Where to buy an antique cushion - LM, GOG, or ERD?

[greenmoose]

Knowing my own peculiarities and nature to gravitate towards precision and perfection in the details, I've found myself inclined to the absolute beauty and just remarkable art in the AVC's. The precision of the cut and optimization of light return greatly draws me, and in this sense, I find myself okay in the premium that it demands.

This being said, although admittedly limited in my knowledge and experience, I definitely agree that what appeals to one person may not entirely appeal to another, nor that a branded stone is the only way to ensure you are getting something that is beautiful. Although Rhino beat me to it, beauty is for sure in the eye of the beholder and cannot be suggested.

And this is where my question derives from. After much debate around my rather flexible timeline and the given limited stock of August Vintage cushions, I decided to put myself on the waitlist at GOG but am looking peripherally for a back-up plan should the waitlist prove unproductive

I suppose the other back-up plan is to see about having an AVC cut....but for now I'm doing a rain dance to the waiting list gods....

 

[Rockdiamond]

duplicate post

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hey Dave,

How are ya man?

"Needle in the haystack" is relevant to the gemologists definition and what he considers to be a needle in the haystack. One appraiser may look at a bunch of vintage faceted cushions and conclude they are all basically the same. Ie. Wide facet design = big flash.

Another appraiser will look at the same crop of diamonds and see appearances ranging from watery crushed ice, to moderate brightness to high brightness with the nature of the reflections varying from small to medium to broad. It depends on how far or how detailed you want to take your analysis with regards to serving your client.

If a person isn't picky about the particular optics of individual cushions and are just looking for a certain facet structure then you have a fairly easy search and inexpensive hunt. If they are though, and if they are looking for diamonds in the 10k range and you source in diamonds from around the country you're talking roughly $100 per diamond on a round trip ticket and the hunt becomes a very expensive one. It's a fun hunt for the one who isnt' paying for the shipping.

For the type of cushions I was hunting down it became more practical for me to create a brand than spend hundreds and thousands acquiring diamonds around the world that didn't live up to what I truly wanted.

Beauty is in the eye though.

Peace,

Hi Jon,
Doing great thanks!

Let's consider what a brand is.
If I want to build a 911, and put the name Porsche on the back, I'll have many many problems.
First there's the legal problem- for sure they'll sue my butt off.
Then there's the practical problem- the infrastructure necessary to build a Porsche is prohibitive. If I had the hundreds of millions needed it would make a lot more sense to build a new brand.

Now compare this to diamonds- or jewelry.
Let's say someone brands a particular cut of a diamond.
Can they protect the optics of this cut legally?
No, they can't.
It's too easy to change an imperceptible aspect, and have something every so slightly different.
So it looks identical but it's different enough that a patent holder can't prevent it's production. There's many other legal reasons as well.
My friend Henry Grossbard- may he rest in peace- proved this when he invented the Original Radiant Cut.
Unwillingly, but he did.
We can also look at the example of Royal Branded Asscher Cuts and see that if someone wants to cut stones to those precise proportions, they can. They can't call it a Royal Branded Asscher cut- but they can produce an identical stone to a Royal. Same optics

The practical problem is also far easier to solve if we're talking diamond cutting.
For sure the finest cutters are a limited group- yet they do exist in numbers. The technology is not nearly as exclusive- many cutters can produce the optics. This goes for Ideal Cut rounds- and also for antique style cushions.

So- we can point to the consistency a Royal Branded Asscher ( or any other diamond brand) may provide- but it does not provide exclusivity.

 

[greenmoose]

I had a thought, but I'll hold for now.....

 

[Rockdiamond]

In the world of diamonds, identical is indeed identical.
This is different than other "generic" products.

There's terminology that gets thrown around which is commercial, yet seemingly scientific.
"Light Performance" is a great example.
One diamond may be different than another- but the term performance has implications that can't be met by a diamond.
I saw an advertisement on TV today that kind of got my blood boiling.
A company now has diamonds that are "Certified to be brighter" ( maybe they used the term "more brilliant")
What a load of hokey!

 

[slg47]

In the world of diamonds, identical is indeed identical.
This is different than other "generic" products.

There's terminology that gets thrown around which is commercial, yet seemingly scientific.
"Light Performance" is a great example.
One diamond may be different than another- but the term performance has implications that can't be met by a diamond.
I saw an advertisement on TV today that kind of got my blood boiling.
A company now has diamonds that are "Certified to be brighter" ( maybe they used the term "more brilliant")
What a load of hokey!

if "light performance" is commercial and not scientific then why does AGS assign a grade for light performance based on scientific measurements?

 

[Rockdiamond]

The aspect of light performance pn an AGS report is commercial

 

[Rockdiamond]

AGSL is a brand- as is GIA.
EGL is a brand as well..
There's broad agreement in the trade that grading of color and clarity by GIA and AGSL is accurate. For this reason dealers calibrate prices based on color and clarity grades of GIA and AGSL. EGL does not enjoy this endorsement by dealers and cutters who will not base prices on grades issued by EGL.
When it comes to cut quality of round diamonds, there is also broad agreement in grading done by GIA and AGSl.
There are differences between the cut grades of GIA and AGSL- the reasons have to do with methods and interpretation of measurements.
Is GIA or AGSL correct?
We can make the case that since AGSL is more restrictive in cut grading that AGSL is tougher.
We could just as easily make the case that GIA has more effective methods, as when we're considering cut grading, there is a lot of human observation involved, therefore the grade itself is subjective.
Even if we point to measurements of brilliance, again, there is subjectivity involved.
No matter how we measure brilliance, it is not a consistent measurement. Looking at diamonds in different lighting environments will produce different results- in addition, even if we can prove one diamond is brighter than another is not necessarily a given that it will be considered to be a better cut. Much of a diamonds beauty has to do with pattering and contrast.
When it comes to AGSL grading of fancy shapes diamonds there is NOT broad agreement with the results.

The ad I saw that I found to be misleading used the following phrase

"The first diamond ever certified to be visibly brighter"

The term "certified" is misused in this case.
"Visibly brighter" is also a misleading term in this case.
Even if the company making this claim can use some sort of scientific measurement to prove the diamond is visibly brighter, it's misleading. There will be lighting environments different from the manner used to test the brightness where that particular diamond will not be as bright as another.

Grading brands like GIA and AGSL are different than brands of diamonds.

 

[Chris-at-ERD]

"-Is GIA or AGSL correct?
We can make the case that since AGSL is more restrictive in cut grading that AGSL is tougher.
We could just as easily make the case that GIA has more effective methods, as when we're considering cut grading, there is a lot of human observation involved, therefore the grade itself is subjective.
Even if we point to measurements of brilliance, again, there is subjectivity involved.-"

+1 very well stated... the human factor and personality trait is subjective and should be left as such in my opinion.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Dave,

If I may add my .02c.

AGSL is a brand- as is GIA.
EGL is a brand as well..
There's broad agreement in the trade that grading of color and clarity by GIA and AGSL is accurate. For this reason dealers calibrate prices based on color and clarity grades of GIA and AGSL. EGL does not enjoy this endorsement by dealers and cutters who will not base prices on grades issued by EGL.
When it comes to cut quality of round diamonds, there is also broad agreement in grading done by GIA and AGSl.
There are differences between the cut grades of GIA and AGSL- the reasons have to do with methods and interpretation of measurements.

Correct and accordingly based on visual observation.

Is GIA or AGSL correct?
We can make the case that since AGSL is more restrictive in cut grading that AGSL is tougher.
We could just as easily make the case that GIA has more effective methods, as when we're considering cut grading, there is a lot of human observation involved, therefore the grade itself is subjective.

I would tell you both are correct. It is at the same time logical to conclude that since one is a 5 grade system and one is an 11 grade system, one will naturally be more restrictive than the other with the rarest diamonds, those being the diamonds that fall in the zenith of both. Both labs encourage consumers to go see and compare side by side though to determine what is suitable to their individual needs.

Even if we point to measurements of brilliance, again, there is subjectivity involved.
No matter how we measure brilliance, it is not a consistent measurement. Looking at diamonds in different lighting environments will produce different results- in addition, even if we can prove one diamond is brighter than another is not necessarily a given that it will be considered to be a better cut. Much of a diamonds beauty has to do with pattering and contrast.

This is where you are confusing personal opinion with scientific fact and your words here can be misleading. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder it is a scientific fact that the facets on the pavilion of a diamond will either reflect light or they will not. They either leak or they do not leak. It is also a fact that the majority of layman who view, side by side 2 diamonds wherein one is reflecting light vs one that is leaking light 99 out of 100 times people will choose, as the brighter diamond, the one that is not leaking light and it is a fact that it will be brighter (provided those reflecting facets are drawing in light from the brightest resources in the environment, which are generally coming from the 45-75 degree angular spectrum. There is nothing subjective in determing leakage vs light return. Reflecting facets vs non reflecting facets. It's either doing it or it isn't. And, ultimately patterning and contrast have everything to do with light performance as it translates to practical observation.

What is subjective is the interpretation of the individuals eye who is viewing the diamond. Let's not confuse the 2.

When it comes to AGSL grading of fancy shapes diamonds there is NOT broad agreement with the results.

With regards to fancy shapes like princess cuts, which AGS is cut grading have you actually shown to consumers AGS Ideal princess cuts alongside of AGS 1 or 2's? If so, how many people have you shown this comparison to? While I agree that they could refine the cut grading system for princess cuts d(I think its a tad loose and have my own refining techniques), it is a fact that an AGS Ideal princess cuts are brighter and more fiery than the commonly cut princess cuts on the market. If you have not conducted this study I would encourage you to do it to see for yourself and not just your opinion but interview at least 20 unbiased people and see what they say and show them in multiple lighting.

The ad I saw that I found to be misleading used the following phrase

"The first diamond ever certified to be visibly brighter"

The term "certified" is misused in this case.

True dat.

"Visibly brighter" is also a misleading term in this case.
Even if the company making this claim can use some sort of scientific measurement to prove the diamond is visibly brighter, it's misleading. There will be lighting environments different from the manner used to test the brightness where that particular diamond will not be as bright as another.

In the case of the Leo diamond you are correct but not for the reasons you are stating. Leo is using the GemEx Brilliancescope to make its claim. If the Bscope was an end-all/be-all tool for assessing light performance perhaps they could make a claim but one could quickly pull out the Bscope of a Solasfera and knock the claim out of the water as a Solasfera beats a Leo on any optical technology you throw at it.

Firstly "brightness" is not an optical characteristic the Brilliancescope measures. Fire and sparkle would be more accurate as Bscope testing is done strictly in a spot lighting environment. Brightness is the optical characteristic that is observed in diffuse, not spot lighting. The other question naturally raised is "Visibly brighter" ... as compared to what? The common cut qualities Kay Jewelers shows next to the Leo? Without going into grave detail the Bscope is only gather light from the 72-90 degree angular spectrum. There are other critical angles it's missing and is not the end-all/be-all, even for analyzing fire and sparkle. To its credit though, a diamond that does score high on this technology (at least high/very high/high) will be a visible powerhouse in the spot lighting environment. In digital optical analysis I prefer the Isee2 machine as it covers the broader angular spectrum plus includes diffuse lighting as well as spot.

In any case it is not misleading IMO to claim a diamond is visibly brighter. The questions that the layman must ask is ...

Compared to what?

And ... is your definition of brightness the same as that held by GIA and other reknown labs who teach and train gemologists?

And, to include the subjective element ... even if a diamond is scientifically proven to be brighter, it may not be what a particular individual prefers. They may be that 1 in 100 who does not prefer it. Again... important not to confuse the 2.

The bottom line is learning what it is your clients eyes prefer. I have found that the majority of the time their eyes agree with the science.

All the best,
Rhino

 

[Rockdiamond]

Jon- how is your claim that a diamond is brighter - or reflecting light better- any different than that claim made about the Leo diamond?
It is a scientific fact that a facet of a diamond will either reflect light, or allow it to pass through it, but again, any test of this aspect is limited in the way it judges this phenomenon.
That is to say, change the lighting environment, and you get a different result. So , some diamonds will look brighter in candlelight compared to other stones that will look brighter in sunlight. And we can all agree there are literally millions more lighting possiblities a diamond will be viewed under. In many cases primary lighting is not coming from the 45-75 degree angular spectrum.
Furthermore, in terms of misleading words, how can you claim that "99 out of 100" people will do anything?
People like different things- we agree on that, therefore a statement that 99 out of 100 people will prefer a diamond shown to be more brilliant by your chosen method of measuring brilliance is simply not scientific in any way.
People using the "Brilliancescope" will also claim it shows "scientifically" that their chosen diamond is better- or use the word brighter.
In either case it's using a subjective measurement to make an objective claim. Basically a misuse of the term "scientifically better"

You are very good at what you do Jon. When you show diamonds to people, your methods convey what you love very well.
I might or might not be as good as expressing myself, or showing diamonds, but clearly we love different aspects of what makes a diamond attractive.
When either of us show diamonds, we find a lot of people agree with our opinion.
I have watched some of your videos where you state your case- and looking at the video, I find I prefer some of the stones you claim are not as nice as the ones you prefer. I also don't agree with your lighting methods- as I know you don't agree with mine- but again, any method of photography is a compromise.

When you show stones, your preference comes through- so any results based on your personal experience showing stones is based on subjective info, not scientific. Tell someone a stone has a "watery slushy appearance" as you're showing it, and many people will agree.
If shown the same stone in a different lighting environment, without the negative comment and they might very well love it.

We both agree- there are some very poorly cut diamonds out there- stones a majority of viewers would not prefer due to cases of leakage many people will find to be a detraction- but let's also remember that every diamond leaks some light.

And since judging contrast and patterning is subjective, there are many stones that fall in a middle ground- they may be considered well cut by one gemologist, and disliked by another.
You point to the fact AGS has a narrower grade as evidence it's more restrictive.
What if a lot of people believe it's too restrictive? Many experts in the trade do.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response. Mine between the lines.

Jon- how is your claim that a diamond is brighter - or reflecting light better- any different than that claim made about the Leo diamond?

The differences are ...

1. My definition of diamond brightness is 100% in agreement with that of GIA and AGS definitions. Leo is not. I do not use the optical characteristic in one lighting environment (fire/sparkle in spot lighting via Bscope) to falsely describe the optical characteristic that is observed in a completely different lighting (brightness/patterned scintillation in diffuse). It is possible to have a diamond that has great fire/sparkle yet at the same time have compromised brightness. The Bscope is not the best tool to draw that distinction.

2. My claim is not reliant upon any one technology (like Leo) and is also confirmed by human observation which I can also accurately capture via HD video as well. With the technologies we have developed and utilized in creating our videos a layman can plainly see the effects of leakage, obstruction and effective brightness in more than one lighting environment that demonstrates this optical characteristic.

3. If I'm going to make that claim it will always be relative to other diamonds within that same category/shape. Once we reach a certain pinnacle of brightness I would then say, this diamond is among the brightest as there is more than one varity of round that acheives top brightness.

I see no problem in stating when a diamond has poor, mediocre or top optics and when we give a presentation on cut to our clients often ask the question ... As you view these 2 diamonds side by side which do you see is the brighter diamond. I've never seen a consumer point to the leaker as the brighter diamond. We do this presenatation all the time and comparing with various shapes.

It is a scientific fact that a facet of a diamond will either reflect light, or allow it to pass through it, but again, any test of this aspect is limited in the way it judges this phenomenon.
That is to say, change the lighting environment, and you get a different result. So , some diamonds will look brighter in candlelight compared to other stones that will look brighter in sunlight. And we can all agree there are literally millions more lighting possiblities a diamond will be viewed under. In many cases primary lighting is not coming from the 45-75 degree angular spectrum.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule like a sunrise or sunset where you primary illumination is coming from the horizon (or 0-45 degree angular spectrum) but in most viewing conditions your brightest resources for illumination are from the 45-75 degree zone. This is why the AGS system works. Also, with regards to various lighting environments ... sure you will get varying optics depending on the lighting you find yourself in but the fact remains ... bring a diamond with ideal optics alongside of a diamond with non ideal optics into any lighting environment and it will always outshine it. Most consumers do not have the luxury of comparing diamonds of known performance grades and bringing them into various lighting to make this comparison but those who educate themself and make these visual observations can and do.

Furthermore, in terms of misleading words, how can you claim that "99 out of 100" people will do anything?

Perhaps because I've interviewed and showed 100 people (actually quite a bit more) the same identical comparison and 99% are in agreement regarding the comparisons I show them. That's how I can claim that. I use round diamonds in my presentation with varying optics and one is brighter than the other. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference.

People like different things- we agree on that, therefore a statement that 99 out of 100 people will prefer a diamond shown to be more brilliant by your chosen method of measuring brilliance is simply not scientific in any way.

The method is human observation. The technology is their own eyes and brain. After they have selected what it is that pleases their eyes most (if we present the visual part of our presentation first, before the technology) we then demonstrate how the technologies identify with what they chose.

People using the "Brilliancescope" will also claim it shows "scientifically" that their chosen diamond is better- or use the word brighter.
In either case it's using a subjective measurement to make an objective claim. Basically a misuse of the term "scientifically better"

The truth is that the science does agree with the observation the grand majority of the time. Dave I would not spend thousands in capital nor design diamonds around these technologies if there was no corellation. The truth is there is. I have many videos demonstrating precisely what I'm talking about.

You are very good at what you do Jon. When you show diamonds to people, your methods convey what you love very well.
I might or might not be as good as expressing myself, or showing diamonds, but clearly we love different aspects of what makes a diamond attractive.
When either of us show diamonds, we find a lot of people agree with our opinion.
I have watched some of your videos where you state your case- and looking at the video, I find I prefer some of the stones you claim are not as nice as the ones you prefer. I also don't agree with your lighting methods- as I know you don't agree with mine- but again, any method of photography is a compromise.

The bottom line is that we understand our clients needs. Listen and learn what it is *they love* and want to look down upon for the rest of their life. It is an important decision and my opinion is that you can't have too much information when making such a critical choice. If we can provide the data, listen and learn what it is they love then mission accomplished. If I show a client comparisons and they tell me they prefer such and such an appearance, regardless of what it looks like under ASET, Dxray, Bscope, Isee2 ... we have at least made an identification of what *they like* and we use the tools to help us find it. The key is putting our finger on what it is they like and providing the need. I think you agree.

When you show stones, your preference comes through- so any results based on your personal experience showing stones is based on subjective info, not scientific.

Then you haven't seen my videos where I purposely leave out my commentary and advise my clients to pick with their eyes. I often do "Pepsi challenges".

Tell someone a stone has a "watery slushy appearance" as you're showing it, and many people will agree.
If shown the same stone in a different lighting environment, without the negative comment and they might very well love it.

Perhaps if they are looking at the diamond by itself and not comparing to another diamond that is cut to effectively grab light and reflect it back efficiently. With diamonds the comparison is relative to what it is being compared to.

We both agree- there are some very poorly cut diamonds out there- stones a majority of viewers would not prefer due to cases of leakage many people will find to be a detraction- but let's also remember that every diamond leaks some light.

I do agree. My thought ... why not show the consumer just how much or how little leakage there is?

And since judging contrast and patterning is subjective, there are many stones that fall in a middle ground- they may be considered well cut by one gemologist, and disliked by another.

Contrast (AGS) and Patterned Scintillation (GIA) is subjective to a degree. We agree. A diamond will either have a pleasing pattern or it won't. Even diamonds with high optics have varying patterns that some people prefer over another and this is where personal preference comes to play. We're on the same page here.

You point to the fact AGS has a narrower grade as evidence it's more restrictive.
What if a lot of people believe it's too restrictive? Many experts in the trade do.

I know AGS loses quite a bit of business because of how restrictive it is. To me this only points to its integrity because of its strictness was not based on sound reason or bad science then the "many experts" would have a case. The fact is that many of their diamonds will not attain ideal status and its a matter of money ... not that AGS is too restrictive. Many suppliers would love to have their sub par diamonds be labeled as "ideal" so I am glad AGS is as restrictive as they are.

Heck ... if they ever instituted an "Optical Symmetry" grade the complaints would be louder.

Hope you're having a good Vday man.

Kind regards,

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi all,
Jon, I too totally appreciate your time in addressing this- and your willingness to participate in an open discussion of this nature.
To answer your points:
1) Regarding the differences between Brilliancescope, and other methods for measuring a diamond's brilliance:
If you read the BS promitional material ( I didn't mean it to come out that way, but if the shoe fits... ) it sounds quite technical and precise. To quote the BrillianceScope site:

Scientific, Independent and Objective

Millions of diamonds measured
Patented and proven technology
Imaging spectophotometer developed to measure diamonds
Technology used in medicine, astronomy and anywhere
light and color needs to be precisely measured
Each and every diamond measured for Brilliance, Fire & Sparkle

But it comes down to the same thing- measuring a diamond's light return has never been done in a way that is relevant to the broad spectrum of lighting environments- or different types of diamond cuts. No matter how precise the measurement technique- they all miss the point. Even something as simple as a diamond's movement can't be accurately taken into account. A diamond is never totally still when it's being worn- this is a scientific fact.
You mention your HD videos- of which I've also taken and published over 1000- again, I question the methods if you're going to introduce them as scientific proof of anything.
Not that they are "wrong"- I admire your videos- but rather that they don't truly show what a diamond looks like.
No video can do that as it's viewed in a 2 dimensional environmental. I would suggest my methods are closer to reality- but of course, both of us feel confident in our methods. Both show different aspects. IN fact the differences between our methods are proof of my point. Some diamonds that will look better than others in your videos won't look better than those stones in my videos.

2) the AGS system: I agree- it's good- but I would also suggest that the limitations are great. I can point to fancy shapes- and the controversy surrounding what AGS deems to be the optimal cut design. Many experts- including Stan Grossbard, with whom I've discussed this at length- feel that AGS misses the mark. It's too narrow a field. I have seen this firsthand in brilliant stones downgraded by AGS that I preferred to other stones with higher cut grades. It might be proved that one was "brighter" than the other, but that did not make it more beautiful. And I've had the experience of showing such stones and discussing this with other laymen and experts who felt the same way.

99 out of 100 as a matter of fact.

I also disagree that most viewing conditions have the brightest source of light coming from 45-75 degrees.
Many do, but using this method to make claims about brightness ignores the fact that many lighting scenarios are different. Also this fails to consider the aspect of movement, which I introduced earlier.
I also would dispute your claim that a diamond that has what you term "ideal optics"( this is your terminology, not GIA or AGS's) will always outshine well cut diamonds that you deem to have "non ideal optics"
We can look at a round brilliant, and compare that to an old mine brilliant and see that in some lighting environments, the round seems far brighter- and able to reflect light far more efficiently- yet in others the older cut seems to reflect back more light.

A lot of the rest of where we disagree can be attributed to the old saying.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Please- don't mistake my using that quote to imply you are doing anything other than telling the truth- as you see it.
Rather, my point is that statistics , when used as proof of these type of "facts", are virtually never accurate in the broader sense.
In your experience, as you relate it, 99 out of 100 people you show diamonds to agree with you, when you show them diamonds in person. I believe you to be an honest man, and have no reason whatsoever to doubt you. But what exactly does that mean?

Using that experience to prove scientific facts overlooks what goes into that number. For example- what is the margin of error in that number? The same considerations affect statistical measurements of brilliance.
Even if we know the stated margin of error, the problem is more of a systematic error in measuring opinion, or light return.
We see this all the time in advertising- including the advertisement we both disagree with for the Leo diamond.


I hope you enjoy the aspects of this discussion that relate to the differences of how to judge a diamond.
By all means, I believe you carry extremely well cut stones- and have effective methods of selecting and demonstrating that fact.
This in stark contrast to so many of our competitors.

My beef is when anyone claims scientific proof that any given diamond is "better' "more beautiful" "returns more light" etc.....

Peace!
And a great Vday to you as well!

 

[greenmoose]

A rather interesting discussion. And there is a lot to think about and consider within what has been said.

In regards to the original discussion though....in my mind, the AVC appears to be in a very distinctive elite category of cushions in regards to light performance, regardless of how you define performance and even whether you believe in the concept or not. It does not appear that there is much contention to this simple statement regardless of what the personal opinions are of how light performance is judged. Simply, the AVC was designed to be an absolutely beautiful diamond, built using scientific considerations but ultimately being validated by the human eye as a work of art.

Now, in regards to the original question....how would people compare the ERD "A Cut Beyond" with the GOG "August Vintage Cushion". Both are stones that are considered by well regarded experts to be excellent choices. With the availability of AVC's and A Cut Beyond stones limited (whether due to rising demand, the particular time of year which people claim does not increase demand, or limited rough from the rather sharp increase in diamond costs) it's a reasonable discussion to have.

Cheers