Grading systems and 'gaming' them: An eternal story?

[whatmeworry]

Oh, good grief.


I for one am very glad to see PSers routinely recommending that new buyers FIND OUT with their OWN EYES what is worth it to them to spend money on, and what is not. If this is a new trend, it is all for the better.


We want to talk numbers and cut performance, however we want to define that?

Let's have at it.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT. Yet there is (thankfully) no blind cult mentality of Buy a D, Buy a D - instead, educated consumers advise other consumers to FIND OUT what THEIR EYES can see. Despite the fact that a D is, in fact, simply BETTER - it is rarer, it is pricier, it is more prestigious, it outputs more frequencies than a G, an H, or a J. Some people can see the difference - in colour, perhaps in light output, some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can see.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray. Some people can see the difference (and also there are the eyeclean and mind-clean aspects to consider) some people can't, and this "new trend" is advising people to find out what THEY can appreciate.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate a D or a VVS over a J or an SI does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

The fact that some people may be able to physically appreciate an H&A over a near-H&A does NOT invalidate the opinions and observations of those who cannot.

I'm not getting into the discussion of how and why and if H&A is Better than a non-H&A.


I'm sorry to see this thread devolve into marketing, and I'm even more sorry and baffled to see experienced consumers advocating *against* new buyers finding out what they, personally, can and cannot appreciate - afterall *that* is what makes PS such a different and special place!


Yeah.. I think it best I bow out of this thread.

Thritto yssie- please stay.
I find your posts to be among the most well grounded, and always well written and showing great sensitivity. You consistently give sensible advice encouraging folks to look at what they are buying.
I do disagree with some points in your post above- and I pray you won't mind me respectfully debating these points as they apply here.

A D diamond will return more wavelengths than a J or a K. It will return more colour in the blue/violet range, or whatever opposes the absorbed wavelengths. This is a FACT.

An I1 will return less light than a VVS. This is a FACT. Inclusions DO affect light return, sometimes significantly, sometimes more significantly than other times, but ultimately a broken path length WILL result in less efficient primary refractions than an unbroken ray.

The two points above are where I feel you're off base.
How can we prove either factually?
Even if there was a machine to "prove" either point, the results would have several deficiencies.
1) no matter how we test light performance, it will , by the nature of any test, be extremely incomplete.
Unless there were results for every different lighting scenario- to say nothing of how setting affects a diamonds light performance.
The results, even if such a machine existed, and was agreed upon, would be irrelevant in many situations.

2) if we could take, as a given, that we could measure the difference in light emanating from a given IF, and a given SI2, I propose that in many cases, the results would also be meaningless to the human eye.
Like comparing two bathtubs filled with water and declaring one had one additional ounce of water- irrelevant.

Paul- I applaud you for writing this. Points about trashing the competition are totally misplaced.

David, since Yssie has bowed out. Her two points are facts. Easy to prove. The machine exists. It's called your eyes. The FACT that a D returns more light than a J is a FACT and is easily proven by their color. A J looks yellower because it is absorbing more blue light than a D. The FACT that inclusions affect light return, as an extreme example look at black diamonds. Its the inclusions that make it black. And why is it black? Because it's not returning light.

Now your point number 2) is exactly what she is saying. That it's up to an individual to decide using their eyes (not marketing hype or cut grades) if those differences are meaningful or irrelevant.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It's entirely possible I didn't get the point of yssie's post- as I was a bit baffled by the tone.
In terms of D versus J- I'm not a physicist- I can't speak to the scientific nature of that point- but from a laymen's perspective- If a D color is reflecting more "blue light" than a J, what then is it holding back- instead of J, compare it to a fancy vivid yellow.


In terms of inclusions: There I will still flat out disagree- if for no other reason that it's such an incomplete statement of "fact"
What if the rays the imperfection are blocking would not have exited the diamond from the top? In such a case, the "light return" as measured through the top of the diamond is totally unaffected. So if we're talking about light return from the bottom of that particular diamond, maybe. But again, it's not relevant. Which may have been yssie's point all along.....

 

[whatmeworry]

Paul,
Perhaps it would be better if you define what is meant by minimum level of a top grade, since you state it as a fact but we have no definition what you mean by minimum level of a top grade.

Are you talking about performance, like cutters cutting to a minimum level of "scintiallation" required by the top grade?

Are you talking about cutting near the physical boundaries between two top grades?

 

[Karl_K]

My opinion on this has never changed. I'm in showrooms all over the country and can state emphatically that internet photos, grading reports and HCA results cannot decisively predict what an individual human will prefer when viewing diamonds live, liberally, through a number of lighting conditions.

Saying people can only buy diamonds in a b&m is not an acceptable answer and that your company happens to have b&m's all over the country raises a huge conflict of interest when you post this.
That a supplier/his employees and his dealers with b&m's all over the country is leading attacks on internet shopping is a huge problem because it is self serving and biased.
That is my objection.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I would disagree with part of John's point Karl- that being I've found the photo and video can indeed give a sufficient information for shoppers to make decisions.
Of course that might cause you to accuse me of being an internet proponent because that's where we sell.
But in fact, you seem to be attempting to interfere with the expression of valid viewpoints, expressed by professionals in a discussion where none of us is trying to "sell" anything- or cast aspersions on our competition

 

[diagem]

Paul,
Perhaps it would be better if you define what is meant by minimum level of a top grade, since you state it as a fact but we have no definition what you mean by minimum level of a top grade.

Are you talking about performance, like cutters cutting to a minimum level of "scintiallation" required by the top grade?

Are you talking about cutting near the physical boundaries between two top grades?

Not Paul but would like to voice my thoughts on it...
Minimum level of a top grade is IMO a limitation mark somewhere in the wide (posibilities) range of different grading "systems".
Be it the PS system or any other entity/laboratory.

One thing I can vouch for is the fact that each polished Diamond which reaches that "top level", be it low or high, is crafted by a cutter who genuinely believes he reached that level with efforts and professionalism..., but within the limitations of his knowledge in the field.

To please specific tastes you must be informed of the taste demands..., for big cutting houses EX-EX is prety universal when it comes to tastes.

 

[Karl_K]

"sell" anything- or cast aspersions on our competition

Accusing the competition of selling inferior diamonds is indeed casting aspersions on the compilation.
The attacks on online selling are coming from a primarily b&m sales based company.
One can not ignore that fact.

 

[yssie]

...apologies for the melodrama folks. That entire post was directed at one specific consumer's posts, I apparently forgot to hit the quote & bold buttons. I think (hope!) that I usually do much better job of curtailing the ranting - guess that's what sometimes happens when you care and you're tired and cranky

Paul, Wink, Lula, who responded directly to my posts, a thank you from me for your contributions to this thread. Whether or not I agree with you on everything, I certainly see and appreciate the awareness that this thread brings.. and it seems that we agree on quite a bit. Lula - I admit, I have my own biases that I must consistently work to recognise and consistently fight to keep to myself when trying to help others - and if I've failed in that respect, I can only say that I'll try harder objectivity is a lofty goal!

David - thank you for your acknowledgment as well. And again, the tone was - well, ill-aimed! Of course I don't mind disagreement and am happy to discuss, but in this case I stand firmly by my words - when in doubt wiki is there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color Or, for a more technical and immediately relevant explanation re. light energy loss due to body colour and inclusions, http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf As whatmeworry said - your second point - is rather mine, also.

 

[Lula]

Yay!!! Yessie's back!

Your post was "out of character" -- you even threw RD for a loop, ha-ha, and he's unflappable! But, hey, we all have those days.

Though I have been critical of many of the changes I've seen on RT, I just want to say I've always admired you for delving deep into whatever topic is at hand -- and I've always thought of you as very objective and fair. I may not always agree with you, but I've never thought of you as someone who has an agenda.

That said, how do we reconcile the views of those of us who are self-described cut nuts with the views of those who view cut as important, but are not likely to get caught up in the minutia of azimuth angles, etc.? I think PS has come a long way in its discussion of color and clarity, and there has been a definite shift in encouraging consumers to understand how color and clarity affect a diamond's appearance and its price, and great progress in helping consumers to determine what is "mind clean" for them.

Some questions this thread has brought up in my mind: How do prosumers best help consumers in understanding cut grading systems -- which are far more complicated than color or clarity? In my field we call this process "translation of research into practice." How doe we translate research about cut quality into useful information for consumers without conveying our own biases?

One thing that concerns me is that the increasing availability of diamonds that meet the minimum GIA Ex or AGS 0 standards will eventually stifle research advances in cut quality. Again, this was mentioned earlier in this thread by Garry and Paul. Why would cutting houses spend money to advance new and better cuts if there is no demand for or appreciation of them? I think all diamond consumers benefit from advances in cutting, and I would hate to see those advances stifled because the industry and consumers become comfortable with "good enough."

 

[Rockdiamond]

Whew- thanks Yssie!!
Honestly I could not find that relevant parts in either link- however I have tremendous respect for your grasp of scientific concepts.

I suppose my main objections to the points raised were that they seemed to re-enforce some stereo-types.
ie: Jewelers who won;t sell anything below H because there's something "wrong" with a J color.
or people who call and say they will only look at VS stones because they know SI2 is "dull" by nature.

But I suppose we're in total agreement in our commitment to breaking down those type of misconceptions.

Earlier in the thread there was mention of behavioral science- and I honestly believe it's the relationship between physical science and the peculiarities in human behavior which is never truly allow any type of cut to be declared "the best"

Lula- this goes to your concern about diminution of innovation- I personally believe that it will always be the smaller, more boutique cutters that will continue to innovate- and I have no doubt this will continue.
Human nature to explore and create artful new designs- combined with scientific advances in tolls and evaluation technology.
Sure, massive operations will continue to "go for the minimum maximum"
But people like Paul- and Diagem will continue to push the boundaries.
Let's face it, the percentage of diamond shoppers that are aware of Pricescope is tiny.

But it's still a very important group- and the numbers are large enough that this community will continue to have an effect.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gary- we agree 100% on the part in bold.
When I traveled selling diamonds to jewelers, at least 75% of the retail jewelers had little idea how to select fine makes.
By 2006, I was no longer selling on thew road- so I never got to see how GIA's cut grade would affect selection process.
But there were a number of well educated sellers that had a well honed eye.
Hence my point that consumers are best assisted by putting emphasis on dealer selection.

David can you please give examples of how those dealers or retailers with a well honed eye make or made their selection?

Sure Garry!
I think we can compare training to grade cut, to the training for clarity or color grading in some ways.
In all three cases, practice is essential- and a frame of reference that comes from examining many thousands of stones.
What makes an SI2?
I'll bet you'd agree that there's an element of judgement that one can ( or not) develop.
Color requires certain physical attributes- a sensitivity to shade that can not be developed for those lacking in such sensitivity.
Cut grading is, in many ways, similar.
Let's take the example of people that pick melee for rings.
There are extremely talented pickers- achieving extraordinary consistency for pave work.
Clearly they're not going to use ASET/IS or HCA on 1.2mm diamonds, right?
If it's possible to pick .01ct stones well, why not 1carat stones- in fact, common sense would dictate that it's a lot easier.
It is necessary to look at the stone in varied lighting environments- including placing the stone on your finger- which would make things like detrimental leakage rather easy to spot.
I think we can find a balance between the tools ( HCA/IS/ASET/HCA)- which do work as they are intended- and using visual cues- solely.
Both can produce the desired result.

Adressing the bold and large part of your post David:

David I actually do select all my diamonds with an Ideal-scope (except for fancy shapes, which are selected with an ASET scope). Even down to ½ a point.
Here is an example of some stones that were selected with an Ideal-scope – many would probably be close to 60:60 – but there was no other selection (apart from them being G-D and SI1/VS done in the normal manner).
They have been sorted into 3 different columns and I have been doing a little survey with them. They are around 3.6mm.

Paul I hope you will allow me this small entry into your thread. I believe it will be shown to be relevant, even though the stones are not graded for cut quality by any lab. It could however contribute to the way PS makes its recommendations.

I propose to make an LBox movie or two of this collection and post a poll. This may take a little time, because like you all, I have a business to attend to as well.
After the poll results I would post ideal-scope images and what ever other info we deem necessary to understand any differences.

Would this contribute? I would make it a seperate post Paul. As David mentions, the rules for choosing a 1 pointer are the same if not more difficult than they are for a 1ct stone.

 

[risingsun]

...apologies for the melodrama folks. That entire post was directed at one specific consumer's posts, I apparently forgot to hit the quote & bold buttons. I think (hope!) that I usually do much better job of curtailing the ranting - guess that's what sometimes happens when you care and you're tired and cranky

Paul, Wink, Lula, who responded directly to my posts, a thank you from me for your contributions to this thread. Whether or not I agree with you on everything, I certainly see and appreciate the awareness that this thread brings.. and it seems that we agree on quite a bit. Lula - I admit, I have my own biases that I must consistently work to recognise and consistently fight to keep to myself when trying to help others - and if I've failed in that respect, I can only say that I'll try harder objectivity is a lofty goal!

David - thank you for your acknowledgment as well. And again, the tone was - well, ill-aimed! Of course I don't mind disagreement and am happy to discuss, but in this case I stand firmly by my words - when in doubt wiki is there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color Or, for a more technical and immediately relevant explanation re. light energy loss due to body colour and inclusions, http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf As whatmeworry said - your second point - is rather mine, also.

That would appear to be me, then, as you have had no trouble with anyone elses post. If you take issue with what I have posted, you can address me directly. If I am not the person, than I bet your pardon.

 

[risingsun]

Yssie~ please excuse the post above. I'm not in a good space today and didn't mean to take it out on you. If you have something to say to me, I'm sure you would have done so directly. I apologize for writing an impulsive and ill-conceived post.

 

[WinkHPD]

"sell" anything- or cast aspersions on our competition

Accusing the competition of selling inferior diamonds is indeed casting aspersions on the compilation.
The attacks on online selling are coming from a primarily b&m sales based company.
One can not ignore that fact.

Karl,

I have been for years one of the most prolific sellers of the brand you are referring to. When I had a retail store I still sold more on line than off, but had the pleasure of watching people when they were in my store. Now I only do sales over the Internet and I am still one of their top vendors, so none of us are saying that stones cannot be sold over the Internet!

When I had my retail store, it was always amazing to me how much people could see and how much they knew what they liked.

Neither John nor Paul is saying you cannot buy on line but both are saying, accurately in my opinion, that we do NOT have the technology for people to accurately see what they will see in person to the most accurate degree.

Paul is not accusing people of selling inferior diamonds, he is stating that the vast collection of GIA EX or AGS0 diamonds found on the 'net today can have differing appearances. In this he is entirely correct. He is also correct that manufacturers have figured out how to game the system. Even the diamonds in this "gamed" category may well be quite beautiful. But in my experience, when seen side by side with a diamond crafted purposefully to the top of the ladder, the majority of my clients have chosen the top-ladder stone without any prompting from me. This is not just in my store either: When I have sent such diamonds out to be seen side by side with stones brought in from other manufacturers - with the candidates being put on a slotted tray and without input from me as to which is which - in the majority of cases the diamond I sent was chosen. Not because the other stones were not beautiful, but because my stone was simply liked better, even though the grading reports, asets etc were all very much of the same appearance.

For the record, when the other diamond was chosen I was always happy for my clients because they got the stone that THEY liked best. I think Paul and John both are very accurate in their statement that the eyes can choose better than any of the technology that we have today.

This conversation seems to upset you mightily my friend. I think you are reacting adversely to Paul and John's posts for no reason.

Wink

 

[Serg]

"sell" anything- or cast aspersions on our competition

Accusing the competition of selling inferior diamonds is indeed casting aspersions on the compilation.
The attacks on online selling are coming from a primarily b&m sales based company.
One can not ignore that fact.

Karl,

I have been for years one of the most prolific sellers of the brand you are referring to. When I had a retail store I still sold more on line than off, but had the pleasure of watching people when they were in my store. Now I only do sales over the Internet and I am still one of their top vendors, so none of us are saying that stones cannot be sold over the Internet!

When I had my retail store, it was always amazing to me how much people could see and how much they knew what they liked.

Neither John nor Paul is saying you cannot buy on line but both are saying, accurately in my opinion, that we do NOT have the technology for people to accurately see what they will see in person to the most accurate degree.

Paul is not accusing people of selling inferior diamonds, he is stating that the vast collection of GIA EX or AGS0 diamonds found on the 'net today can have differing appearances. In this he is entirely correct. He is also correct that manufacturers have figured out how to game the system. Even the diamonds in this "gamed" category may well be quite beautiful. But in my experience, when seen side by side with a diamond crafted purposefully to the top of the ladder, the majority of my clients have chosen the top-ladder stone without any prompting from me. This is not just in my store either: When I have sent such diamonds out to be seen side by side with stones brought in from other manufacturers - with the candidates being put on a slotted tray and without input from me as to which is which - in the majority of cases the diamond I sent was chosen. Not because the other stones were not beautiful, but because my stone was simply liked better, even though the grading reports, asets etc were all very much of the same appearance.

For the record, when the other diamond was chosen I was always happy for my clients because they got the stone that THEY liked best. I think Paul and John both are very accurate in their statement that the eyes can choose better than any of the technology that we have today.

This conversation seems to upset you mightily my friend. I think you are reacting adversely to Paul and John's posts for no reason.

Wink

If some eyes can choose diamonds better than some technology, it does not mean what any eyes can choose diamond better than any technology.
Best results now can been achieve in right combination between eyes( experience ) and technologies .
value of technologies in this tandem will bigger and bigger each 5 years, but value of eyes( taste) will not become zero
if for example current input ( 70%/30%, ), we can achieve 30%/70% in few years

 

[Lightfoot]

"sell" anything- or cast aspersions on our competition

Accusing the competition of selling inferior diamonds is indeed casting aspersions on the compilation.
The attacks on online selling are coming from a primarily b&m sales based company.
One can not ignore that fact.

Karl,

I have been for years one of the most prolific sellers of the brand you are referring to. When I had a retail store I still sold more on line than off, but had the pleasure of watching people when they were in my store. Now I only do sales over the Internet and I am still one of their top vendors, so none of us are saying that stones cannot be sold over the Internet!

When I had my retail store, it was always amazing to me how much people could see and how much they knew what they liked.

Neither John nor Paul is saying you cannot buy on line but both are saying, accurately in my opinion, that we do NOT have the technology for people to accurately see what they will see in person to the most accurate degree.

Paul is not accusing people of selling inferior diamonds, he is stating that the vast collection of GIA EX or AGS0 diamonds found on the 'net today can have differing appearances. In this he is entirely correct. He is also correct that manufacturers have figured out how to game the system. Even the diamonds in this "gamed" category may well be quite beautiful. But in my experience, when seen side by side with a diamond crafted purposefully to the top of the ladder, the majority of my clients have chosen the top-ladder stone without any prompting from me. This is not just in my store either: When I have sent such diamonds out to be seen side by side with stones brought in from other manufacturers - with the candidates being put on a slotted tray and without input from me as to which is which - in the majority of cases the diamond I sent was chosen. Not because the other stones were not beautiful, but because my stone was simply liked better, even though the grading reports, asets etc were all very much of the same appearance.

For the record, when the other diamond was chosen I was always happy for my clients because they got the stone that THEY liked best. I think Paul and John both are very accurate in their statement that the eyes can choose better than any of the technology that we have today.

This conversation seems to upset you mightily my friend. I think you are reacting adversely to Paul and John's posts for no reason.

Wink

I realize I am new here but as one of many former PS-lurkers-now-posters that has lurked for almost 2 years and read many, many old threads with diamond recommendations, I thought I'd chime in again.

If I'm interpreting Karl's posts correctly, I'm hearing that there is perfect perfect precision cutting and there is optics and the former (the most perfect cutting ever) does not necessarily guarantee you the most perfect optics ever (even compared to a less-perfectly cut stone).

I also think I understand Paul's general point about "gaming" - perhaps the levy was just a little too broad? Reading his posts, I never thought for a minute that he meant to disparage other PS vendors. My interpretation is that the PS vendors are the excellent cutters. But now with AGS000 and GIA triple Ex, perhaps "not so excellent" cutters (what that means is up for interpretation) can sneak stones into that exclusive ratings velvet-roped area.

I can honestly see both sides of the coin - Karl has mentioned that this is just increased competition and that's not bad (I agree). Paul seems to have concerns that these "sneaking in" stones will just be recommended laxly by PSers. Now if these "sneaking in" stones did in fact have inferior optics, I would say that this is not ideal BUT do we know for a fact that they have inferior optics?

In the end, I feel like a diamond purchaser goes home with the diamond's size, color, clarity, and optics. Not the diamond's magnified image, idealscope image, aset image, sarin report or bscope results. Prior to my recent experiences viewing diamonds, I was, due to PS lurking, extremely hung up on data and precision cut quality. After seeing diamonds in person, I'm not anymore. I'm not going to hand over my stone's Sarin or Helium data right after to propose. I'm just going to propose with the diamond I thought was the prettiest - and that may or may not be the most precision cut diamond.

I do think that if these "sneaking-in" stones become more widely available, it does represent somewhat of an issue for the online-only PS vendors, especially in conjunction with Paul's feeling that PS recommendations have become more lax. For example, if PS recommendations have lax-ed to the point of recommending GIA triple Ex or AGS000 as being good enough to buy, and now my local jewelry store carries those stones because people are "gaming" the system, then why should I buy from an online vendor? (As a hypothetical consumer coming to PS for help)

In the end I think I agree with Karl (if, as I said, I am interpreting him correctly ) This is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think that this challenge or competition should be met with civilized finger pointing, but rather data. Perhaps this will cause the online vendors to step it up, provide more data, comparison data, videos, work on new technologies. Diamond-buying online is far from being perfected and few would disagree that it pales to seeing the stones in person. But many have and are trying to keep it a viable business (and kudoes to them! they have made many people happy with their excellent goods and services). But I am of the opinion, and I don't mean this to be harsh, that that doesn't mean they get to rest on their laurels.

(Edited to fix a few typos)

 

[Karl_K]

Lightfoot good post and thank you.
I was starting to think I yelling in the wilderness.

Yssie: glad you are back in this thread.
I admire your drive to learn about diamonds it reminds me of myself over the years.
You are one of the people that when reading a thread I see what you said and say to myself, no need to post the consumer is being well served with good advise.
keep up the good work.

 

[John P]

My opinion on this has never changed. I'm in showrooms all over the country and can state emphatically that internet photos, grading reports and HCA results cannot decisively predict what an individual human will prefer when viewing diamonds live, liberally, through a number of lighting conditions.

Saying people can only buy diamonds in a b&m is not an acceptable answer and that your company happens to have b&m's all over the country raises a huge conflict of interest when you post this.
That a supplier/his employees and his dealers with b&m's all over the country is leading attacks on internet shopping is a huge problem because it is self serving and biased.
That is my objection.

Karl,

You're quoting me out of context, putting words in my mouth and making accusations which have nothing to do with the topic.

No-one in this thread has "attacked" internet shopping, least of all me. That's crazy. I've been an advocate of this site and its processes for many years. I've drawn dozens of new professionals here, contributed thousands of posts, assisted in the composition of articles and new initiatives and continue to be a consultant on many topics for the admin. I'm a massive walking advertisement for Pricescope wherever I go. In fact at diamond conventions I am known as one of the "Pricescope People."

Not long ago I sat down with Andrey from PS and we discussed why I, among other professionals, are participating less or not at all anymore. Ultimately Andrey encouraged me and Paul to post more often and more freely, hoping that open-minded conversation would occur... Instead, we find you (a foremost PS stakeholder) resisting any input that runs contrary to the hardened processes and opinions which have formed in the last few years. Instead of on-topic discussion your posts are filled with statements like "it's not the PS way" or "it's not acceptable" or "it's not kewl". I further submit that you're ignoring input from consumer posters who support this discussion because it runs contrary-to (threatens?) what you wish to hear. In effect, you're saying a "pass-fail" system is "good enough" for you; and therefore for everyone. If we disagree it's "Off with our heads..." (?) Where is Strmrdr of old? I don't think he would accept Karl's logic.

On this topic: I will not say you're wrong or right because I leave room for open-minded discussion. The fact that you cannot do the same is disappointing. It reminds me of the climate ten years ago in another diamond forum, where a small handful of stakeholders controlled conversations and opinions - until any and all dissenters (even those from Australia ) were banished or left on their own. And while I fervently hope that history will not repeat itself it's unarguable that many have already left this forum and the climate is beginning to resemble that of the other place... Please think about that.

I understand you're upset by this thread and even this post as I write it. My apologies for being candid, but I have always had (and continue to have) the best interests of this forum in mind whenever I contribute here. I'm not about to give up now.

 

[John P]

If some eyes can choose diamonds better than some technology, it does not mean what any eyes can choose diamond better than any technology.
Best results now can been achieve in right combination between eyes( experience ) and technologies .
value of technologies in this tandem will bigger and bigger each 5 years, but value of eyes( taste) will not become zero
if for example current input ( 70%/30%, ), we can achieve 30%/70% in few years

Thank you for stating this as percentages Sergey, and I understand the figures are hypothetical. Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

I find your first sentence extremely important: "If some eyes can choose better...it does not mean that any eyes can choose better..." This is the cut-perception factor which Wink brought forward. Not all eyes are equal. Anyone who is immersed in gemology and travel will meet people who "see" things in terms of the Cs which not everyone is able to detect; sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. This is not limited to pros. In fact one of the most shockingly cut-observant folks I've had the pleasure to meet in-person was a frequent consumer poster on this forum. It's part of human cognition, not unlike wine-tasting, and absolutely un-determinable unless the person is standing before you. The question: Can we account for this in some way through technology?

I also like that you are foreseeing improvements in technology and know firsthand that you are working hard to achieve this. While I was in Surat with you, Garry and Janak I was extremely impressed by your L-Box developments (I don't know how much I can say here, but the work is very impressive).

Anyone who has read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" may agree with me that we are in the mid-fourth epoch, technologically, in terms of diamond cut assessment. What will come in the future will far surpass what we now enjoy, at a rate of exponential growth.

But we're not there yet: Consider that many consumers who bought diamonds with a GIA-report before 2005 when no GIA cut-grade existed are now shocked that their EX-symmetry, EX-polish GIA is worth a lot less because it is not the GIA-EX in cut, but rather GIA-Good (I have examples of this to share). In a similar comparison, many consumers who bought diamonds with the 1996 AGS Ideal grade, pre-2005, most specifically in the steep-deep-range, are now often shocked that their diamond is worth a lot less, because it does not qualify for the new system AGS-Ideal.

In the same way, what will happen to many consumers, now buying based on current technology, when future advancements in technology will likely fine-tune the minimum-level of what to buy...or even provide more choices involving creativity and new cuts and even taste factors? Currently the only way to account-for those things is in live viewing.

This is the discussion I'm interested-in.

 

[Serg]

If some eyes can choose diamonds better than some technology, it does not mean what any eyes can choose diamond better than any technology.
Best results now can been achieve in right combination between eyes( experience ) and technologies .
value of technologies in this tandem will bigger and bigger each 5 years, but value of eyes( taste) will not become zero
if for example current input ( 70%/30%, ), we can achieve 30%/70% in few years

Thank you for stating this as percentages Sergey, and I understand the figures are hypothetical. Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

I find your first sentence extremely important: "If some eyes can choose better...it does not mean that any eyes can choose better..." This is the cut-perception factor which Wink brought forward. Not all eyes are equal. Anyone who is immersed in gemology and travel will meet people who "see" things in terms of the Cs which not everyone is able to detect; sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. This is not limited to pros. In fact one of the most shockingly cut-observant folks I've had the pleasure to meet in-person was a frequent consumer poster on this forum. It's part of human cognition, not unlike wine-tasting, and absolutely un-determinable unless the person is standing before you. The question: Can we account for this in some way through technology?

I also like that you are foreseeing improvements in technology and know firsthand that you are working hard to achieve this. While I was in Surat with you, Garry and Janak I was extremely impressed by your L-Box developments (I don't know how much I can say here, but the work is very impressive).

Anyone who has read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" may agree with me that we are in the mid-fourth epoch, technologically, in terms of diamond cut assessment. What will come in the future will far surpass what we now enjoy, at a rate of exponential growth.

But we're not there yet: Consider that many consumers who bought diamonds with a GIA-report before 2005 when no GIA cut-grade existed are now shocked that their EX-symmetry, EX-polish GIA is worth a lot less because it is not the GIA-EX in cut, but rather GIA-Good (I have examples of this to share). In a similar comparison, many consumers who bought diamonds with the 1996 AGS Ideal grade, pre-2005, most specifically in the steep-deep-range, are now often shocked that their diamond is worth a lot less, because it does not qualify for the new system AGS-Ideal.

In the same way, what will happen to many consumers, now buying based on current technology, when future advancements in technology will likely fine-tune the minimum-level of what to buy...or even provide more choices involving creativity and new cuts and even taste factors? Currently the only way to account-for those things is in live viewing.

This is the discussion I'm interested-in.

John,

re:Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

we need separate classical RBC from Fancy cuts,
for RBC technologies could give 60-80% information about Optical performance , but result for Fancy cuts is much more less yet.
Girdle shape, pattern ( combination big and small VF's), balance between Fire, Scintillation and Brilliance are very important for Fancy cut Performance evaluations. it is reason why I give only 30% for current technologies .
I do not know any technology which can grade Girdle Shape beauty .
I do not know any technology which give high score for Emerald cut, but some consumers love Emerald cut very much.

only Fancy Cuts is real Crash tests for technologies . I think all discussion about RBC, GIA Ex, AGS 000 are helpless before we can compare Performance RBC with Fancy cuts.
To find answer for RBC we need to log out from RBC discussion. Current Discussion about RBC is deadlock.

 

[Karl_K]

I understand you're upset by this thread and even this post as I write it. My apologies for being candid, but I have always had (and continue to have) the best interests of this forum in mind whenever I contribute here. I'm not about to give up now.

I do not mind a discussion about cut standards or even internet interpretation of cut quality I would love to contribute to them.
If that was how it was presented then I would have no objection.
But to say inferior stones are being a: sold by dealers here b: recommended by consumers c: that you cant chose a diamond you will love sight unseen is wrong.
Add in your and Paul's positions and it starts sounding very self serving.

 

[diagem]

If some eyes can choose diamonds better than some technology, it does not mean what any eyes can choose diamond better than any technology.
Best results now can been achieve in right combination between eyes( experience ) and technologies .
value of technologies in this tandem will bigger and bigger each 5 years, but value of eyes( taste) will not become zero
if for example current input ( 70%/30%, ), we can achieve 30%/70% in few years

Thank you for stating this as percentages Sergey, and I understand the figures are hypothetical. Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

I find your first sentence extremely important: "If some eyes can choose better...it does not mean that any eyes can choose better..." This is the cut-perception factor which Wink brought forward. Not all eyes are equal. Anyone who is immersed in gemology and travel will meet people who "see" things in terms of the Cs which not everyone is able to detect; sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. This is not limited to pros. In fact one of the most shockingly cut-observant folks I've had the pleasure to meet in-person was a frequent consumer poster on this forum. It's part of human cognition, not unlike wine-tasting, and absolutely un-determinable unless the person is standing before you. The question: Can we account for this in some way through technology?

I also like that you are foreseeing improvements in technology and know firsthand that you are working hard to achieve this. While I was in Surat with you, Garry and Janak I was extremely impressed by your L-Box developments (I don't know how much I can say here, but the work is very impressive).

Anyone who has read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" may agree with me that we are in the mid-fourth epoch, technologically, in terms of diamond cut assessment. What will come in the future will far surpass what we now enjoy, at a rate of exponential growth.

But we're not there yet: Consider that many consumers who bought diamonds with a GIA-report before 2005 when no GIA cut-grade existed are now shocked that their EX-symmetry, EX-polish GIA is worth a lot less because it is not the GIA-EX in cut, but rather GIA-Good (I have examples of this to share). In a similar comparison, many consumers who bought diamonds with the 1996 AGS Ideal grade, pre-2005, most specifically in the steep-deep-range, are now often shocked that their diamond is worth a lot less, because it does not qualify for the new system AGS-Ideal.

In the same way, what will happen to many consumers, now buying based on current technology, when future advancements in technology will likely fine-tune the minimum-level of what to buy...or even provide more choices involving creativity and new cuts and even taste factors? Currently the only way to account-for those things is in live viewing.

This is the discussion I'm interested-in.

John,

re:Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

we need separate classical RBC from Fancy cuts,
for RBC technologies could give 60-80% information about Optical performance , but result for Fancy cuts is much more less yet.
Girdle shape, pattern ( combination big and small VF's), balance between Fire, Scintillation and Brilliance are very important for Fancy cut Performance evaluations. it is reason why I give only 30% for current technologies .
I do not know any technology which can grade Girdle Shape beauty .
I do not know any technology which give high score for Emerald cut, but some consumers love Emerald cut very much.

only Fancy Cuts is real Crash tests for technologies . I think all discussion about RBC, GIA Ex, AGS 000 are helpless before we can compare Performance RBC with Fancy cuts.
To find answer for RBC we need to log out from RBC discussion. Current Discussion about RBC is deadlock.

Thank you Sergey..., couldn't agree more..., also I would like to add that with fancy's exploring becomes virgin territory as well..., the possibilities are much wider and the explorations are presently at a minimum.

John, that's the direction I'd like to see the topic steering.
Now in regards to the side discussion I understand Karl's view and would like to add that although I didn't feel any promotional language in yours and Pauls writing, Wink's language on the other hand did sound pure promotional to me and as a claimed one of few "top vendor(s)" to your companies brand should sound a bit more humble. That's just my opinion from sitting on the sidelines and reading. Now let's try to stay professional and focus on the issue.

 

[Lula]

I understand you're upset by this thread and even this post as I write it. My apologies for being candid, but I have always had (and continue to have) the best interests of this forum in mind whenever I contribute here. I'm not about to give up now.

I do not mind a discussion about cut standards or even internet interpretation of cut quality I would love to contribute to them.
If that was how it was presented then I would have no objection.
But to say inferior stones are being a: sold by dealers here b: recommended by consumers c: that you cant chose a diamond you will love sight unseen is wrong.
Add in your and Paul's positions and it starts sounding very self serving.

I chose a diamond from one online vendor, based on images alone, and a thumbs up from several people posting on this tread, under the mistaken assumption that I would be okay with "good enough" cut, and also with the stone's longer lower girdle facets. I got the stone. It was nice. But it did not have that "certain something" that spoke to my eyes.

Yes, I am a happy customer -- and an online customer -- of Infinity's, so disregard my posts as biased if you want. But the fact is I made the choice with my eyes after observing that there are differences at the top cut grade that cannot yet be quantified. I have no problem with people saying they can't see them -- and there are many options for those who just want to buy a nice stone. I especially have no problem with someone saying that they can't see the differences after they've viewed many diamonds of different cut and color and clarity grades, and they chose the bigger, less expensive stone. Those consumers have always been a part of PS, and, as RD, says, they make up the majority of the B&M customers.

But what I've seen change over the years is the appreciation for the cut nuts among us who can see the differences and are willing to pay extra for those differences. I know we are a minority, but our opinions didn't used to be discounted the way they are now on RT. You know, I have better things to do with my time than post on RT and on this thread in particular. But the reason I stick it out is because of the way I was treated when I was a newbie -- my choices were supported, even when that choice is to go with a more expensive choice than most would choose. But now, the SOP on PS seems to be "why pay more for super-duper cut when you won't be able to see the differences" or "if it's an AGS 0, you don't have to be concerned about cut," etc., and when those of us who have chosen to pay more explain our reasoning, we are dismissed.

And, yes, it's not just those of us who choose to spend more for the online vendors' best cuts that are derided. Risingsun is an HOF customer, and while I cannot afford to pay the premium for those diamonds (you think the online branded cuts are expensive?) she is happy to pay the premium because she likes the look of the stones (and her local vendor). Both WF and BGD have loyal customers who prefer their in-house top-tier cuts. How does that threaten the others who either can't see the differences between levels of cut quality or can see the differences, but don't care because they'd prefer to pay less?

The argument that you are making, Karl, seems to rely on a belief that AGS 0 and GIA Ex diamonds are fungible commodities. I know because of my own experience -- both through online and B&M purchases -- that they are not fungible. There are differences in personality and appearance which cannot yet be measured. You yourself have commented at length about one of these very personality differences -- stones with longer lgfs. For those newbies lurking here, Good old Gold has an excellent tutorial on how variation in the minor facets (stars and lgfs) in AGS 0 diamonds can affect a diamond's personality.http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=98 Before I purchased my first stone (the one I sent back) I read this article over and over. I "thought" I wanted a stone cut with longer lgfs based on what I saw and read online. When I got the stone, its personality was not to my eye's liking -- it happens, folks.

I see that Diagem and others want to steer the conversation in a more technical direction, so I will bow out. But before I leave this thread, I want to say one more thing about the current SOP on RT and its effect on longtime posters: There are many consumers like me who do not post as much anymore because our choices do not reflect the "new RT" and our opinions are brushed aside as simply brand loyalty. Personally, that makes me really angry, because it discounts my experience as a consumer, which I thought was what RT was all about.

 

[Karl_K]

The argument that you are making, Karl, seems to rely on a belief that AGS 0 and GIA Ex diamonds

That is not my argument at all, the PS method goes far beyond what AGS and GIA systems give.
A diamond that passes the PS tests is not likely at all to be a bad diamond.
PS can not go back to the days of brandism and fanism it was wrong then and wrong now.
A consumer that likes a particular brand posting factual information and even opinion within reason why they like a given brand is way kewl.
It is information that a consumer should consider.
However blind fanism should not be encouraged.
I am not saying that is what your doing, because you give a very good explanation why you make the choices you do.
A consumer reading it can say wow I like that and want it also.

That is very different than someone asks about diamond z and someone automatically and repeatedly says hey consider this one from vendor ........................

 

[Karl_K]

When I got the stone, its personality was not to my eye's liking -- it happens, folks.

That is why the PS system demands a good return policy.
The eyes in the owners everyday environment no matter where the diamond is bought will be the final judge, either the person loves it or they dont.
How a diamond looks in the store can be deceptive as to how it will look in that persons normal daily environment. If someone compared diamonds in B&M then lived with them for 2 days there is a very large possibility they will pick a different diamond after the 2 days.
The return policy of online vendors allows one to see it in their own world and if they don't love it they can return it as you did.

In you case the system worked to an amazing degree, you didn't like the personality of a stone, knew what caused it and got a stone with a different personality.
I call that a huge win for the PS system.

 

[diagem]

I understand you're upset by this thread and even this post as I write it. My apologies for being candid, but I have always had (and continue to have) the best interests of this forum in mind whenever I contribute here. I'm not about to give up now.

I do not mind a discussion about cut standards or even internet interpretation of cut quality I would love to contribute to them.
If that was how it was presented then I would have no objection.
But to say inferior stones are being a: sold by dealers here b: recommended by consumers c: that you cant chose a diamond you will love sight unseen is wrong.
Add in your and Paul's positions and it starts sounding very self serving.

I chose a diamond from one online vendor, based on images alone, and a thumbs up from several people posting on this tread, under the mistaken assumption that I would be okay with "good enough" cut, and also with the stone's longer lower girdle facets. I got the stone. It was nice. But it did not have that "certain something" that spoke to my eyes.

Yes, I am a happy customer -- and an online customer -- of Infinity's, so disregard my posts as biased if you want. But the fact is I made the choice with my eyes after observing that there are differences at the top cut grade that cannot yet be quantified. I have no problem with people saying they can't see them -- and there are many options for those who just want to buy a nice stone. I especially have no problem with someone saying that they can't see the differences after they've viewed many diamonds of different cut and color and clarity grades, and they chose the bigger, less expensive stone. Those consumers have always been a part of PS, and, as RD, says, they make up the majority of the B&M customers.

But what I've seen change over the years is the appreciation for the cut nuts among us who can see the differences and are willing to pay extra for those differences. I know we are a minority, but our opinions didn't used to be discounted the way they are now on RT. You know, I have better things to do with my time than post on RT and on this thread in particular. But the reason I stick it out is because of the way I was treated when I was a newbie -- my choices were supported, even when that choice is to go with a more expensive choice than most would choose. But now, the SOP on PS seems to be "why pay more for super-duper cut when you won't be able to see the differences" or "if it's an AGS 0, you don't have to be concerned about cut," etc., and when those of us who have chosen to pay more explain our reasoning, we are dismissed.

And, yes, it's not just those of us who choose to spend more for the online vendors' best cuts that are derided. Risingsun is an HOF customer, and while I cannot afford to pay the premium for those diamonds (you think the online branded cuts are expensive?) she is happy to pay the premium because she likes the look of the stones (and her local vendor). Both WF and BGD have loyal customers who prefer their in-house top-tier cuts. How does that threaten the others who either can't see the differences between levels of cut quality or can see the differences, but don't care because they'd prefer to pay less?

The argument that you are making, Karl, seems to rely on a belief that AGS 0 and GIA Ex diamonds are fungible commodities. I know because of my own experience -- both through online and B&M purchases -- that they are not fungible. There are differences in personality and appearance which cannot yet be measured. You yourself have commented at length about one of these very personality differences -- stones with longer lgfs. For those newbies lurking here, Good old Gold has an excellent tutorial on how variation in the minor facets (stars and lgfs) in AGS 0 diamonds can affect a diamond's personality.http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=98 Before I purchased my first stone (the one I sent back) I read this article over and over. I "thought" I wanted a stone cut with longer lgfs based on what I saw and read online. When I got the stone, its personality was not to my eye's liking -- it happens, folks.

I see that Diagem and others want to steer the conversation in a more technical direction, so I will bow out. But before I leave this thread, I want to say one more thing about the current SOP on RT and its effect on longtime posters: There are many consumers like me who do not post as much anymore because our choices do not reflect the "new RT" and our opinions are brushed aside as simply brand loyalty. Personally, that makes me really angry, because it discounts my experience as a consumer, which I thought was what RT was all about.

True and these differences can't be positioned on a certain ladder of better or best within the top level.
Each one of the brands you mentioned above have their own formula for top tier cut..., basically a different flavor.

 

[whatmeworry]

[quote="DiaGem|1300469455|2874724True and these differences can't be positioned on a certain ladder of better or best within the top level.
Each one of the brands you mentioned above have their own formula for top tier cut..., basically a different flavor.[/quote]

I would add "or labeled as a minimum of the top level".

 

[Lula]

Thank you, Karl and Diagem for your replies. Just a brief reply because I've gotta run out the door --

Karl -- I agree with you on the problems vendor boosterism can cause, especially in the example you give when a poster asks about X stone and is steered instead to Y stone, often for no stated reason that X stone is problematic in some way. And, I agree, too, about the importance of return and trade-in policies to customer satisfaction -- absolutely. I would add that stressing to consumers the importance of comparing the stone to other well-cut and less well-cut diamonds under a variety of lighting conditions before they make the decision to keep/return the stone is equally important. After all, it was you who impressed upon me the importance of viewing diamonds under different lighting conditions -- the importance of that cannot be overstated to consumers.

Diagem -- thanks for your earlier reply to my question about "cheating" the crown. And, with regard to your recent reply, yes, indeed, it is the "flavor" that I am talking about (though I tend to refer to it as cut consistency). When it comes down to it, this is really what I'm "buying" when I choose a diamond, not the lab report or the Sarin report, as another poster commented.

I do not want us as a community to lose the value of offering many "flavors" to consumers, and, more important, assisting consumers in understanding why a certain "flavor" results from the process of diamond cutting. Cutters make choices; those choices influence the "flavor" in ways that may or may not please a particular consumer's eyes.

 

[risingsun]

I understand you're upset by this thread and even this post as I write it. My apologies for being candid, but I have always had (and continue to have) the best interests of this forum in mind whenever I contribute here. I'm not about to give up now.

I do not mind a discussion about cut standards or even internet interpretation of cut quality I would love to contribute to them.
If that was how it was presented then I would have no objection.
But to say inferior stones are being a: sold by dealers here b: recommended by consumers c: that you cant chose a diamond you will love sight unseen is wrong.
Add in your and Paul's positions and it starts sounding very self serving.

I chose a diamond from one online vendor, based on images alone, and a thumbs up from several people posting on this tread, under the mistaken assumption that I would be okay with "good enough" cut, and also with the stone's longer lower girdle facets. I got the stone. It was nice. But it did not have that "certain something" that spoke to my eyes.

Yes, I am a happy customer -- and an online customer -- of Infinity's, so disregard my posts as biased if you want. But the fact is I made the choice with my eyes after observing that there are differences at the top cut grade that cannot yet be quantified. I have no problem with people saying they can't see them -- and there are many options for those who just want to buy a nice stone. I especially have no problem with someone saying that they can't see the differences after they've viewed many diamonds of different cut and color and clarity grades, and they chose the bigger, less expensive stone. Those consumers have always been a part of PS, and, as RD, says, they make up the majority of the B&M customers.

But what I've seen change over the years is the appreciation for the cut nuts among us who can see the differences and are willing to pay extra for those differences. I know we are a minority, but our opinions didn't used to be discounted the way they are now on RT. You know, I have better things to do with my time than post on RT and on this thread in particular. But the reason I stick it out is because of the way I was treated when I was a newbie -- my choices were supported, even when that choice is to go with a more expensive choice than most would choose. But now, the SOP on PS seems to be "why pay more for super-duper cut when you won't be able to see the differences" or "if it's an AGS 0, you don't have to be concerned about cut," etc., and when those of us who have chosen to pay more explain our reasoning, we are dismissed.

And, yes, it's not just those of us who choose to spend more for the online vendors' best cuts that are derided. Risingsun is an HOF customer, and while I cannot afford to pay the premium for those diamonds (you think the online branded cuts are expensive?) she is happy to pay the premium because she likes the look of the stones (and her local vendor). Both WF and BGD have loyal customers who prefer their in-house top-tier cuts. How does that threaten the others who either can't see the differences between levels of cut quality or can see the differences, but don't care because they'd prefer to pay less?

The argument that you are making, Karl, seems to rely on a belief that AGS 0 and GIA Ex diamonds are fungible commodities. I know because of my own experience -- both through online and B&M purchases -- that they are not fungible. There are differences in personality and appearance which cannot yet be measured. You yourself have commented at length about one of these very personality differences -- stones with longer lgfs. For those newbies lurking here, Good old Gold has an excellent tutorial on how variation in the minor facets (stars and lgfs) in AGS 0 diamonds can affect a diamond's personality.http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=98 Before I purchased my first stone (the one I sent back) I read this article over and over. I "thought" I wanted a stone cut with longer lgfs based on what I saw and read online. When I got the stone, its personality was not to my eye's liking -- it happens, folks.

I see that Diagem and others want to steer the conversation in a more technical direction, so I will bow out. But before I leave this thread, I want to say one more thing about the current SOP on RT and its effect on longtime posters: There are many consumers like me who do not post as much anymore because our choices do not reflect the "new RT" and our opinions are brushed aside as simply brand loyalty. Personally, that makes me really angry, because it discounts my experience as a consumer, which I thought was what RT was all about.

I had to come back into this thread to acknowledge Lula's post. Lula, you have expressed, far better than I, how I feel about being a cut nut. This is one of the reasons I had a colored stone custom cut for me by a master gem cutter. I believe that we need to respect the choices that others make. We all have different priorities and I would like to see them accepted as such. I have worked with two online vendors, as well as my local jeweler, who carry top tier diamonds. I don't see them posting on PS anymore, but I don't think they are "gaming" anyone with their branded diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I had to come back into this thread to acknowledge Lula's post. Lula, you have expressed, far better than I, how I feel about being a cut nut. This is one of the reasons I had a colored stone custom cut for me by a master gem cutter. I believe that we need to respect the choices that others make. We all have different priorities and I would like to see them accepted as such. I have worked with two online vendors, as well as my local jeweler, who carry top tier diamonds. I don't see them posting on PS anymore, but I don't think they are "gaming" anyone with their branded diamonds.[/quote]

Rising Sun can you please explain you PoView in greater depth?