strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Can you tell which mine your diamond came from on its papers?
- Thread starter beaujolais
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Your almost as cynical as I am LOLDate: 12/20/2007 4:50:06 AM
Author: DiaGem
Neil, i will repeat myself..., a few of my quotes:
--''A Diamond..., once its out of the mine..., its impossible to identify from what specific mine it was dug!!!''
--''...but it makes a consumer have to trust a ''person'' to believe this info.
There still no proof what-so-ever based on identifying the polished Diamond where and what mine it originated!!!
Any cutter/manufacturers can basically feature a provenance report..., no guarantees though!''
--''As long as the geographical origin of polished Diamond is not proven scientifically..., ....any type of ''Mine to Finger Provenance Report'' as any other legitimate marketing tool.''
There is a long standing saying in this industry:
A dealer bought a Diamond for a $1000, sold it to the next dealer for $2000 and made 10% profit..., which is how this industry has conducted itself for thousands of years..., primitive! Some members of the industry didnt even know or understand basic math.
These days members of this industry are required to produce added value to their products (Diamonds), if they want to survive in this industry.
Bringing ''Blood Diamonds'' into the ''BIG'' picture was in my opinion done for the purpose of creating more marketing tools!
Big/Huge entities were behind this ''brilliant'' idea!!! For some reason no-one ever thought to point a finger towards other commodities like ''BLOOD OIL'' in Africa..., just one example out of potentially many!
This picture is much bigger..., and if you are interested to start a conspiracy type thread..., I will gladly participate..., there is tons of options out there.
All I am saying is: Trying to get the consumer to demand (and as you say, pay a premium for) ''documentation'' for proof of Mine to Finger ''trail'' is just one more marketing tool on the marketing shelf!
But it pays to be so when it comes too this issue.
The only way its going to happen is for laws too be passed and enforced.
A couple cheaters being found and their heads put on a pike should scare the rest of the industry into compliance.
KP while a good step is something I feel is more of a feel good measure but its better than nothing but it can and should be done better.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Bingo...Date: 12/20/2007 5:43:46 AM
Author: strmrdr
Your almost as cynical as I am LOLDate: 12/20/2007 4:50:06 AM
Author: DiaGem
Neil, i will repeat myself..., a few of my quotes:
--''A Diamond..., once its out of the mine..., its impossible to identify from what specific mine it was dug!!!''
--''...but it makes a consumer have to trust a ''person'' to believe this info.
There still no proof what-so-ever based on identifying the polished Diamond where and what mine it originated!!!
Any cutter/manufacturers can basically feature a provenance report..., no guarantees though!''
--''As long as the geographical origin of polished Diamond is not proven scientifically..., ....any type of ''Mine to Finger Provenance Report'' as any other legitimate marketing tool.''
There is a long standing saying in this industry:
A dealer bought a Diamond for a $1000, sold it to the next dealer for $2000 and made 10% profit..., which is how this industry has conducted itself for thousands of years..., primitive! Some members of the industry didnt even know or understand basic math.
These days members of this industry are required to produce added value to their products (Diamonds), if they want to survive in this industry.
Bringing ''Blood Diamonds'' into the ''BIG'' picture was in my opinion done for the purpose of creating more marketing tools!
Big/Huge entities were behind this ''brilliant'' idea!!! For some reason no-one ever thought to point a finger towards other commodities like ''BLOOD OIL'' in Africa..., just one example out of potentially many!
This picture is much bigger..., and if you are interested to start a conspiracy type thread..., I will gladly participate..., there is tons of options out there.
All I am saying is: Trying to get the consumer to demand (and as you say, pay a premium for) ''documentation'' for proof of Mine to Finger ''trail'' is just one more marketing tool on the marketing shelf!
But it pays to be so when it comes too this issue.
The only way its going to happen is for laws too be passed and enforced.
A couple cheaters being found and their heads put on a pike should scare the rest of the industry into compliance.
KP while a good step is something I feel is more of a feel good measure but its better than nothing but it can and should be done better.
Its uncontrollable..., but a "brilliant" spring board to lots of potential marketing tools!
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
I do think we’ve finally found an area where we disagree.
People buy and value non-gemological attributes routinely. Things that you call marketing tools can and do add value. I see no problem with this and you seem to see it as a travesty. It comes as no surprise to me at all that the exact same stone will bring more if it has a GIA grading report even though it doesn’t affect the physical properties of the stone at all. A stone is worth more at a full service dealer than that same stone through an internet dropshipper and this is demonstrated daily by simply watching consumer behavior.
Even the gemological properties fall into your category of marketing tools. The fact that a nearly colorless stone is considered by most to be ‘better’ than one with a slight yellow tint is not a God given attribute. The fact that a 1.98ct. is worth less to most people than a similar 2.01ct while that same weight difference between a 2.01 and a 2.04 is far less important is a purely marketing effect. Shoppers are encouraged to compare stones based on 2 or 3 of the popular 4C’s while ignoring other things like mine of origin, date of origin, the identity or location of the cutter or the prior ownership history. This does not make a shopper who is interested for these things wrongheaded, but it does tend to make their shopping efforts more difficult that the fact that they are considered a bit eccentric is a business opportunity for people who want to fill that need. Call it marketing if you want but I call it a fundamental principle of business.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
People buy and value non-gemological attributes routinely. Things that you call marketing tools can and do add value. I see no problem with this and you seem to see it as a travesty. It comes as no surprise to me at all that the exact same stone will bring more if it has a GIA grading report even though it doesn’t affect the physical properties of the stone at all. A stone is worth more at a full service dealer than that same stone through an internet dropshipper and this is demonstrated daily by simply watching consumer behavior.
Even the gemological properties fall into your category of marketing tools. The fact that a nearly colorless stone is considered by most to be ‘better’ than one with a slight yellow tint is not a God given attribute. The fact that a 1.98ct. is worth less to most people than a similar 2.01ct while that same weight difference between a 2.01 and a 2.04 is far less important is a purely marketing effect. Shoppers are encouraged to compare stones based on 2 or 3 of the popular 4C’s while ignoring other things like mine of origin, date of origin, the identity or location of the cutter or the prior ownership history. This does not make a shopper who is interested for these things wrongheaded, but it does tend to make their shopping efforts more difficult that the fact that they are considered a bit eccentric is a business opportunity for people who want to fill that need. Call it marketing if you want but I call it a fundamental principle of business.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
You are saying: "Shoppers are encouraged to compare stones based on 2 or 3 of the popular 4C’s while ignoring other things...."Date: 12/20/2007 9:12:53 AM
Author: denverappraiser
I do think we’ve finally found an area where we disagree.
People buy and value non-gemological attributes routinely. Things that you call marketing tools can and do add value. I see no problem with this and you seem to see it as a travesty. It comes as no surprise to me at all that the exact same stone will bring more if it has a GIA grading report even though it doesn’t affect the physical properties of the stone at all. A stone is worth more at a full service dealer than that same stone through an internet dropshipper and this is demonstrated daily by simply watching consumer behavior.
Why..., I agree..., a GIA (or any other) report is a marketing tool..., I dont see anything wrong with it!
I do can tell you that I (and many others) do not pay more for a GIA reported polished Diamond, I might be willing to pay for the cost of service, but that is due to industry habits!
It is still a legitimate marketing tool!!! That is all I have been saying from the start!
Even the gemological properties fall into your category of marketing tools. The fact that a nearly colorless stone is considered by most to be ‘better’ than one with a slight yellow tint is not a God given attribute. The fact that a 1.98ct. is worth less to most people than a similar 2.01ct while that same weight difference between a 2.01 and a 2.04 is far less important is a purely marketing effect. Shoppers are encouraged to compare stones based on 2 or 3 of the popular 4C’s while ignoring other things like mine of origin, date of origin, the identity or location of the cutter or the prior ownership history. This does not make a shopper who is interested for these things wrongheaded, but it does tend to make their shopping efforts more difficult that the fact that they are considered a bit eccentric is a business opportunity for people who want to fill that need. Call it marketing if you want but I call it a fundamental principle of business.
Correction Neil..., not Better..., but rarer! What can I do..., it is mother natures fault
Not really..., weights are based on rarity too..., take for example some PS listings:
A 1.96 ct. E-SI1 is $18,780 vs. a 2.09 ct. E-SI1 at $19,500 (just one example.) The difference is not that wild!!!
Naturally one would have to pay more for a 21 carat vs. a 19 carat...
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
All I am saying is that Companies which look for new added value tools are encouraging shoppers to pay premiums for (in my opinion) unprovable facts!!!
When a jeweler offers a "Mine to Finger" report and charges $$$ for it..., when its not even provable information...., then you should understand the rest!
But again..., everybody has their own ideas on how to add value to a business with a constantly shrinking margin
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
That’s some more things we apparently disagree on.
I think that there is routinely a premium paid for stones when they pass over certain weight thresholds, including 2.00cts. You apparently disagree with this.
I don’t have mine run stats regarding color distribution but I seriously doubt that G/H/I are more rare than O/P/Q despite the fact that they cost more. Do you have this data? To some extent this is driven by rarity but to a far greater extent it’s driven by popularity, a decidedly non-gemological attribute.
What is “provable” is an important piece of the puzzle. This is not a math question. This gets into standards of proof, standards of reporting, testing methodology etc. I believe that it is possible to document non-gemological facts to the satisfaction of most people. The easiest example I can think of is a signed statement by a cutter that they produced a particular stone. This is an attribute that cannot be scientifically demonstrated by inspecting the stone and that certain customers may find valuable. The report might be counterfeit or the cutter might be simply be lying but there are ways of investigating this sort of claim that will meet the level of satisfaction for most people. All such claims are not of equal merit nor are they of equal value to the discerning consumer.
Consumers in many markets, including pricescope, routinely pay extra for GIA branded grading. Given identical results, or even expected results, dealers will routinely send stones to GIA for examination even though they charge for this service and they already have a report from someone else showing the same results. This is clear evidence that they find the 'paper' adds value. It makes stones sell faster with greater confidence and for higher prices. That's value.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
I think that there is routinely a premium paid for stones when they pass over certain weight thresholds, including 2.00cts. You apparently disagree with this.
I don’t have mine run stats regarding color distribution but I seriously doubt that G/H/I are more rare than O/P/Q despite the fact that they cost more. Do you have this data? To some extent this is driven by rarity but to a far greater extent it’s driven by popularity, a decidedly non-gemological attribute.
What is “provable” is an important piece of the puzzle. This is not a math question. This gets into standards of proof, standards of reporting, testing methodology etc. I believe that it is possible to document non-gemological facts to the satisfaction of most people. The easiest example I can think of is a signed statement by a cutter that they produced a particular stone. This is an attribute that cannot be scientifically demonstrated by inspecting the stone and that certain customers may find valuable. The report might be counterfeit or the cutter might be simply be lying but there are ways of investigating this sort of claim that will meet the level of satisfaction for most people. All such claims are not of equal merit nor are they of equal value to the discerning consumer.
Consumers in many markets, including pricescope, routinely pay extra for GIA branded grading. Given identical results, or even expected results, dealers will routinely send stones to GIA for examination even though they charge for this service and they already have a report from someone else showing the same results. This is clear evidence that they find the 'paper' adds value. It makes stones sell faster with greater confidence and for higher prices. That's value.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Date: 12/20/2007 10:23:42 AM
Author: denverappraiser
That’s some more things we apparently disagree on.
I think that there is routinely a premium paid for stones when they pass over certain weight thresholds, including 2.00cts. You apparently disagree with this.
Now... why would you say that? I just showed you I agree..., but the difference is not as big as you made it sound. Especially not at the retail level!
Re-read my post above...
I don’t have mine run stats regarding color distribution but I seriously doubt that G/H/I are more rare than O/P/Q despite the fact that they cost more. Do you have this data? To some extent this is driven by rarity but to a far greater extent it’s driven by popularity, a decidedly non-gemological attribute.
I dont have this data in my hands..., but I am pretty certain you will find more O/P/Q''s in the ground than G/H/I''s..., makes only good and healthy sense.
What is “provable” is an important piece of the puzzle. This is not a math question. This gets into standards of proof, standards of reporting, testing methodology etc. I believe that it is possible to document non-gemological facts to the satisfaction of most people. The easiest example I can think of is a signed statement by a cutter that they produced a particular stone. This is an attribute that cannot be scientifically demonstrated by inspecting the stone and that certain customers may find valuable. The report might be counterfeit or the cutter might be simply be lying but there are ways of investigating this sort of claim that will meet the level of satisfaction for most people. All such claims are not of equal merit nor are they of equal value to the discerning consumer. No disagreement with you on that one either..., just seems a bit "thin" to use as an added value strategy!!!
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
I agree to a certain extent.Date: 12/19/2007 5:09:58 PM
Author: DiaGem
My dear PS colleagues,
As long as the geographical origin of polished Diamond is not proven scientifically...
I will consider any attempt of any Company providing any type of ''Mine to Finger Provenance Report'' as any other legitimate marketing tool.
I hope you can agree with me...
Current ''mine-to-finger-reports'' are only possible for selected cutters, with selected rough from a small number of rough producers, who operate various mines. It is dependant upon the honesty of both the producer as of the cutter. Having been part of such a program for a short period of time, I know that the control mechanism for which we paid, in a period of six months did not execute any control.
Currently, with rough outside of this highly selected area, the cutter has no verifiable proof of the source of the rough. If the cutter is the importer of the rough in his country, he has a Kimberley-Process-certificate with a ''country of origin'' mentioned, but this does not guarantee which specific mine.
I would find it highly improbable for any serious-size cutter to use only rough from within a controlled program for his production of a specific brand. It does not make business-sense either, since it makes him too dependent from one supplier of rough.
So where do I disagree. Well, you would consider it a legitimate marketing tool. In the current situation, I am inclined to call it an illegitimate marketing tool.
Live long,
CaptAubrey
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 863
I''ll echo Paul and repeat what I said at the beginning.
From a purely scientific standpoint, tracking a stone back to a specific mine is not currently possible and may never be.
Stone-by-stone paper trails on a large scale are not feasible at the moment because of the sheer number of stones passing through the market, the number of people who handle them, and the way the diamond business traditionally operates. Passing laws to require such will just drive most of the market underground because it will be far cheaper to cheat and write off any penalties for getting caught as a business expense. The Kimberley Process barely works and it''s at least an order of magnitude away from something like this.
From a purely scientific standpoint, tracking a stone back to a specific mine is not currently possible and may never be.
Stone-by-stone paper trails on a large scale are not feasible at the moment because of the sheer number of stones passing through the market, the number of people who handle them, and the way the diamond business traditionally operates. Passing laws to require such will just drive most of the market underground because it will be far cheaper to cheat and write off any penalties for getting caught as a business expense. The Kimberley Process barely works and it''s at least an order of magnitude away from something like this.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
Date: 12/20/2007 11:56:06 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I agree to a certain extent.Date: 12/19/2007 5:09:58 PM
Author: DiaGem
My dear PS colleagues,
As long as the geographical origin of polished Diamond is not proven scientifically...
I will consider any attempt of any Company providing any type of 'Mine to Finger Provenance Report' as any other legitimate marketing tool.
I hope you can agree with me...
Current 'mine-to-finger-reports' are only possible for selected cutters, with selected rough from a small number of rough producers, who operate various mines. It is dependant upon the honesty of both the producer as of the cutter. Having been part of such a program for a short period of time, I know that the control mechanism for which we paid, in a period of six months did not execute any control.
Currently, with rough outside of this highly selected area, the cutter has no verifiable proof of the source of the rough. If the cutter is the importer of the rough in his country, he has a Kimberley-Process-certificate with a 'country of origin' mentioned, but this does not guarantee which specific mine.
I would find it highly improbable for any serious-size cutter to use only rough from within a controlled program for his production of a specific brand. It does not make business-sense either, since it makes him too dependent from one supplier of rough.
So where do I disagree. Well, you would consider it a legitimate marketing tool. In the current situation, I am inclined to call it an illegitimate marketing tool.
Live long,
Now we’re to the crux of the matter. It’s not necessary that this apply to every stone that a manufacturer produces and you’re correct that it’s a decidedly specialized market. It involves trusting not only the mining company and the cutter but the certification agency and the retailer as well. Theoretically these could all be the same but in practicality there are good reasons that there are several different parties involved in the diamond process. What does it take to make this sufficiently credible for customers to find it useful, or at least interesting enough to be willing to pay for it? If the control mechanism for which you’re paying isn’t happening than you’re right to opt out of the program before someone has a scandal over it. If a miner were to provide you details about a particular stones history and you were to provide this along with interesting details about your involvement (who worked on it, when, where, etc.) to your retailer, would customers find it useful or at least interesting for the dealer or you were to write a report about this? It might, especially if the retailer has credibility in the eyes of the customer. Would it make the stone any different? No, but it might make it sell faster, with more confidence and for more money. It might help the customer to feel that their stone is ‘special’ for them and thereby increase their enjoyment of it. Isn’t that the point? Is a stone worth more because it was crafted by Paul Slegers personally or because it came from a particular mine? For some it is. Is it worth the trouble? I don’t know, that’s the real question here.
A random observation: I used to manufacture a line of gold tourist charms that we sold in the shops around Rocky Mountain National Park, Yellowstone and similar tourist destinations. ‘Made in Colorado’ was one of the selling points, as was the fact that we bought all of the gold used in the line from mines located in Colorado. We paid extra to get custom refining lots done to be certain that our gold was genuine Colorado gold and yes, this cost got passed along to the customer along with an extra profit for putting up with it. A lot of people probably counted this as silly but there were plenty who thought it was cool and who voted with their Visa cards. The charms sold well despite the fact that there were Mexican made knockoffs available for less, often as close a few feet away. Apparently our customers counted that feature as valuable despite the fact that gold is gold and it makes no difference if it comes from Colorado or New Guinea. To THEM it mattered and an unsigned hangtag from the manufacturer was sufficient proof.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Firstly..., I am happy we are finally in an agreement "to a certain extent".Date: 12/20/2007 11:56:06 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I agree to a certain extent.Date: 12/19/2007 5:09:58 PM
Author: DiaGem
My dear PS colleagues,
As long as the geographical origin of polished Diamond is not proven scientifically...
I will consider any attempt of any Company providing any type of ''Mine to Finger Provenance Report'' as any other legitimate marketing tool.
I hope you can agree with me...
Current ''mine-to-finger-reports'' are only possible for selected cutters, with selected rough from a small number of rough producers, who operate various mines. It is dependant upon the honesty of both the producer as of the cutter. Having been part of such a program for a short period of time, I know that the control mechanism for which we paid, in a period of six months did not execute any control.
Currently, with rough outside of this highly selected area, the cutter has no verifiable proof of the source of the rough. If the cutter is the importer of the rough in his country, he has a Kimberley-Process-certificate with a ''country of origin'' mentioned, but this does not guarantee which specific mine.
I would find it highly improbable for any serious-size cutter to use only rough from within a controlled program for his production of a specific brand. It does not make business-sense either, since it makes him too dependent from one supplier of rough.
So where do I disagree. Well, you would consider it a legitimate marketing tool. In the current situation, I am inclined to call it an illegitimate marketing tool.
Live long,
Now allow me to swift it to the full extent.
Now if I take your example: "...Current ''mine-to-finger-reports'' are only possible for selected cutters, with selected rough from a small number of rough producers, who operate various mines..." which means to me it can be legit.
Now since this industry''s biggest asset is its "trust" in which we (industry members) take for granted hoping we are dealing with "honest" people/Companies!!!
Maybe you are saying I am being to naive..., maybe..., but I am not willing to give up the luxury of trusting people.
Now..., legit (legal) it is..., but it does not make it 100% ethical.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Ok ... from my sources ...
DTC rough ... not possible. I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread ... its all mixed at the DTC (DeBeers).
Canadian origin ... exact mine ... yes.
West African origin ... exact mine ... yes.
South West African origin (which is all generally DTC) no.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
Jonathan
DTC rough ... not possible. I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread ... its all mixed at the DTC (DeBeers).
Canadian origin ... exact mine ... yes.
West African origin ... exact mine ... yes.
South West African origin (which is all generally DTC) no.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
Jonathan
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Date: 12/19/2007 5:56:54 PM
Author: DiaGem
JohnQ,
I am happy you see eye to eye with me on this issue.
There are good points in this thread - to that end I've phrased it the above way for years DG.
The sensitivity trade professionals have to the question is understandable; no one wants to be a party to something that stands for the opposite of what the diamond dream implies (love & achievement) but it's wrong to try and avoid candid answers.People are smarter than that.
As an example, I think many in our trade had a knee-jerk protectionist reaction when the Blood Diamond movie came out.That was unnecessary.In fact, the movie caused a ripple of awareness that I feel was ultimately extremely positive.TV, radio and papers were bringing it to the public.Many more clients began asking questions about provenance, and still do.It has provided an opportunity to educate and say “this is how it stands - this is what we are doing - and if you’d like to help here are some suggestions....”The truly concerned appreciate hearing scope and perspective. Had we cloaked ourselves with a protectionist attitude or denial those messaging opportunities would be lost.
CaptAubrey
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 863
West Africa? I.e., Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Ghana? I.e., the diamond industry''s biggest basket-case? Are you sure you understood them correctly? The production in that area is (almost) all allluvial and artisanal, and though the fighting has largely ceased, the export controls are still in their infancy. There is one producing kimberlite pipe in Sierra Leone that I''m aware of, and I suppose one could track a stone back to that specific mine, but beyond that, I''m dubious (though open to hearing more).
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
I wondered if I read that wrong too. Historically West Africa is the Mos Eisley spaceport of the diamond world. Ghana was only declared Kimberley compliant as of November 2006 and only two months ago the UN was calling on all countries bordering Cote D'Ivoire, including Liberia, SL and Ghana, to tighten up when it found diamonds were being smuggled between there and Mali. To Ghana's credit the onsite UN team praised the current state of internal controls. While that is great (but not invulnerable) the situation with the Ivory Coast and Mali, neither of which are Kimberley-compliant, makes the whole area tenuous.
Maybe some mining is being done there by same-interest mining and cutting houses? At best that would seem to be an honor-system situation like the CDCC... But perhaps there is more to the story Rhino?
- Status
300x240.png)