Latest Trend: 0 Ideals cut for weight, not beauty

We thought we''d take a moment to expose a trend that we have been aware of for several months now and which we''ve been watching very carefully... Since the price of diamond rough began to increase in the last quarter of 2003, we have noticed that the "ideal cut" production of many of the cutting houses has become sloppy. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts to SLAP the cutters back into submission and get their minds back on the precision of the wheel instead of the weight of the outcome. When we return the goods and complain about the makes (quality of cut) we''re told "diamond rough is expensive these days, you need to relax and loosen your parameters because if you don''t sell it, somebody else will". And apparently this is true, not only will somebody else sell the TWENTY TWO (22) AGS Graded zero ideal cut diamonds that we just rejected out of a parcel of twenty seven (27) diamonds, but somebody here on Price Scope might be the person buying them!

All of these diamonds were selected based upon their paper aspects and then brought in for physical evaluation and most of them were rejected due to inconsistencies in the cutting, not because of the inclusions. All of the diamonds were cut within what we consider to be "Super Ideal" proportions which refers to the center region of the measurements specified for the AGS zero ideal cut rating. All of the diamonds had AGS Ideal polish, symmetry and proportions. They are the "crem de la crem" from a paper perspective, but the precision of the facet alignment from region to region in terms of proportions is sloppy and this is quite typical of what we are seeing out of several of the more prominent cutting houses over the past few months.

While the proportions of these diamonds might have been "ideal" based upon the proportions charts published by the AGS Laboratory, the diamonds are undesireable because the cutters are cutting the facets "heavy and wide" so that they hold more weight. This is dropping the visual performance of the diamond as noticeable to our eyes and as reflected by the various "toys" that we use to evaluate diamonds during our selection process.

We urge the public to become more precise in their selection of ideal cut diamonds and not to buy off of the paper aspects of the diamond alone, we don''t and neither should you. There are a few of us here on PS who take the time to physically examine the diamonds that we sell, we''re all aware of this problem and many of us have been discussing it behind the scenes while we complain about not being able to find enough of "the right goods" for our inventory (which is why you might notice that many of us don''t have a lot of stones in our coffers, it''s becoming difficult to find yummy stuff).

We''ve been trying to figure out how to dump a large enough bucket of cold water on the cutters in hopes that they''ll wake up and get back on track and start producing beautiful stones instead of cutting for the retention of weight.

The only way that the cutters are going to realize that the public will not accept this SLOP is if you stop buying our rejects from virtual sites! Work with the dealers who will provide you with a detailed proportions analysis and LOOK AT IT!!! If the measurements are all out of whack, the diamond is too and the light return will be a fraction of what it is supposed to be... Look at the width of the pavilion mains... Look at the shape and symmetry of the facets... Look at the symmetry of the girdle and if you don''t like it, don''t buy it... But you can NOT make these determinations off of the information provided on the lab reports alone, we can''t so you shouldn''t expect to be able to. You need the detailed proportions analysis that shows a facet-by-facet breakdown of the diamond and you need clarity photographs... It''s not that the virtual dealers can''t provide this information for you, it''s that they have grown accustomed to "not having to" provide this information for you because too many people buy "off paper" without requiring them to provide it... If people will buy the diamonds without detailed information, why should the dealers take the time to provide it? After all, the profits are the same regardless of the time spent or not spent evaluating a diamond. If a diamond can be drop shipped to a customer without the dealer ever having to touch it, that is an ideal situation from the perspective of profits... Maximum yield for minimal effort, the script did it all...

For every diamond that sells off of a virtual list this way, the cutters are given one more very good reason why they don''t have to produce beautiful stones and the virtual dealers are provided with yet another example of why they don''t need to provide their "customers" with any hint of actual service... If the public is willing to buy for weight, why should the cutters focus on light return? The cutters and virtual dealers can hide a lot by failing to provide you with adequate information to make an informed decision. We suppose this could be called "fraud by omission" but in reality, it''s just poor shopping habits on the part of the public. If you''re not going to ask for precise information, you''re just not going to get it and we suppose in that case, you deserve to be ripped off.

In the late 1990''s there was a beautiful version of the Hearts & Arrows diamond being produced out of Antwerp. Those diamonds were truly amongst the most beautiful diamonds that we have ever seen. Unfortunately the producers of the ideal cut diamonds that were primarily sold in the U.S. market at the time started to manufacture their ideal cut diamonds in such a way as to mimic the pattern of the true Hearts & Arrows stones and because they were not cutting the diamonds as precisely, the production costs were lower. People flocked to the lower priced "Hearts & Arrows" diamonds which weren''t authentic Hearts & Arrows, but that didn''t matter because the public lacked the experience to recognize the difference. It wasn''t long before the cutting houses who were producing the phenomenal precision of the true Hearts & Arrows diamonds gave up and turned their wheels to the production of the less precise ideal cut diamonds that exhibited a pattern of hearts and a pattern of arrows because they couldn''t compete in a market which is driven on the value of a commodity that is measured by carat weight, color, clarity and cut (proportions) as valued by the Rapaport instead of the recognition for the precision that they had applied to the production of a truly magnificent realm of diamonds.

When we began to see that the original Hearts & Arrows production was being diluted, we urged the cutters to remain true to their craft. We told them that we were willing to pay more for their precise production and their answer was that our business was just not enough to keep their doors open and that''s true because we''re not willing to take everything that they produce... We don''t want the SI-2 and I-1 clarity polished goods that they have to buy in the form of rough as manufacturers and we don''t want 80% of the SI-1 clarity diamonds that they produce... We don''t want their J-K-L colors and diamonds with strong fluorescence, etc. and therein lies the problem from their perspective of distribution... They have to buy the shoddy rough in order to get the cream that they want and dealers like us don''t want to buy it, so off to the Land of Virtual it goes.

So here we are again... We find ourselves at a crossroads and we''re calling upon you the public to join us as we take a stand. At a time when the price of diamond rough is "off the charts" with no hope of a reduction in sight... At a time when the AGS Laboratory is preparing to broaden the parameters of their proportions grade so that more cutters will use their laboratory because it will be significantly easier for them to convince the public that their production is "ideal" from the perspective of proportions... We''re asking you to stop buying "off paper" and we''re asking you to stop accepting "loose ideals" and send a crystal clear message to the cutters.



It might take you a little extra time to find the right stone... An ideal cut diamond which is cut to exacting proportions and with a facet structure that is worthy of the term "ideal cut". But in the end, the increased visual performance of a properly cut stone is well worth the wait and the validity of the ideal cut diamond market may be maintained.

----------------
On 10/23/2004 6:29:05 PM niceice wrote:

We don't want the SI-2 and I-1 clarity polished goods that they have to buy in the form of rough as manufacturers and we don't want 80% of the SI-1 clarity diamonds that they produce... We don't want their J-K-L colors and diamonds with strong fluorescence, etc. and therein lies the problem from their perspective of distribution... They have to buy the shoddy rough in order to get the cream that they want and dealers like us don't want to buy it, so off to the Land of Virtual it goes.

----------------

Click to expand...

A very interesting post R&T and I agree that I would not want cut to be diluted, but the one thing that really jumped out at me was that paragraph above. As a customer seeking the best deal on a quality stone, one of the reasons I would probably not buy from you anytime soon is because you don't have the lower color and clarities with fluor which to me represent the best deals. You demand the top quality in your goods, in ALL the C's, and therefore send yourself out of the running with 99.9% of your goods for my purchase.

My sweet spot is an H SI2 but I don't recall having seen very many in your store. Seems as if all of the vendors right now have a shortage of HIJ SI2 type stones in the slightly larger sizes (aka 1.5-2c)....is that a trend you see emerging for the near future? Do you see that the HIJ SI1/SI2 stones don't sell as well as other stones, or is it just a personal decision of yours to not carry them? Just curious.

R/T, I respect your position and your dedication to your vision of what should be.




I have to say, though.....not everyone wants to own (or more accurately, pay incredible sums of money for) VVS-VS stones. I realize that you are trying to find the best for folks, but it could very well be that what you reject is something that *I* WANT.




You may look down your nose at an SI2 stone, but I'll tell you that to my nearly 40-year-old eyes....and to damn near everyone around me who doesn't invade my personal space without invitation.....my SI2 stone is PERFECTLY eyeclean, and I'm delighted that someone deemed it worthy of consideration.




I agree that I wouldn't want to sacrifice cut or light return....that's true. It's great that you have the eagle-eyes to be "clarity snobs" (not meant in a derogatory way....I mean it to say that you are discrimating), but many folks just can't afford your vision of perfect.




I have trolled your site many times in hopes of finding something that meets what someone is looking for, and it's rare to even find SI clarity stones at all in your inventory. I'm not judging that, but you folks need to recognize that not everyone can spring for VVS/VS goods without making trade-offs that are far more important (and far more VISIBLE to them)....like size/color.




I can appreciate the level of perfection you are striving for. If you were chefs, you'd reject the bottom layer of a 3-layer cake if it had a small pea-sized divot in the bottom of the layer on the side that sits against the cake tray. But me......I just want delicious cake. I don't care if it has a divot on the very bottom that NO ONE ELSE will see! As long as it tastes good and the small divot doesn't show.....that's fine by me.




Now, if you want to sell us VS stones at SI prices, that changes everything......but I'm sure you don't want to, nor would I expect you to.




My point is: it's great to be discrimating, but there is a threshold at which the casual observer (customers) won't discern the miniscule subtle nuances you describe, and anything beyond that point just isn't practical to us as buyers. Heck, it's a miracle people are beginning to ask questions about make in the first place. I have to also think that if diamond performance suffers in a discernable way in terms of light return, our trusted appraisers would advise of that, yes?




You two beat the drum rather incessantly about the drop-ship issue, and I can appreciate how passionate you are about it. It's a great message, to be sure, but I'm not terribly sure the pricescope crowd is the most logical target audience for it. I just don't see many folks here doing that. Nearly everyone here works through vendors who have in-stock inventory......or if they are working from brokered stones, they have them evaluated by the vendor prior to purchasing. As your clients do, they trust their vendor to identify problems with stones if there are concerns.




I cannot recall a single story of someone who had a diamond drop-shipped to them and completely bypassed the vendor. Are you aware of this going on to any material degree among the PS crowd specifically? I'm not being contentious, by the way....I don't mean it in a fresh way at all. I'm really quite curious if you are aware of a growing trend that we may not have been yet in drop-shipping among this crowd.

Very interesting, but I have a few comments.

It seems that there are two kinds of diamond buyers.

1) People who are going to buy a diamond. Period.

2) People who are only going to buy a resonbly good to great diamond depending on their budget.

The first group probably represents about 95% of the diamond market. They don't have much of a clue about real quality and light return.

The second group has taken the time to learn about diamonds and the different factors - and will buy as good as diamond as they can afford (and decide what and where they are compromising).

My understanding is that Wal-Mart is the largest diamond retailer in the world now. They sell on price, not quality. Most of the mall jewelery stores sell on glitz and emotion. There is no reasonable priced quality in that equation either.

Thus, it is no surprise that overall quality is slipping. Most of the customers do not know and therefore do not care. I doubt that there is much that the pricescope buyers can do to change that trend.

I have a lot of respect for the various dealers associated with Pricescope who have taken the trouble to find the quality diamonds and list them for us to dream about and eventually buy.

My personal pet peave is that there seems to be almost a total ignoring of fluorescence.

It is my understanding that some blue fluorescence in a slighly yellow stone actually looks very good. So why are none listed for sale? I suspect that there is another group of stones out there with faint to modest blue fluorescence that have great cut and light return. Perhaps you could expand your inventory by including those stones.

In the end, what will happen is that the prices for the actual great cuts will go up due to rarety and demand. At that point the cutting houses will likely be willing to produce a few more. Alternatively, the branded "super ideal cut" diamond cutting companies may fill the market for those who actually want a very good cut diamond.

Perry

It's not that we have an issue with lower clarity diamonds, more accurately we have issues with the grading assigned to lower clarity diamonds. That is to say that the SI-2 of today was the I-1 of ten years ago and the SI-1 of today was the SI-2 of ten years ago and so on. Thus the issue is not that we don't like SI-2 clarity diamonds, but rather with what is being represented as an SI-2 clarity diamond by the labs today. We source SI-2 clarity and lower color diamonds for clients upon request, we just make sure that the client has a clear idea of what it is that they're asking for. For instance, when a client tells us that they want us to find "an SI-2 clarity diamond that is absolutely eye clean" or an SI-1 clarity diamond "that is absolutely eye clean from all angles" - that was this morning - we are straightforward and explain that it isn't going to exist by our standards of grading. We'll explain what is possible and what to expect from an SI clarity diamond that has passed our evaluation and some people can accept that and others can't.

We evaluated an I-1 clarity diamond on behalf of an internet client the other day, the diamond was quite pretty. It exhibited a high degree of light return and the inclusions were white and difficult to find without magnification - not "eye clean" but difficult to find. Unfortunately, it also contained a series of substantial feathers that ran along the girdle edge and a few that extended from the girdle edge and deep enough into the stone that we felt that it presented a durability risk. Here's the funny thing, the diamond was sent to us on behalf of the client by a virtual dealer who had the diamond drop shipped to us by the supplier so that we could set it in a ring... We don't routinely do evaluations in this type of scenario, we mount the diamond and send it back out - but the client contracted with us for evaluation services, we provided him with clarity photographs but only after we talked with the dealer who had sent the stone to us... He had NOT seen the stone prior to our receiving it, we sent him a picture of the inclusions and HE asked us to return the stone because he was afraid to sell it to the client because of the durability risk which he recognized to be present within the diamond... BUT what about all of the stones which are sold virtually where the client doesn't take it for evaluation? Would the dealer have recalled the stone if the client hadn't asked for photographs? Nobody can say and it really doesn't matter we suppose, people will buy whatever they are comfortable with in conjunction with their financial constraints.

We do not purchase lower quality diamonds for inventory because in our experience they sit on our Private Reserve far longer than diamonds of higher color and clarity grades so we invest our working capital in diamond inventory which is more likely to turn faster - The Economics of Inventory 101. But there IS a substantial market for commercial quality goods, we recognize that our market is but a tenth of a percent (literally) of the wealth that the jewelry market has to offer. Our statement regarding SI-2 and J-K-L quality goods is not to say that those goods are undesireable, just that they are not something that we routinely purchase for inventory.

The point of this post however does not concern our personal preferences for clarity and color, but rather the fact that the cutters are bulking up the ideal cut diamonds to retain more weight during the cutting process. For those of you who prefer diamonds that exhibit higher degrees of light return, we're asking for you to ask whichever dealer you desire to work with for some really simple and readily available documentation by which to make an informed decision before you buy. We think that this is a critical time in terms of our (the public and the trade) being able to sway the production of the cutters who produce the ideal cut diamonds that are so sought after here on PS.

Wal Mart is the largest retailer of jewelry in the world, but as noted, they are not the largest seller of ideal cut diamonds nor are they known to be a seller of quality jewelry. Many jewelers are hesitant to work on the stuff because it's too lightweight.

As far as fluorescence goes, it's available if you ask for it. No doubt that many of the virtual dealers here on PS have some fluorescent stones listed for sale. We LOVE fluorescence and have said so on many threads here on PS. In our store, we sell a lot of fluorescent stones because we like it and are able to demonstrate the effect of fluorescence in person. However like the SI-2 clarity and lower color diamonds, we discovered that on-line buyers were hesitant to purchase them on-line. We'll source them upon request, but we buy only a few for inventory because here again, we invest in what sells relatively quickly on-line to keep the wheels of commerce turning as best we can.

It's late, we've been sifting through stones all day and are pretty burnt so we hope that we're making some sort of sense here

Do you have any h&a photos of these diamonds?
Would h&a photos be enough to tell these stones apart and reject them?

I, for one, appreciate your discriminating tastes, since most dealers will try and sell an inferior quality stone for a superior quality price. I am very frustrated with that! More power to you...

----------------
On 10/23/2004 6:29:05 PM niceice wrote:

We urge the public to become more precise in their selection of ideal cut diamonds and not to buy off of the paper aspects of the diamond alone, we don't and neither should you.
...

The only way that the cutters are going to realize that the public will not accept this SLOP is if you stop buying our rejects from virtual sites! ...

We're asking you to stop buying 'off paper' and we're asking you to stop accepting 'loose ideals' and send a crystal clear message to the cutters.

WE DON'T WANT YOUR SLOP!​

It might take you a little extra time to find the right stone... An ideal cut diamond which is cut to exacting proportions and with a facet structure that is worthy of the term 'ideal cut'. But in the end, the increased visual performance of a properly cut stone is well worth the wait and the validity of the ideal cut diamond market may be maintained.----------------

Click to expand...

Nice infomercial. Excellent use of fear uncertainty and doubt, to scare consumers into buying from you. Buy your diamonds at NiceIce because we are looking our for you and other retailers are trying to sell you our seconds.

To me this just sounds like marketing.

Regards,

Brian

Come on Golden-Oak, it is impossible for niceice to say there is more crap out there, without sounding like they don't sell crap. However, this should not imply that they are the only ones who is maintaining quality.


-ctny

----------------
On 10/24/2004 2:40:32 AM ctang wrote:


it is impossible for niceice to say there is more crap out there, without sounding like they don't sell crap.

----------------

Click to expand...

Unfortunately so ...

How can sellers inform about their product without advocating for it? Wouldn't it sound straight insulting to hear:


"hei, we would never use ourselves the crap you guys are willing to buy from us"


If anything, the first post on this thread reads like a declaration of intention: >. Does this statement prevent me to reconsider? I guess not...

It often happens that sellers of anything also know the merchandise better than buyers do. Surely Robin&Todd are in precisely this position. Would you really have it the other way around ? Like THIS ?

That post would have been infomercial if on the frontpage at Niceice.com. This is an open forum. The same search engine that turns out Niceice diamonds also lists any other possible choice. Isn't that great ?

Yes: It is marketing. Very good marketing at that.

While there are many shades of grey and different levels of marketing, most of it falls into 2 catagories.

Marketing whose aim is to help you make a decision, with the hope that you will respect the vendor who provided the honest information - and return to them for our purchase.

Marketing which is trying to manipulate you to make a specific decission to buy a specific product or from a specific vendor.

More basically, The first "helps you" get what you want, and the second "sells you."

No one really wants to be sold, they want to be helped; and the reason that Sales has such a bad reputation is all of the dorks out there who are "selling" people on what they have to sell and not helping people decide what to buy from the selection in the marketplace.

NiceIce, and a great number of other vendors are participating in this forum because they understand that the best form of marketing is helping other people. They share their knowledge and experience in a fairly unbiased way so that we can learn enough to make a good decission for us; knowing that many of us will actually then chose to deal with them. Of couse they do mention their name and practices as part of their postings. That is a necessary part of any marketing. However, I have only seen rare cases of more direct marketing aimed at "selling" people on this forum.

My memory of the original post is that NiceIce did mention that other Internet vendors were facing the same problem. That would imply a recognition that there are other internet vendors out there who also screen diamonds in a similar fashion. For those who have done the research - there are several seemingly large internet vendors who sell only based on the "numbers" and do not do much, if any, additional screening of the diamonds (and any form of light analysis is not available). It is those vendors that NiceIce is warning us to be carefull with because of the current practice of the cut houses and the holes in the current grading system.

I found the information to be very useful, and it will affect how I buy a diamond - but does not specificaly drive me to select who.

In the end, if she says "Yes" it is my intention to buy both stones and appraisal services from the helpfull people on this forum. How many of you will do the same. This is a sign of Marketing at its best.

Whether the posting is self serving or not, it is a message that all should hear and be exposed to. For a very long time, 15 plus years, we have promoted cut grading far more specific than the AGS 0 cut with the AGA 1A and 1B cut. BOth are more finely tuned to quality than AGS 0. Now we see the flood gates of AGS 0 and the new GIA cut grading further eroding what constitutes "the best". Its fine with me to buy oin a budget and make good compromises, but I hate to see consumers made fools of by being told "very slightly inferior" goods are the "ultimate perfection" when this is not the case.

This can be said to be subjective, but at some point it become obvious. Yes, rough has increased, and there is a price to be paid for the best cutting. For those who want to pay for it, they should have a definitive way to obtain it so long as they are willing to pay the higher cost..

I do want to add that with new technology comes ways to measure ligth performance independent of cut quality. Some diamonds show very fine light return and beauty without having super symmetry or cutting to strict standards. Those diamonds may be wonderful to own and really be a good deal financially as they allow many different strategies for weight retention in cutting. However, to lump every high performance diamond into one pot and say that all are "equal" is the sort of short term thinking that is already a virtual plague. The very best in diamonds combines the finest cutting craft with the highest light return. Wile other combinations may be attractive, they may not all be equally as good.

1. So what if R&T indulge in a little self serving advetorial. It is not concealed.

2. R&T, I have not read every word, but it seems you speak in vague terms about some of what is wrong with this "slop". Will you please be more specific - are you talking about cheated or gouged upper girdles? If so you will be pleased to know the new AGS system will measure girdles at the main facet junction and that will put an end to that insidious stuff up.

There are a couple of very bad US / GIA decisions
a) to measure girdles at the valley or thinnest point. AGS have decided to go with the European system - makes sense because that is how most other fancies are measured.
b) to confuse lower girdle length an depth. there is a 2 or 3% diffference and the new grading systems of both GIA and AGS will probably use different systems, so the poor cutters and hundreds of thousands of illiterate and semi litterate cutters will be totally confused. What watse!

----------------
On 10/23/2004 7:21:52 PM perry wrote:

Very interesting, but I have a few comments.



My personal pet peave is that there seems to be almost a total ignoring of fluorescence.

It is my understanding that some blue fluorescence in a slighly yellow stone actually looks very good. So why are none listed for sale? I suspect that there is another group of stones out there with faint to modest blue fluorescence that have great cut and light return. Perhaps you could expand your inventory by including those stones.

Perry

----------------

Click to expand...

Perry .. read my article http://www.gis.net/~adamas/giafluor.html regarding fluorescence, there is the same type of "economic" issue going on there as in the apparent overabundance of "H&A" stones out there that Todd speaks about..

----------------
On 10/23/2004 6:29:05 PM niceice wrote:



While the proportions of these diamonds might have been 'ideal' based upon the proportions charts published by the AGS Laboratory, the diamonds are undesireable because the cutters are cutting the facets 'heavy and wide' so that they hold more weight. This is dropping the visual performance of the diamond as noticeable to our eyes and as reflected by the various 'toys' that we use to evaluate diamonds during our selection process.----

Click to expand...

There is certainly the tendency to "increase" the range of "ideal cut" to save or increase weight (see attached graph), shave a little to get the stone above a magic weight boundary and open up criteria for H&A.

It is not only NiceIce, but others here on PriceScope that have long recognized the differences in "H&A" cuts, in fact there is information from the Japanese grading lab here on PriceScope regarding this, in fact submitted by one of NiceIce's competitors..

https://www.pricescope.com/hearts_grading_hearts.asp

View attachment weight.jpg

Robin & Todd,

First of all, sincere thanks for the kind words regarding our standards. For any who don't already know it, we hold Nice Ice in the highest esteem as well.

We feel that this discussion is of interest to any who try to provide that "creme de la creme" of visually performing diamonds to their customers. More specifically, vendors who set their tolerances beyond conventional and common laboratory grades and cut standards.

If you don't mind, here are some questions and comments to enable further discourse and speculation about issues you have put forth:

"SLOPPY" CUTTING

NiceIce: All of the diamonds were cut within what we consider to be "Super Ideal" proportions which refers to the center region of the measurements specified for the AGS zero ideal cut rating. All of the diamonds had AGS Ideal polish, symmetry and proportions. They are the "crem de la crem" from a paper perspective, but the precision of the facet alignment from region to region in terms of proportions is sloppy and this is quite typical of what we are seeing out of several of the more prominent cutting houses over the past few months.

While the proportions of these diamonds might have been "ideal" based upon the proportions charts published by the AGS Laboratory, the diamonds are undesireable because the cutters are cutting the facets "heavy and wide" so that they hold more weight.
This is dropping the visual performance of the diamond as noticeable to our eyes and as reflected by the various "toys" that we use to evaluate diamonds during our selection process.

Can you please elucidate on this and provide some specifics? For instance, what does "heavy & wide" mean? Maybe you Pacific Northwesterners have a special glossary , but this is an unfamiliar term to us. How do you cut a facet "heavy?" When you say "wide" are you talking about lower girdle facet percentages and their effect on the pavilion mains? Is any of this a situation where the crown is twisted in relation to the pavilion? Are you finding that the facet meet points are being graded as ideal when they are not actually ideal? Also, are you looking at the hearts patterning? If so what are you observing there?

You also illustrated a 40.8 degree pavilion angle "averaging issue." We know that extremes like that one are undesirable: Those diamonds can be identified because they will leak light in the IdealScope image. However, Brian Gavin has explained why, as long as the opposites average, there can be variance but the overall performance will still be optimal (we visited this topic here before).

Lastly, when you speak of "toys," to what devices exactly do you refer? Obviously opinions vary about the accuracy and viability of some "playthings" from one "playmate" to the next. It would help for us to know to which devices you allude.

Sorry to pose so many questions, but it would be appreciated if you could help by explaining further. What is it exactly that you are rejecting in these stones?

On the whole we feel that it does not make business sense for cutting factories to become "sloppy," because they are competing with each other for reputability in order to acquire more business. However, there may be other factors contributing to your observations:

MARKET DYNAMICS

The small diamontaire is in jeopardy because of vertical and lateral integration. There is much shuffling happening in the background of supply. Many changes are taking place in the diamond market today that have to do with big fish eating smaller fish. From the mining houses to direct sales to consumers there is a unilateral shortening of the distribution chain (in much the same way that Wal-Mart has impacted trade in their idiom). With this vertical integration and the effects of what DeBeers is doing you may be finding it difficult to get the elite goods you want. At this time large companies are getting preferential treatment.

No supplier wants to sell only G VS1 and up in premium sizes. If we look at suppliers as fruit-bearing trees, a vendor who accepts only elite fruit and returns anything slightly bruised will vex the supplier; Particularly when there are large harvesters standing in line who will take it all. In fiscal terms, the vendor who buys $300,000 of stock will not receive the preferential treatment shown a larger vendor who buys $3 million, especially if that smaller vendor insists upon only "cherry" goods.

In this scenario the supplier could get fed up and start "dishing" the smaller vendor the second run of the production to appease the big fish. As we all know, there is terrific demand for the aforementioned "cherry" goods, from small and large vendors alike. It makes more sense for the suppliers to keep the biggest contracts for the long haul, particularly when supply is short of demand as it currently is.

It causes us to wonder when the smaller diamontaire, in this day of demand, will noticeably experience this (or is it already occurring?).

LAB STANDARDS

In our opinion, this comes down to the common hue and cry of subjectivity. We don't believe the labs are becoming lax but we do recognize that disparity remains rife.

Here is an example: We recently submitted a number of previously GIA graded stones to AGS (our lab of preference). The AGS returned GIA's VVS1 stones as VVS2 and VS1. So, does this mean GIA is too relaxed or AGS is too strict? For the answers to these and other questions, I would point to the oft-referred grading lab survey by Leonid and Garry, here. Disparity is reality, but it does not indicate that standards are relaxing.

As for your illustration, I suspect we have all experienced a situation where a VVS stone should have been graded VS. On the other hand, there is the occasional SI that should have been graded VS2. If you deal more frequently in VS stones it may be possible that you're finding more instances of the former because you are not evaluating as many SI (?)

The way we choose to see it, there are plenty of great SI1 stones and H I or J colors which are the perfect fit for someone. Some people prefer warmer colors while others demand colorless. Some want eye-clean while others want flawless. There are even rare birds who feel a visible inclusion gives "personality" to a stone.

STANDARDS

Nice Ice has a great reputation for high standards. No one would want you to compromise that. Still, other places will and do sell stones sight-unseen and there's a tangible market for that, whether we agree with that standard or not.

The same rules apply for us all.

Those who value our standards will seek us and those who value other standards will seek them "each according to his budget" or his taste

THE NICE ICE "BRAND"

AGS-this & GIA-that, along with Tolkowsky-hither & Ideal-yon, coupled with IdealScope ying & HCA yang is all well and good, but each vendor must decide upon the parameters and standards which constitute that "creme de la creme" for "them de la them." The fundamental reason for having a branded diamond such as Infinity, HOF, EightStar, A Cut Above, etc, is to gain reputation for assurance of high quality.

To that end, Todd & Robin, we would suggest that the diamonds you sell which meet your highest standards constitute your reputation and are, in a way, your "brand." Stick to your guns. Those who vie to buy the pie in the sky will find you. Those who are not concerned with such standards will keep the market flowing. Your "brand" of service will attract the most discriminating buyers, but it takes ALL types of buyers to keep this market in check.

...And for Garry - that's cheque, "mate." (rimshot!)

Thoughts?

You all need to form some buying co-ops
Paul and whiteflash on the rough end.

A bunch of the dealers on the finished end in another.

Robin & Todd and all those who might wonder what "sloppy" means - I assume that some of these links and discussions can shed some light so we know we are all talking about the same thing?

1. Cheated or Gouged Girdle stone (with apologies to Jonathon - but it is the easiest way (This stone of Jonathon's was the first we became aware some years back when Sergey noticed the depth % was wrong). If you look at the ideal-scope image you can see it is a very leaky stone - but it should be very nice from the proportions. The give away signs are the very thick and wavy girdle on the Ogi scan, and the very thick girdle in the laser inscription photo.
Because GIA (and by default AGS) meausre the girdle at the valleys, this stone is actually only supposed to be up to 1.9% thick (on AGS report) but in fact the girdle thickness at the main facet junction is what you would find on a thick to very thick stone.
Read more here
Right down the bottom - the third example. These are photo's of this actual stone that Jonathon took for us (thanks Jon - so you see jonathon learned from this and obviously avoids these stones now).

What's this all mean? dead stone that weighs a few % more or has a smaller spread for its weight

2. Fat or skinny lower girdle facets are described here on the new Ideal-scope site in the section where we assist manufacturers to get it right.
I would be interested in your opinions about where the right star size should be folks?

Now R&T, did I cover all the various slops?

No
3. The stone with a funny scan of the pavilion. I would like to know more?
Did you photograph it with a scope?
If you were only acting on your Ogi scanner then I would not accept your scan over AGSL's Sarin. They should have picked up such a large variation?
If it was spread out evenly and the stone was infact like the one in the top of the MSU example - then it can still be beautiful. you should ignore your scan data.
We are running some comparisons between 3 different scanners at present and Ogi results are looking decidedly sad.
We hear they have a new capture system, but the 3D models displayed on their website leave a lot to be desired.

----------------
On 10/25/2004 3:42:13 AM strmrdr wrote:

You all need to form some buying co-ops
Paul and whiteflash on the rough end.

A bunch of the dealers on the finished end in another.
----------------

Click to expand...

Now Storm, that would be an interesting venture. Although we must be careful to avoid creating a new cartel .

As for R/T's original post, I fully understand how you are feeling.

If your regular suppliers were sightholders, they were buying their rough in 2002 and 2003 about 20% cheaper than the rough-price on the market. So, these suppliers have been kind of subsidized by a supplier selling under the average market-price.

In 2004, not only did De Beers raise its prices to come closer to the market-price, also the market-price of rough has gone up, and the market-price of cut diamonds did not go up that much.

So, these previously subsidized cutters are facing rough prices that are 30% higher, with polished maybe on average 5% higher. This means a huge loss in profits. The only way to maintain some kind of profitability for them is to slightly go down in their quality of cutting, thus hiding weight. You can see this trend all over the line.

Of course, this trend is very beneficial for our company. We started our company with the aim of building a super-ideal brand. Over the last years, we have worked in a very lean organisation, putting a lot of knowledge in saving as much as possible from a rough stone without compromising on the cut.

Since we were working on a very limited quantity, it was possible to build this organisation. Luckily, we did not have to buy more than a million$ of rough every five weeks, like sightholders have to. You can imagine that they cannot afford to create an organisation like we have.

So, here we are. We can now buy rough at similar prices as sightholders, who were used to get a 20% windfall profit. We have been organized from the beginning to cut for the best light performance, and our competitors are now realizing that the 25% profit that they considered normal is actually only a 5% profit.

The result is that we can maintain our pricing-structure and our cut-quality, while they have to raise their pricing and reduce their cut-quality. Is it noticeable that I am not unhappy about this situation?

Anyway, this is just to confirm that what R/T describe is definitely correct.

Live long,

So basically its the inefficient dinosaurs of the industry gasping for air while debeers throws their weight around yet again....
Paul's explanation follows exactly what Iv been saying was DeBeers plan on keeping control with a lower percentage of the total rough available under their control.

They kicked some cutters out of their group who then had to go buy rough from the pool that debeers doesn't control.
This new demand raised prices on the rest of the rough allowing DeBeers to raise prices on theirs.
It also serves their goal of removing layers in the supply chain so that they retain a greater portion of the final sale price for themselves.
The reduced margins does not allow for as many layers.

Todd and Robin,




Thank you for a very interesting and enlightening post.




One question, though, please... I have an AGS 0 stone, but I never got a full sarin report or OGI analysis run on it. But since the stone scored a 9.8 on the ISee2... which, as we know, takes symmetry into consideration, can it be reasonably assumed that it doesn't have huge variances in its angles?




Thanks much,


Lynn

="padding-bottom:0;marginTop:0;marginBottom:0;">----------------
On 10/25/2004 4:28:09 PM Lynn B wrote:


I have an AGS 0 stone, but I never got a full sarin report or OGI analysis run on it. But since the stone scored a 9.8 on the ISee2... which, as we know, takes symmetry into consideration, can it be reasonably assumed that it doesn't have huge variances in its angles?

Click to expand...

----------------[/quote]


You know, we'd answer this question for you Lynn if we knew the answer to it. We played with the ISee2 a bit at the JCK Vegas Trade Show but did not enter into a distribution contract with the company that distributes it as a marketing tool for their diamonds because they do not want their production on-line and while we have a busy store, the majority of our diamond inventory still sells on-line. This question would best be addressed by Jonathan at GoodOldGold.com because he is much more familiar with that piece of equipment.

Paul - your comments are appreciated and your makes have always been wonderful

John @ White Flash - Primarily what we are referring to is that the pavilion mains are being cut wider than they were a few months ago. This is something that somebody like Brian would probably be able to explain in a second because of his experience as a cutter but we're diamond buyers not diamond manufacturers and as you might imagine most of the cutters who we're talking to aren't elaborating on this other than to say that the price of rough is increasing which is not exactly the answer that we're looking for.

We have some toys which we use internally which we're not going to discuss here on PS for obvious reasons, but we will tell you that we're finding that the new Bscope (Generation III) is verifying our suspicions in comparison to our original scanning process. In other words, the average results of diamonds sourced from these supplies scanned on this equipment was significantly higher than what it is scanning in as now and the Bscope is indicating similar results... And when we scan some of the original production that we have it scans high using both devices. Note that we are using the Generation III Bscope with the latest software patch which is 6.06 which is displayed in the upper left corner of the Bscope scan results as V6.06 and those results are lower for scintillation than produced by a Generation II Bscope scan.

Let's say that the average score for a super ideal cut diamond was around 140 - 190 with the average score for a standard ideal cut diamond falling in the range of 115 - 120 or so on our machine - not the Gem Ex. This new batch that we rejected were all cut to super ideal proportions, yet most of them fell in the range of 120 for reflective points and did not fare well on the Bscope either. We mention the comparison to the Bscope only because it is an interesting comparison and some of the dealers here on PS also have the machine and may want to keep an eye on how newer production fares in comparison to the production from the same cutters from a few month ago... Interestingly enough, the five diamonds that we kept from this latest parcel were graded near the beginning of 2004 and all of the diamonds with more recent lab dates were returned for failing to meet our visual criteria.

The only way we know how to explain it is in terms of the width of the pavilion main facets, they're just too wide and the range of the measurements for those facets is too broad for our liking... A large number of the diamonds that we rejected "on paper" were cast aside because they were cut with deep pavilion angles and deep crown angles with a broad range of girdle thicknesses such as 0.7 to 2.4% on a single stone or with thicker girdles such as 2.1 - 2.4% so it is obvious that the diamonds are being cut for weight. We selected the 27 diamonds which met our initial selection criteria based upon their paper specifications and then brought them in for physical evaluation and ended up rejecting the majority of the stones... The sad thing is that we ended up rejecting a similar average from a parcel of forty diamonds earlier in the week and a load the week before met the same fate - and all the while we're responding to endless stacks of email messages asking us when we're going to have more diamonds

We hear you on the concept of the NiceIce Brand, we have no intention of changing our buying criteria on behalf of the cutters, we will continue to buy the tighter diamonds just as we are sure that those dealers who we consider to be our close competitors and co-horts will continue to do so for their very precise inventory. The cutters will make a decision based on the volume or lack of volume in terms of sales as to how to cut their production... We do know that our returning large groups of diamonds to the cutters is sending them off the edge because they are absolutely losing their minds on the telephone and our response to "but these are beautiful diamonds!" is "then you should have no problem selling them to somebody else" and that seems to leave them stammering... We also find that not responding to their faxes of new production is freaking them out because it is a clear indication that we're taking our multi-million dollar annual volume in the direction of other houses with a more precise production. If our competitors send the same crystal clear message at the same time some of the precise customers to be found here on PS do, it will cause a substantial enough ripple through the cutting houses in such a way that they might return to the tighter parameters that we love.

Adamasgem, or Marty Haske:

That is an interesting article on Flouresence.

I have really got to wonder though, if the grading standard is codified in the CFR, then why doen't someone just fail a fraud lawsuit against GIA and end the practice.

I would want a stone to have whatever flouresence to work for me when outside, not to have it look a lot worse than a non-flouresence stone in indore lighting.

Perry

This concept of misreprenting color grading in Fluoresence stones is probably worthy of its own thread on this board. I suspect that some of the Pricescope regulars may be willing to participate in a class action lawsuit on misgraded diamonds (this affects dealers and customers).

I guess that I need to do more research on which labs use what process to grade color; are they using the one in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or not?

If you wish to continue this discussion I propose that you start a new message thread on misgrading of color by inciting the fluoresence of diamonds.

Perry

Robin and Todd,

Thank you for your candor. Those specifics help a good deal.

Coincidentally, Brian Gavin and I have been discussing problematic issues caused by imprecision and "cheating" of a facet occuring when the facet face is polished in a direction from off-center. Sarin/Ogi do not pick up on the resultant "real world" problems.

Further, these problems do indeed impact readings by some "toys" of measure (particularly the one you mentioned) and can culminate in spurious results.

More later. I must off to watch WS Game 3 right now, and pretend that the Cards are actually the Astros

Batter up.