not for the beauty of their diamonds.

This 'example' proposed here as a 'loosening' of GOG standards would be indistinguishable from others by the naked eye with 'tighter' standards. 41.6 - 41.7 LGFs and 40.6 - 40.7 main angles from the sarin provided by Matt. Try to get any tighter and you are challenging the accuracy of even the most accurate sarin machines.

GOG hasn't done as well on Pricescope in more recent years, they are more expensive, especially at more recent years when 'Good Enough' has been enough. Its a shame and not surprising that Rhino doesn't post here much anymore and GOG standards may have dipped a bit, his enthusiasm has been dampened when the JamesAllen and Rockdiamonds on this board seem to have converted the faithful regulars.

I don’t know who you are, and that I think poorly of your decision to create a new handle to post this opinion is irrelevant.

I do, however, take strong objection to you using @Rockdiamond ‘s perspective as a pejorative.

For as long as I’ve known him - which is a very long time now - he has advocated first and foremost for looking at stones. When he says “trust your eyes” he isn’t suggesting that you go forth and buy the first thing you stumble upon that sparkles. He’s recommending that consumers take the time to look at lots of stones, play with them in different lighting environments, learn what what their eyes like to see, and then - then - correlate those preferences, honed through real world observation, to faceting patterns and proportions combinations.

And he’s right. The best way to find out if you like vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, or soy coffee ganache is to actually try them all - and you might just surprise yourself. Think you’re a 57/34/40.8/77 kind of person? Use your eyes, keep an open mind, and you might just surprise yourself.

This is a forum, not a hands-on lab. It’s a fantastic environment to share knowledge in, but this medium makes it easy to conflate “reading” and “experiencing” - perennially-misused cheat sheets and unquestioning propagation of disdain for historically-beleaguered phenomena (low-hanging fruit - “crushed ice” could as easily be called “a bucket of glitter”...) attest to that.

If David’s participation on this board encourages “conversion” from blindly faithful to personal discovery of personal preferences - I completely fail to see the downside. That, by the way, is also the goal of preview programmes like HPD’s See It To Believe It for Crafted by Infinity RBs. If you have an alternate agenda - do yourself a favour and find the courage to state it.

 

[marymm]

I heart yssie sooo much

 

[whitewave]

I had already reported the post.

 

[yssie]

1. Agree that GOG’s inventory has always been special in terms of precision-cutting to various flavours, and I would prefer to see this variety maintained.

2. I also personally do not find fault with that specimen. Others do. People sometimes disagree - most of us are capable of doing so somewhat politely.

3. You might want to check the invective and hold off on ascribing morality to website aesthetic if you’re going for “balanced”

 

[Matt B]

We at Good Old Gold appreciate everyone's comments and/or constructive criticism regarding our Ascendancy Hearts and Arrows brand.

Although we do not feel the time is right to address all of the comments regarding the speculation, assumptions, and rumors being posted about us, we mentioned that we will be addressing those issues in due time. Until then, we can only encourage the public to stay open minded until the facts present themselves.

What we will address in the meantime is the statements regarding our Ascendancy Hearts and Arrows brand. Over the weekend, Good Old Gold looked deeper into the matter and realized there was an error on our part in regards to a specific diamond.

There is one diamond on our website that was posted as an Ascendancy H&A that we know for a fact does not qualify as one. Here is the link to the diamond https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...rrows-EX-GIA-G-VVS1-diamond-stock-16418-cert- and we thank diamondseeker2006 for bringing this to our attention. The symmetry (which is an opinion) is off to the point that we cannot justify it's Ascendancy category. There is an inconsistency in the clefts (as pointed out below):



We looked into why this was graded as an Ascendancy H&A and the result of our investigation went no further than rare human error. When labeling this diamond we overlooked this important inconsistency. We can only apologize for this inaccurate label and hope that the strong reputation and integrity which GOG has built over the past 35+ years can help lead to our forgiveness regarding this specific diamond. Also know that as of today, we are now taking a new approach when categorizing each diamond in order to prevent future errors. As of tomorrow afternoon (7-25-201, this diamond will be priced and labeled the way it should be (deserving of our platinum brand).



I also wanted to mention that (not including the error diamond above) out of the 36 Ascendancy diamonds listed on our website, there were only 2 of them that had Lower Half Facet's that averaged to 80% or higher. We have never advertised or stated that 80% LHF's was our standard nor did we make any promises or standards regarding the size of the clefts. This is why we included those two outlier diamonds as part of our Ascendancy brand. They were not the norm, but regarding the factual dimensions as stated on our website https://www.goodoldgold.com/ascendancy-hearts-arrows , they could not be disqualified under our official current and past standards. We are very upfront regarding the Hearts photo's of the diamonds we sell and from there, it has always been up to the individual if the diamonds we present meet their personal definition of their perceived Hearts and Arrow standards.

There have been companies in the past that have tweaked their Heart and Arrows standards over time and nothing is wrong with that (especially if it enhances the visual performance of the brand). The diamond industry is always evolving and it's up to each individual company to modify their standards if they want to keep up with the times. To our knowledge, the (LHF/Cleft) issue was not brought to our attention until now (perhaps because most of our Ascendancy diamonds already meet that opinionated LHF standard). We learn a lot from forum's like these and we at GOG will always consider modifying our standards when we are in agreement with the general public.

While we respect others personal opinions, for now we are going to continue to follow our original Hearts and Arrows guidelines. We have conducted surveys in house which have resulted in the majority preferring the >80% Lower Half Facets length compared to the <80% facet length when viewing them live. Of course not everyone will agree, but we like to offer both options for those who do. Please see this video from 2011 below referring to this very matter and note the title of the video as well:

On a side note, I would like to further comment on this truthful previous statement mentioned by Yssie - "The stone was pretty off-center during imaging in several of the pics - I’m confident much of the asymmetry would disappear with better alignment."

Below is a photo of two diamonds, but the interesting thing is that they are the exact same diamond:



I'm presenting this to show you how sensitive the technologies are. Just the slightest tilt can throw the entire symmetry of the image off. The photo I took earlier in this thread (the blue Hearts image) was taken by hand and on my cellphone. I can take a better photo of it, but it's purpose was solely intended to show that the Hearts in that diamond were better than originally advertised on our website.

The three generations of Good Old Gold have built our business on honesty, integrity and the relationships that have been formed over the 35+ years. We are grateful for your responses as they make us strive to be the best we can be.

Sincerely,
Matt and the Good Old Gold team

 

[whitewave]

@Matt B I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness.

 

[josieKat]

Hi. This is my first post, but I've been reading for a long time, especially 2 years ago when my now wife and I were researching diamonds. I fell in love with AVRs and got a wonderful .76 I VS1 from GOG, and my biggest concern now is that the AVRs will stop being stocked in house by GOG, which means I won't get to upgrade unless I switched to a non-AVR. I don't know for sure that I'll want to upgrade (I'm a college professor in western NY and in my social circle people generally don't wear huge diamonds, plus I camp and sail and don't like to take my rings off, plus I'm sentimental), but given our modest means if I can't trade-in I won't be able to if I decide that's what I'd like to do. So I've been reading with interest and a little panic!

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi. This is my first post, but I've been reading for a long time, especially 2 years ago when my now wife and I were researching diamonds. I fell in love with AVRs and got a wonderful .76 I VS1 from GOG, and my biggest concern now is that the AVRs will stop being stocked in house by GOG, which means I won't get to upgrade unless I switched to a non-AVR. I don't know for sure that I'll want to upgrade (I'm a college professor in western NY and in my social circle people generally don't wear huge diamonds, plus I camp and sail and don't like to take my rings off, plus I'm sentimental), but given our modest means if I can't trade-in I won't be able to if I decide that's what I'd like to do. So I've been reading with interest and a little panic!

Okay, this I can comment on

Keep in mind that this thread is about one or two diamonds within a collection that don't quite meet the standards that (some of us more precise) people are accustomed to... but that doesn't mean that the brand as a whole is at stake.

When it's time for you to upgrade, just focus on finding a diamond that meets the selection criteria that you're looking for...

This statement is true of all brands by the way. Never rely on brand name alone as a guarantee of cut quality because each diamond is unique and individual in its own way and will exhibit its own characteristics... and as noted, camera tilt and stone position is always a factor (that replacement photo could probably be improved with a little tweaking of focal depth and focus for example).

With that in mind, I wouldn't panic, rather I'd just be patient and wait for an upgrade with the right characteristics and optical properties to come along.

 

[josieKat]

Well, I'm not worried about not finding a good diamond (I actually considered one of their Ascendancy and Solasfera diamonds as well), but if they stop carrying the August Vintage European rounds due to however things shake out with August Vintage Inc, they won't be available for upgrading. Given that I vastly prefer them, that would be disappointing.